Category Image Rot Cause Analysis


Yes, the typo was intentional this time. So, in the ongoing discussion about the beginnings of the problem in the ECUSA, it has been said that Bp. James Pike was really the start of all/most of the current problems, or at least really got the ball rolling. This is a commonly held belief in conservative circles within the ECUSA. Along with that, is a feeling among some, that if only the ECUSA or Canterbury had something akin to Rome's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition ), this whole mess wouldn't have happened. This could be the beginning of two separate and equally interesting discussions, so let's see where this goes.

We'll address the best approach to defending the faith first. Rome is somewhat unique in this regard as it has established a strict heirarchy, with one bishop at the head of everything. They've created various organizations, most notably the Inquisition, whose job is to clearly delineate doctrine. I imagine that would be doctrine that is not clearly defined by papal decree or ecumenical council? I'm not too sure, but I think that is it. The difficulty I have with that notion is the actual efficacy of this form of government. It is a popular notion that Rome is, and always has been, rock solid with doctrine because they have the Pope. One authority, no question on doctrine. They will argue that this allows them to uphold the faith "once received." Of course, they now have papal infallibility (a 19th century innovation that, although never heard of during the first millenia of Christianity is somehow part of that initial deposit of faith), which makes everything absolutely clear. However, a survey of American Catholics and American parishes will establish that this surety of faith has little impact on the faithful. Many, if not most, are exposed to all manner of clearly heretical teachings (beyond the pale of the usual Roman/Orthodox debates), such as a relativistic salvation (Jesus isn't the only way), and many more teachings which are at odds with "official" Roman doctrine. Very little is usually done to correct such things, and it is frankly the case that there are a large number of conservative AngloCatholic parishes which would do better at Catechizing Roman faithful than many Roman parishes. I know, I've had a few members of my Catechumenate classes return to Rome after they were done. There are a couple of hot button issues that you can use if you want to watch Roman apologists go into gyrations. One is the validity of Anglican Orders. There are some who will swear that Apostolica Curae is infallible, and others that will argue it isn't, and so Anglican orders might be valid - and spin away they go. The other really fun issue is over salvation outside the Church - where the older document, Unam Sanctam appears to be superseded by the more recent Ut Unum Sint , which seems to indicate that you can be saved outside of the Roman Church. Some linguistic sleight of hand is required to make both documents not contradict one another, and you can get traditionalist Catholics, and more mainline conservative Catholics really fired up with this one. Let me discuss another form of government, before I bring up a couple of examples that are worth both noting and following with regard to this topic.

I will say without defense, in part because I know of nobody familiar with the Orthodox Church, who would deny this, that Orthodox is most well known for having zealously preserved the faith. Change in matters of doctrine is effectively unheard of. How is it that this has happened in a body with no single head, save Christ himself, and no version of the Inquisition? I think the answer is two-fold. The first is that Tradition - the teachings of the Church - have never been taught as something that develops, so that we don't expect to see the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos contradicting the teachings of, say St. John Chrysostom. No Orthodox would be tolerant of such a thing. In fact, Ecumenical Councils, which are another mechanism of defending the faith, must, themselves, be received by the Church at large in order to be deemed Ecumenical. Finally, the monastics, or spiritual fathers, of the Church, have long played a role, both through prayer, and spiritual direction, in maintaining the Orthodoxy of the Church. In many ways, the Anglican Church sought a similar sort of structure, where Tradition, along with Scripture would be the guarantee of retaining the faith and of protecting the Church from innovations of which Rome was guilty. In what ways did Anglicanism stray from the Orthodox model? Well, first we need to look back at the famous 39 articles again. While acknowledging that they are a bit of a fudge, two things jump out. The first is that there is not exactly a high view of Church councils (see Article 21). Nor is there a particularly high view of Tradition (see Article 34). Both are to be subject to those things which are either plainly in Scripture, or can be proved from there. In other words, they are of no worth as the exegetical preference of some undefined individual could supersede the Councils by claiming that something they taught is at odds with something they can prove from Scripture. I've heard a great many interesting things "proved" from Scripture, so I cannot accept that this is a reasonable approach to things. In fact, the homosexual movement in the ECUSA has become quite adept at "re-interpreting" Scripture to find an alternative view to the Traditional one on homosexuality. So in a Church that largely turns its back on Tradition and Church Councils, and which has a limited confessional basis, you would expect that anything goes, and it appears to. As an aside, I should note that Henry VIII did away with the religious orders, and they didn't return until after the rise of the Oxford movement in the 19th century, and at that only in a small way. One wonders where Anglicanism would be if they had remained intact.

I want to address the other question before I look at some recent historical examples from Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch which should hopefully be a little bit enlightening. This issue is the one of whether or not James Pike started the whole mess. I would contend that he was merely the first flare up of a long incubating disease. After all, the problem wasn't that he denied pretty much the entire Creed, it was that the Church largely didn't care. Think about the response. A bishop denies the entire creed and its not worth a trial, simply a censure. A millenium before that, a Pope allowed the introduction of some additional words to the creed and the result was a series of excommunications which forever changed the landscape of the Christian world. Clearly, for the Episcopal church to be so blasé about Pike's teaching there must have been quite a buildup over time to get there. I grant you that what Pike is sometimes accused of is merely revealing the disease, and that I would agree with. But did it really start with him? No, I would say it merely became more obvious.

Finally, in comparing Rome and Orthodoxy there were some recent events, centering around the Pope's visit to Turkey that I think are enlightening. During the visit, and certainly in the context of a very hostile Muslim world, the Pope visited the Blue Mosque, faced Mecca with the Imam, and engaged in what many have called a prayer . The Vatican is spinning it as simply a momentary meditation while the Imam prayed, but if it looks like a duck... So what did the Inquisition have to say about this? It didn't. How could it? Can you imagine for one moment a group of bishops (or monks for that matter) censuring the Pope over his behavior? Ever since the declaration of infallibility in the 19th century, the Pope has enjoyed an effective infallibility where he can quite literally do no wrong. What was interesting was that shortly after this event, the Pope visits the Patriarch, and attends a Divine LIturgy where he is treated like a visiting heirarch in virtually every way except that he wasn't permitted to actually consecrate the gifts. This, even though the teachings of Rome clearly place them among the what would be deemed heretics in an historical context. The reaction? Well, nothing from Rome. The Pope can pray with whomever he likes. However, on the Orthodox side, the monks of Mt. Athos have had a great deal to say . From a spiritual perspective, removing the Patriarch from their prayers may be the worst thing that could happen to him, and they are not shy about taking such steps. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. Of course, this is Orthodoxy, and things do tend to move slowly. So, watch this space for more.

Posted: Monday - February 05, 2007 at 01:27 PM          

©