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

Mark, I have rarely ever met someone with a similar ultramontane approach before. Usually those people are traditionalists liturgically. Indeed, it seems while he feels the "Filioque" is necessary, and while he believes strongly in celibate clergy, he also believes the Pope can freely change liturgy. When I was teaching with the SSPX Likoudis was one of the few things I was in agreement with them on.

I'm with Todd.
FDD

Call me a crawler if you must ... but I am for Jesus.

ICXC
NIKA

Me too, Pavel - Spasi Khristos.

My reply is the St. Seraphim of Sarov defense - whenever confronted smile and say "Christ is Risen"!
FDD

Fair enough. I've not had those conversations with him before (except once on the radio where I briefly questioned him on Filioque). I did not realize that he held such offensive views on celibacy and the Eastern Catholic churches.

My point was not to compare James Likoudis to the Fathers of the Church, although Likoudis provides ample citations to support his theses. Rather, I was commenting on apologetics in general.

Returning to writers like Likoudis (I would not personally compare him to Welton), if you can show me anyone else who is addressing the anti-Catholic polemics from the Orthodox side, I'd like to read them.

And quite frankly, on a personal note, there are moments when I need to remind myself of the historical and theological rationale for remaining Catholic. The desire to return to the "mother ship" can be a powerful one, as anyone who takes seriously the vocation to be fully Eastern can attest to. I've seen it played out here on this forum dozens of times since I first joined in 1999 (under a different name) where we've witnessed brothers and sisters in the Catholic East abandoning our churches for Orthodoxy. I hear it from the lips of many Eastern Catholics, even some clergy. I've seen it here in recent months among forum members, and it saddens me.

For myself, I was dissuaded from entering Orthodoxy many years ago by an Orthodox clergyman and friend who, when I presented myself to discuss the process of entering, said: "Gordon, you know I would chrismate you right now, but you need to understand the benefit of being Catholic. You can point to an official catechism, you can reference an offical organ and office of teaching when guiding people through pastoral issues. We are oftentimes just left with the opinions of individual bishops and theologians to try to figure things out for ourselves." I have not forgotten the kindness of this priest to me that day. Soon afterwards, I was attending and then joined a Byzantine Catholic parish.

Returning to Likoudis, people like him offer a service to those who struggle periodically with doubt about their situation. Even though I question and would no doubt disagree with him on a number of issues - including the manner of his presentation, some of his arguments from history and theology are persuasive.

To be an Eastern Catholic oftentimes feels as if one is existing between two great worlds: Orthodoxy and Catholicism. To a certain extent, it is a vocation to live "in tension" (although not always at the emotional level), to be comfortable with some ambiguity as to our status, and to reconcile apparent opposites. (I would not say "be a bridge", because, as Sheldon Vanauken pointed out once to an Anglican friend, "bridges are made for crossing" . )

Soloviev, not Likoudis, still remains my favorite thinker on this subject, but Likoudis offers arguments that I think are are worth considering.

God bless,

Gordo

No doubt, Gordo. Sure, some have their own unique needs for reinforcement and sense of justifying to ourselves where they are and why they are here. I don't see how that is substantially assisted by back and forth drive-by polemic with no sense of discourse or dialectic, but certainly to each their own.

Like Soloviev, (and Von Balthasar who agreed with him, and who for a Thomist places Soloviev #2 on his list after Aquinas - great praise indeed), I agree the greatest tragedy to befall man since the fall was the separation of East and West, and like the two natures of Christ these must be united. To me that would seem a far greater convincing idea.
FDD

I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you referring to Likoudis' writings or to my reading habits? If it is the former, he does offer some interesting points for consideration. I do not completely discount his works because of their polemical nature, nor do I agree with everything he writes. I take away the good points and discard the rest.

If it is the latter, in general I tend to stay away from overtly polemical works. I would only say that I am an infrequent and selective reader of Likoudis. As I said, there are particular points where I think he offers sound reasoning. But the last time I cracked his text (apart from last night) was at least two years ago - it was his "Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy".

Just to give you a flavoring, my reading over the past 6 months has mostly been Zizoulas, Congar, Ratzinger, Danielou, Nicols, deLubac (his treatment of patristic exegesis and the quadratic method in "Theological Fragments" is masterful!) and Schmemann. Hardly a volley between authors who have "no sense of discourse"!

To be honest, I've not read Von Balthasar, although I have been told by some that I would very much enjoy his works.

I agree! I would hope that within my own heart I am able, to paraphrase Merton, to reconcile all worlds (East and West) within myself.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

gordo

Gordon, certainly not the latter - would that everyone indeed read more in this society of sensual bombardment. I am referring to the former, and more generally to the polemical obsession, the art or method in which it is engaged, what unfortunately has come after the fall of the dialectic the Fathers.

I can't say it any better than Florensky: "It is the direct encounter with the Life of the Church, rather than abstract reasoning, that brings one to the Truth. The Truth manifests itself, it does not prove itself."
FDD

Aside from reading things by converts trashing their former churches, I would have to say polemics are one of my least favorite things in the world to read.

The only thing I�ve ever read by this guy is a piece he wrote criticizing Fr. Louis Bouyer who he felt had a much too accommodating view of Orthodox Christians. It was posted online and had some very good responses and criticisms about this particular author�s (the author of the apologetics that is) background, academic qualifications and style. What I read in the online article reminded me a lot of the New Advent articles about Orthodoxy.

I don�t as I�ve said enjoy reading this sort of thing, and I�ve never read Welton either. Undoubtedly there is substance in both authors. What I find is they present a one sided view of history, but someone with even a basic knowledge of the schism knows it is a horrendously complex issue. There is a lot of substance that can be argued from both sides. What I particularly don�t like (and I see often online), is people dismissing the other sides arguments as groundless, trivial or baseless. I think that coupled with the often personal nature of polemics like this (viz. Orthodox as �dissidents�) does not really create an atmosphere conducive to dialogue.

The church fathers certainly engaged in apologetics, but IIRC they did so against people they viewed as heretics and not those they viewed as brothers in the faith. So while these modern day apologetics may do some people good, I think inevitably they do a fair amount of harm as well for the reason I listed above. They are not about talking, they are about pontificating.

I also think when you engage in these sort of apologetics you�re in a way conceding something to those who you say you oppose, because you�re playing the sort of game that they want. When you wrestle with a pig, you get dirty too as the saying goes.

I like the Florensky quote posted above, and agree with it for a number of reasons.

Andrew

Andrew,

I could not agree more. I have said as much to my spiritual father who knows him. Labeling someone a "dissident", however "theologically correct" one may believe it to be, is insulting and rude and actually distracts from the value of any argument he posits. He certainly generates no natural sympathy from his reader when he refers to Orthodox Christians or their churches in this manner.

If one truly desires reconciliation with another, the use of insulting labels only creates artificial barriers to fellowship. (Much in the same way we Byzantine Catholics have been referred to as "uniates" at various times by the Orthodox. Some Orthodox may see it as "theologically correct", but it is as insulting as "dissidents" in some ways.)

In Christ,

Gordo

Father Deacon,

Thank you for the clarification.

BTW, I did not mean to rattle off a list of titles to lay any claim to learning on my part. I feel like a Jack in the land of Giants sometimes as I read these great authors for my theology program! In the event that your comment was related to my preference for particular texts, I wanted to reveal what that preference truly was.

God bless,

Gordo

As I said, he is not only pushing away Orthodox Christians who may be sympathetic to dialogue with Catholics, he is playing in to the hands of those who have no interest in it or are vehemently against it. He is engaging in the debate in the manner they would like to see it carried out. That is what polemics is all about though � I win, you lose. My argument is logical, yours is a load of hogwash. You would see things my way but you�re immoral (i.e. a dissident, unruly children, or �filled with the spirit of schism� etc., etc). All I can say is if you�re interested in the schism as a permanent fixture of our ecclesial landscape, then you should give ideas like this credence and support.

Different topic, but I can say about a week ago I felt like I never wanted to come back to this site because of something somebody said that to me was just plainly and intentionally insulting. Why bother if that's the best we can offer to each other?

This is a side issue, but I since you mentioned it. Until I came to this site I was unaware that the term �Uniate� was deemed offensive by some. In my experience, it is in Eastern Europe a fairly common way of denoting those who in the 16th and 17th centuries entered in to Unions (Unias) with the Church of Rome and does not necessarily in and of itself have any pejorative connotations. You will also in my experience see the term used in non religious texts (secular histories for instance) and even in Roman Catholic sources themselves. I believe Eastern Catholic Churches have in the past also used the term to describe themselves.

This is not to even argue that the term should or should not be used or is or is not appropriate. I don�t use it on this site now knowing that there are people that don�t care for it and who feel insulted by it.

Andrew

Is that ALL Holy Orthodoxy is left with????? I think not!

No, to be sure that is not ALL that Holy Orthodoxy is left with. But in certain circumstances, where you have no clear consensus among the fathers, the liturgical texts or councils, yes that is all that Holy Orthodoxy is left with.

The sad thing is, the West learned the concept of magisterium from the East.

No, because it's a caricature. There�s no way that in three sentences you can sum up the nuances of an issue like this. Nor could you effectively compare the advantages or disadvantages of both systems that have developed, East and West, in that manner.

Andrew

Well, I don't think we need necessarily a model of Church which developed after Vatican I or indeed the vision of the Medieval Papacy of Innocent III or the Bull "Unam Sanctam"