Traditionalism East and West
by modestinus
The trad-Caths at Rorate Caeli are beside themselves with joy over Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfayev)’s recent remarks concerning his hope that the College of Cardinals elects a traditionalist Pope. This is nothing new for the R.C. crowd. It wasn’t that long ago that they were swooning over the Russian State’s crackdown on Pussy Riot, and that blog has, in the past, sung the praises of the Russian Church while blithely ignoring the less-than-stellar history of Russian Orthodox/Catholic relations in Eastern Slavic lands. That’s typical because, really, when you deal with R.C., you’re not dealing with individuals who exhibit much in the way of historical, theological, or liturgical sophistication. When something comes along that they assume works with their worldview they fawn over it, and maybe, if there’s time, they’ll think about it later.
While I do not doubt that Hilarion’s sentiments are honest, it’s worth pointing out that he’s more likely than not uninterested in an authentically traditionalist Pope, that is, one in the mold of, say, Pius IX who, as many Orthodox know, wasn’t shy about asserting the necessity for Orthodox reunion with Rome rather than, say, fulfilling the Orthodox’s dream of a substantially reduced, if not altogether gutted, papal office. When Hilarion thinks “tradition” with respect to the Papacy, he’s likely thinking one of two things (or perhaps both combined). That is to say, he either wants another Pontiff who, like Benedict XVI, shares the Russian Church’s socio-cultural outlook on issues such as abortion, marriage, and so forth or, perhaps, a Pope that embraces the Orthodox Church’s contentious view of what a “traditional papacy” looks like — namely, something roughly akin in size, structure, and power to the practically extant Orthodox Patriarchates. Both ideas of a traditional Pope are a far cry from what most (though not necessarily all) traditionalist Catholics think of when they get misty eyed about a traditional Pope.
Really, at the end of the day, the Russian Church wants a Pope they can play ball with, and “playing ball” — in the mind of the contemporary Russian Church — has nothing to do with reunification, let alone submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. They want a Pope that won’t press for the rights of Catholics in Ukraine and Russia and they certainly want a Pope who will withhold the green light on further missionary activity in those regions. Is that what the traditionalists at R.C. want? It never ceases to strike me as pathetic and sad when (Western) traditionalists are so quick to abandon the concrete problems facing their own Catholic brethren in the East just for the hope of getting some bearded smiles from the Orthodox. Perhaps the R.C. crowd should consider converting to the Orthodox Church. They have so much in common. Both of them, after all, blame the Pope for everything bad in the world. They’d fit right in.
Now, to be fair, the Russian Church has expressed what seems to be a genuine interest in how the Catholic Church handles its liturgy. The late Patriarch Alexii II, for instance, expressed his admiration for Summorum Pontificum in 2007. According to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Russian Church has taken some interest as well in the relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X, though I have a hard time believing that interest, too, isn’t bound up with liturgical matters. The assumption among some traditionalists that the Novus Ordo Mass is a barrier to unity between Catholics and Orthodox is a convenient fable. Relations between the two parties were plenty sour for many of the nine centuries that the Tridentine Mass reigned supreme following the Great Schism. There’s a far stronger case to be made that the First (not the Second!) Vatican Council has caused the most consternation among the Orthodox insofar as the definition of Papal Infallibility flies directly in the fact of what most Orthodox believe Church governance ought to look like. And, more importantly, the resistance to East/West reunification is rooted in many unsavory prejudices held by both sides. The Orthodox might not like the Novus Ordo Mass (that’s just a guess), but there are 99 other matters on their List of 100 Gripes with Catholicism that they’d rather see addressed first.
he either wants another Pontiff who, like Benedict XVI, shares the Russian Church’s socio-cultural outlook on issues such as abortion, marriage, and so forth
It’s two things really. One is that Moscow and Rome are developing a very strong alliance against the general a-religious liberalism of most of Europe. The other is that the closer Moscow and Rome grow together, the more the EP is marginalized on the world political scene. The weaker the EP, the better position Moscow will be in w/r/t Ukraine, Estonia, etc. etc.
As we know, all European religious conflict involve Ukraine.
I wonder if the Rorate Caeli crew have ever heard of St. Andrew Bobola…
Rorate Caeli seems to be becoming a main focus of your blog… To be fair to Rorate, they have in the past posted comments by Metropolitan Hilarion in which he explains what he means by a “traditionalist” Catholic:
“All current versions of Christianity can be very conditionally divided into two major groups – traditional and liberal. The abyss that exists today divides not so much the Orthodox from the Catholics or the Catholics from the Protestants as it does the ‘traditionalists’ from the ‘liberals’. Some Christian leaders, for example, tell us that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer the only way of building a Christian family: there are other models and the Church should become appropriately ‘inclusive’ to recognize alternative behavioural standards and give them official blessing. Some try to persuade us that human life is no longer an absolute value; that it can be terminated in a mother’s womb or that one can terminate one’s life at will. Christian ‘traditionalists’ are being asked to reconsider their views under the slogan of keeping abreast with modernity.” (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/09/real-dividing-line-of-christians.html)
I find it dismaying that there aren’t more blogs out there calling R.C. out on some of its more questionable aspects.
Even though R.C. has posted about Hilarion’s comments on traditionalists in the past, you know as well as I do that most of their readers aren’t going to make distinctions when they see the t-word. Also, by not directly referencing Hilarion’s previous clarification of what he means by “traditionalist,” the most recent R.C. post can be read as intentionally misleading — which is something that blog has never backed away from when it fits their ideological aims.
Perhaps the R.C. crowd should consider converting to the Orthodox Church. They have so much in common. Both of them, after all, blame the Pope for everything bad in the world. They’d fit right in.
My sentiments exactly.
I have encountered a few Ortho-worshiping pope-bashing Catholic rad-trads recently. They are a strange breed indeed.
Thanks for the clarifying words, Modestinus, about what the Metropolitan’s words mean within the Russian Orthodox context. As a Catholic traditionalist who is very interested in East-West unification under the Roman Pontiff, I think it is necessary not to be caught up in excited sound-bites, welcome though they may be.
The Latin Church had the traditional Roman rite of Mass when Saint Josaphat — as well as Saint Andrew Bobola, Fripod — were martyred by the schismatics.
May their prayers, and the intercession of the Virgin of Fatima, bring about the grace of reunion in the only way that it can be achieved, not ecumenically, but under the Supreme Pontiff.
Amen, Brother. Ecumenical dialogue is fine; it’s always good for brothers (even estranged ones) to dwell in harmony, not tear each other to shreds. But I am firmly convinced that it will take a major miracle wrought by Our Lady’s intercession to bring about East-West reunion. And yes, reunion must mean unity under the Roman Pontiff. The papacy’s “accidents” may change to accommodate the East, as JPII suggested, but its substance must remain the same — i.e., not gutted, not emptied of all meaningful jurisdictional authority.
I would have thought that after their view that the Bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the West but only a primus inter pars, their next concern would really be the liturgy. Certainly I hear the Orthodox say that what happened to our Liturgy is proof if any is needed that we aren’t the Church. I hear them say that with such a liturgy, they don’t recognize themselves in us, they don’t recognize the Church in our worship. What are those 100 odd other things?
Diane, I haven’t met “Ortho-worshipping” Pope bashing rad trads, unless I am one myself. I did pay attention to Cardinal Ratzinger’s suggestion that all we would nee to ask of the Orthodox is that we agree on what was believed in the church for the first 100 years, and that they not object to the form the faith has taken in the West. That assumes, I think, a different form of exercise of the Petrine office. I am not sure what form, and it would not be for me to say. But that such a thing could happen, I think is a possibility even if we cannot quoite predict its form
I am not able to see what I have written here because the boxes with my name and email are in front of the text. So if there are typos, please forgive me.
Susan Peterson
Susan,
Internet Explorer (I assume that is what you are using) and WordPress don’t get along.
The liturgy might be important to some Orthodoxy, but I do not see it as a “make-or-break” matter if concrete reunification were actually on the table. Some Orthodox might dislike the banalized form of the Novus Ordo Mass, but then again a lot of Eastern Catholics say that as well. They haven’t gone running back into the arms of the Orthodox over it. Also, no one seriously believes that reunification for the Orthodox would mean the Orthodox creating a “Novus Ordo Divine Liturgy.” If anything, the contemporary Catholic Church has encouraged all Eastern Catholic churches to embrace their historic/traditional liturgies. Finally, those Orthodox who are a bit “liturgically obsessive” also tend to think the Tridentine Mass is defective. Among the so-called “Western Rite Orthodox,” their use of the Tridentine Mass (known as the Mass of St. Gregory) comes with the absurd inclusion of the Epiklesis from the Divine Liturgy, which is recited after the words of institution. That sort of “liturgy-as-magic” mentality is something the Orthodox ought to steer away from. So perhaps there is something they can learn on that level from the Catholic West after all.
As for those 99 other things, I’ll toss out a small sample of points which I think are of more interest to the Orthodox than the Novus Ordo Mass. However, not all of these are going to be a “make-or-break” when it comes to unity:
1. Purgatory
2. Indulgences
3. Immaculate Conception
4. Palamism and the Energy/Essence distinction
5. Collegiality
6. Territorial divisions
7. Money
8. Beards
9. Fasting rules
10. Statues
11. Rosary
12. St. Francis of Assisi
Etc., etc., etc.
LOL, you mean beards aren’t make-or-break?
Susan, I was not referring to you. I doubt that you are a rad-trad, anyway.
A trad, yes. (So am I.) But a rad-trad? You have never come across to me as someone who faints with joy at the sight of yards of lace. 
we agree on what was believed in the church for the first 100 years
I assume you mean 1,000 years, but 100 will do just as nicely.
Because that’s just the thing: As Catholics we firmly believe that all Catholic dogmas (including the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility) are contained within the primitive Deposit of Faith, which comes down to us from the Apostles and which was completed with the death of the last apostle somewhere around AD 100.
Thus, all the de fide Catholic dogmas (including the IC and papal infallibility) come from the first thousand years. Indeed, as you suggest, from the first 100.
Arguably, then-theologian Ratzinger was saying that the Orthodox must accept as de fide everything that we Catholics accept as de fide. Because, in fact, it IS de fide. Truth is truth, whether we’re in the East or the West. Truth is not relative; it does not change with geography or culture. The Immaculata does not cease to be immaculately conceived when she crosses the border into Greece or Russia.
Moreover, I think it is significant that this famous Ratzinger Quote was never repeated by Benedict XVI qua pope. A remark by a theologian (which Ratzinger was at the time) scarcely carries the weight or authority of a formal papal statement (e.g., the encyclical Dominus Iesus, which Cardinal Ratzinger authored). If we want to know “the Mind of the Church” on ecumenical and East/West relations, we are much safer relying on magisterial church documents — such as the Decree on Ecumenism and Dominus Iesus — than on a statement made by a theologian (no matter how august) decades ago.
Personally, I think far too many people read far too much into this isolated Ratzinger Quote — while ignoring actual papal and magisterial teaching on the subject. The popes have never been Cath-Ortho indifferentists — and yes, that includes recent popes.
Not aiming this at you, Susan…not at all. This is just a pet peeve of mine.
Other communions may have a Magisterium of Theologians. Catholicism does not. No, not even when the theologian in question is a future pope. Show me where Ratzinger says this sort of thing qua pope, during his papacy and in a formal statement, and then we can talk turkey.
The “Big Mustache” ( as well as the Czar, of course) is regarded by many Russians with great nostalgia.
That should clarify what is meant by “traditional”.
Gabriel appears to have the same mental disorder as Owen — some kind of bipolar passive-aggression that presents itself as absurd projections based on some corner of the internet he’s spent a little too much time in. I don’t know any of my fellow Orthodox who ‘blame the pope for everything bad in the world’, although I’m willing to grant that you’ve encountered these types on one of the many blogs you peruse daily for your sectarian outrage fix.
LOL
(Real Orthodox blame the Turk!)
Not the Jews?
Blaming the Jews is an ecumenical (and interfaith) endeavor…
Wow. I feel so impeached.
KTW:
Ever hear of hyperbole? It’s often used for comic effect.
People with senses of humor get this.
I haven’t blogged about anybody else’s blog in ages and I still catch this shit. Geez, a guy just can’t win sometimes. How long, o lord, must I continue to be the foil for Orthodox online armchair psychotherapists?
Orthoblogdom is in a dire state at the moment – boring as hell, with very little that is original or provocative or particularly interesting. I’d think that readers who want more than the usual pious dribble and cutesy stuff and various theological camp panderings would be itching for a writer given to rhetorical schadenfreude and engaging scatological contempt. Or hell, just some halfway decent satire. Instead you’ve got sperg blogs like Ad Orientem or Mystagogy or the Mr.RogersNeighborhoodistic canned liberal niceisms of David Dunn, etc., or the always tired rantings or those trad leaning bloggers who present the Orthodox variant of manualism. .
I think a good idea for an Orthoblog of sorts would be to do something of this sort: http://fuckyeahmemphis.tumblr.com/
- only with the subject being Orthodox monarchism – call it fuckyeahorthodoxmonarchism, and highlight, with a bit of acerbic wit, all the instances of pro-monarchism one finds online from white anglo-saxon formerly protestant converts to Orthodoxy who blog. That would be worth looking at.
Hilarion has now given a rather interesting press conference on Pope Francis: http://www.pravmir.ru/mitropolit-ilarion-glavnaya-sfera-vzaimodejstviya-pravoslavnyx-i-katolikov-socialnaya-problematika/
He seems to wish the Holy Roman Church would reform her discipline w/r/t celibacy…
How is that even a substantial issue for the Orthodox? While I know some eyebrows have been raised over Rome’s policies toward clerical celibacy among some of the Eastern churches (especially those parishes established in the West), I can’t see why the Orthodox are concerned with what the Latin Church does with respect to the issue. It’s not a dogma; it’s a discipline. It seems to me there are bigger fish to fry.
To be fair he doesn’t make a big issue it. He just repeats some media clichés about celibacy and pederasty. Robot translation: “it is known that some members of the Catholic clergy and some members of the episcopate mired behavior unbecoming to the clergy. This was widely discussed and referred to in the Western press, and, I think, more broadly, what the topic deserves. At the same time, and the Roman Catholic Church in the person of its leaders – Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor Pope John Paul II – has repeatedly appealed to the subject, and the mouth of the Roman pontiff has expressed deep regret at the fact that some priests were unworthy of his rank. We, the Orthodox, are some of his recipes for solutions to the problem. We adhere to the earliest centuries of practice, according to which the priest, who lives in the world, carrying the parish ministry can be a religious, and married. The vast majority of members of our parish clergy – people married. If we talk about family Batyushko, the risk of such behavior is much reduced, although of course it can not be excluded. In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church celibacy has a very long time, but now there are discussions about whether this is necessary.”
We, the Orthodox, are some of his recipes for solutions to the problem.
Then how come Orthodoxy also has sex-abuse cases and coverups? (Plenty of them, from what I’m told.)
Heck, how come sex abuse is rampant in the public schools, for that matter? Public school teachers are not required to be celibate. Nor are Boy Scout troop leaders. Or fundamentalist ministers, who’ve been racking up some pretty juicy scandals lately.
I thought Hilarion was supposed to be so smart and all that. Yet he makes an argument so lame and predictable any American journalist could have made it.