www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West FYI: James Likoudis's New Book - Eastern Orthodoxy and the See of Peter

James Likoudis has written a new book - the final installment in his trilogy on Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Like it or not, he does offer some significant points for consideration in relationship to Orthdoxy and Catholicism. I own two of his books, and my spiritual father is reading the third.

I find his arguments interesting, although his constant reference to the Orthodox as "dissidents" is bothersome and offensive and I think detracts from his texts.

http://credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

Is he Eastern or Western Catholic?

We take this to mean you have not consulted St Google the grand librarian yet...tsk tsk.

I seem to be tsk tsk-ing a bit to day and loving it.

ICXC
NIKA

Pavel,
I looked through his website and couldn't find an answer. I would assume that it would be there before anywhere else.

From what I understand from my spiritual father, James Likoudis is a Latin Catholic, even though he entered Catholicism as a Greek Orthodox layman. (This of course means that he should be an Eastern Catholic.)

He is definitely Latin Catholic, having converted with a perpetual chip on his shoulder for Orthodoxy and generally all things Byzantine including Byzantine Catholics. I think he sees us as some kind of unnecessary hybrid - one is either Latin Catholic or not Catholic, when it comes down to it.

I haven't seen much of substance in Likoudis other than rote apologetics, and certainly nothing to forward the dialogue between East and West - rather to hinder it with his own bitterness, childhood or otherwise, towards Orthodoxy, and certainly no inspiring theological reflections for either the Latin or Orthodox Churches.

He has written some things in the Wanderer that were exaggerations at best, untrue at worst trying to describe the Orthodox understanding of certain theological tenets (which he apparently never had). Some of his personal positions do not seem to be consistent with the Magesterium i.e. Orientale Lumen, Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint. He was a frequent critic of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

There are far better things to read in the little time we have to read. Like it or not - Not.
FDD

Father Deacon,

I agree with some of your critique of Likoudis. I also think that he offers an apologetic which is unfortunately necessary at times in the face of some anti-Catholic polemics engaged in by some Orthodox writers and speakers. All one need do is read some of the tripe from Regina Orthodox Press to get a fair sampling of what is out there. (For instance, Michael Welton's ecclesiatical and historical "hack job" in his book "Two Paths: Papal Monarchy and Collegial Tradition"...talk about your chips!)

Do I think he is the best source on everything Eastern? No...but he is one of the few attempting to respond to anti-Catholic arguments from the Orthodox East.

In reading Likoudis, I have also found some insights into many of the historical and dogmatic issues that divide our churches. While I do not agree with his approach to everything, I found his writings to offer insightful perspectives on events I never knew or considered.

I agree, though, that not all of his views are"in step" with the legacy of Pope John Paul II on unity with the Orthodox churches, or the likes of great theologians and thinkers like Congar, deLubac, Tillard or Nichols.

But, as Pope Paul VI wrote, sometimes triumphalism and ecumenism are two sides of the same coin!

God bless,

Gordo

PS: I should mention that lately my reading has been of Zizoulas, who is topping the list of favorite theologians. Right now I am reading his work "Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop during the First Three Centuries" published by Holy Cross Orthodox Press. I have a number of works written by other authros comparing Zizoulas' thought to other Catholic theologians, such as Congar, deLubac and Kilmartin.

Again, my disdain for apologetics and apologists seems well founded, on all accounts. Every bit of it detracts from the witness of the Cross and Empty Tomb and is never "necessary".
FDD

And yet, many of the fathers were themselves apologists and avid defenders of the faith. Is it better to say that apologetics has its place, but it cannot and should not replace faith? Henri deLubac wrote something to the effect that one's faith should not be formed or defined in opposition to another's (just like much of Tridentine Latin Catholicism was defined in counter-reformation terms.) I find as a Byzantine Catholic I end up engaged in some form of apologetics with both the Latins and the Orthodox from time to time. To me, it is far less desirable than study and worship, but if questioned why I am what I am as a Byzantine Catholic or when arguments are posited against our church's teaching, I want to have a ready defense.

But then again, I also want to have a teachable spirit to learn from others with whom I may disagree from time to time. I think the greater and more energizing challenge is to reconcile apparent opposites, rather than to merely stake out positions. Very often, it boils down to the fact that we are wrong seperately, but right together.

God bless,

Gordo

Dear Gordo,

You are right in reading as many books as possible. What I usually do, or rather did, was try to pull out the facts by the author, and eliminate the authors viewpoint. Thereby eventually forming my own.

As for Orthodox polemics, you are right. They are much too critical of Rome and the Pope, and it only shows their ignorance. Too bad they can't realize it.

Zenovia

Zenovia, I think that is definitely the best approach sometimes. I prefer an author that tries to examine all of the view points on a particular topic - almost in a phenomenological pattern, such as the one used by Karol Woltija where he would address a topic from several different angles to get at all its facets while still respecting the mystery that is beyond understanding! Most of the time, however, we have to do the synthesis ourselves. Zizoulas is masterful in his ability to advocate for the east while dialoguing with the West and (sometimes) challenging some of the perspectives of his fellow churchmen.

Agreed.

I see the same in some Latin authors who write about Orthodoxy, though. No attempt is made to appreciate the beauty and mystery of the Byzantine Orthodox tradition and faithful. No attempt is made to understand its theological trajectory over the course of history in its gradual separation from the West and the developments that occcurred there. It becomes an exercise in cliche's:

- The schism began in 1054
- The Orthodox don't believe in purgatory
- The Orthodox are all Caesaro-papists
- The Orthodox deny the Immaculate Conception
- The Orthodox deny the primacy of Peter, or only attribute honor to the Pope of Rome, but no authority to his office beyond being the bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West
- The Orthodox think filioque is heresy.
- The Orthodox don't believe in the indissolubility of marriage.

Upon further reading, things just aren't that simple, unless you want the comic book version of ecclesiastical history and theology!

Likoudis has some appreciation of the East in his writings, but not nearly enough (at least in what I have read thus far). I have been told by some who know him personally that he has personal regard for many Orthodox clergy, even regarding some as true saints. So I don't think his issues spring from any deeply rooted animus towards Orthodox Christians per se.

But to your point, I like your approach.

God bless,

Gordo

For me personally -- as a former Latin Catholic who became Byzantine Catholic in March 2005 -- Mr. Likoudis' writings have tended to push me closer to Eastern Orthodoxy, and away from the Roman Church.

How so?

Mr. Likoudis is the author of another book, "The Pope, the Council and the Mass". The book is an apology for Paul VI and his liturgical innovations. Some Latin traditionalists who frequent this site may be familiar with it. The book strongly argues that the Pope has the authority to introduce liturgical innovations and even suppress immemorial custom.

I find his notion of hyper-papal authority untenable and something that few Orthodox could in good conscience accept.

Apotheun - I have thought the same, perhaps not surprisingly. I had the chance to talk with him one-on-one at some forum years ago (that I later totally regretted attending) and our conversation on the Filioque was almost surreal -I found it hard to believe anyone from Orthodoxy could have those positions. His criticism of JPII not using it publically was ludicrous at best. And he is a huge fan of Cochini's "work" on celibate priesthood, which nearly sent me through the roof. And he actually suggested that the Eastern Catholics to him were a sort of waiting station for the Latin Church.

First of all, we absolutely are NOT talking about the Fathers here. What has been said is exatcly my point, and why I despise it. To even begin to liken these kinds of polemic exchanges to the Fathers is absurd. Argument breeds argument, polemic counter polemic. He said this, so I need this other guy to say that to counter.

St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom belonged to a time when men truly knew how to discourse - which is drastically different from this mudslinging called apologetics - polemic for the sake of polemic. The Fathers had a true sense of rhetoric, and had a sense of the poetic as well. Nothing of the sort can be seen from the likes of Likoudis or Welton - in fact in many ways an antithesis of the Patristic approach.

This sort of polemic is self-consuming spiritually, whether one wants to realize it or not. And it nearly always happens in a realm outside of real witness. What is gained? The time is better spent actually living out the faith - praying the Lestovka or chotki, being at a service or praying at home, doing something with the family, doing charitable work, working in the garden praying the Jesus Prayer. That is the most vivacious sense of faith.

And in these sorts of exchange rarely anything objectively good happens other than hardening of positions - and my experience is nearly identical to Dr. Eric's. We are not talking about any real defense of faith, like Athanasius against Arius with the likes of Likoudis and Welton. Both are equally as ridiculous, and their efforts equally as facile.

In being consumed with the "response", with the polemic - the witness is entirely lost, pushed aside. All that matters is the argument. I have greatly changed my thinking on this subject over the years - precisely through the works of the Desert Fathers, and later giants of the spiritual life such as St. Seraphim and the Optina Elders. I think they would be the first to say "what a waste of time".
FDD