Churchly Humility

[marigold]

I liked this post and thought I'd share, for hopeful enjoyment/edification/thought-provocation.

Churchly Humility

Fr. Stephen Freeman 38 Comments

There are many Orthodox bumper stickers and internet memes that seek to portray the excellence of Orthodoxy. Some compare us to the “marines,” others to various kinds of extreme sports. There’s the one that declares the Orthodox Church to have been founded in 33 a.d. I understand such boosterism in a culture where proclaiming the excellence of your football team or other product loyalty is seen as important. We use brands in order to establish an identity and a sense of belonging. And that same sense of belonging is strengthened when you think that your team/denomination/etc. is simply the best there is. But there is a very deep fallacy in this when thinking about Orthodoxy. So I want to offer some corrective suggestions in this article.

First, the Orthodox Church is not better than some other Church. If you declare such a thing to be true, then you have actually denied the truth of Orthodoxy. We believe the Church to be One. We believe the Church is One because God is One. And, as in the case of God, it is One of which there is not two. If Orthodoxy is The Church, then it’s not the better Church. It is not something that can be compared to anything else.

This is extremely important. As soon as comparisons are made, the Church is reduced to one among the many and the concept of “many churches” is granted, denying the declaration of the Creed. The Orthodox Church is not better – it simply is what it is. The notion of the “better” Church is inherently Protestant. The purpose of reform was (and remains) to make a “better” Church. Ending abuses, correcting doctrine, changing liturgy, etc. – all were done in the name of betterment. Thus, why be a Lutheran and not a Roman Catholic? Because Lutherans are better, and so on.

The Orthodox consciousness is not properly part of this conversation. Orthodoxy does not require the presence of the non-Orthodox. Indeed, for the larger part, it gives them little thought.  Is it possible to have a “better Orthodoxy?” The history of the Church is, from the beginning, marked by failures and faults, controversies and corruption. These troubling aspects of the Church, however, do not make it less than the Church. They are, like sin in our private lives, simply a hallmark of life in a broken world. And like sin in our private lives, these aspects can be the object of repentance and correction. But they will not, short of the eschaton, be the object of abolition.

Because the Church is the Bride of Christ, His Body, etc., its failures and faults are all the more egregious. But our own lives, where sin too often reigns in His Temple, our bodies, are no less egregious. The dynamic of reform, however, too often removes our eyes from the humility that should accompany our faults and turns them to an idealism that judges, condemns and ignores life as it is actually lived.

The Sacraments, repentance, prayer, thanksgiving and generosity are the normative marks of the Orthodox life. These contain everything necessary to the life of grace. Church reform is not a hallmark of the Orthodox life. The insight of Orthodoxy is that only holiness changes anything. If sin reigns in the structures around us, then the first response must be our own repentance, and our repentance on behalf of everyone. The structures of our lives (and the Church) are as corrupt and distorted as they are because of my sin – and your sin. There is an old Orthodox adage, “You get the priest you deserve.” Fortunately, grace is far more generous!

There is, however, a fundamental mindset that is required in the midst of these realities. That mindset includes letting go of “improving” the Church. And though scandals happen, we have to learn to a degree not to be scandalized. The true stumbling block is our own sins, not those of others.

Related to this is renouncing the notion of progress. We are not going somewhere. The journey of the Church through history is only a journey to the Cross. We are promised nothing more. Modernity loves the idea of improving the world and making it a better place. The truth is that we are not in charge of the world and generally have no idea of what would make it a better place. In our efforts to design and control we ignore the most common things that are immediately at hand. We plan to feed the poor, but we don’t feed them now.

The Church in the present season bears scars and even open wounds from all of its history. Those scars and wounds include the difficult centuries of schism and heresies. We are also marked by problems of the Byzantine legacy, and the centuries of Turkish oppression under the Ottoman Empire. The administration of the Church in those places where the Ottoman Empire once held sway has yet to truly recover. We also bear the wounds of the Communist Yoke as well as the hope that has been born anew after its demise.

But the Modern world doesn’t like history and would like to pretend that when things are past we should quickly be rid of them. It is a delusion. If you feel that the Ottoman Empire should have no effect on your local Church (we’re in America after all), then you are simply ignorant of the evil role played by your own nation in the failure to assist oppressed peoples as they sought their natural freedom. The Western powers sold out the Orthodox in the 1920’s (and not for the first time). The sins of Orthodoxy are not unrelated to the past sins of the West. They are not a peculiarly Eastern problem.

And so with Orthodoxy, you live with the many consequences of historical existence. Just as the language we speak bears witness to the coming and going of other peoples (leaving behind new words and grammar), so the life of the Church carries with it the remembered experience of 2,000 years. Modernism would improve us primarily by enforced amnesia.

To bring this article full circle – Orthodoxy means an abandonment of the “better Church” argument. Orthodoxy is what it is, because it is what it is. It can rightly claim to be the continuously historical Church without the evolution of a papacy or the vast reform projects of the ages. We should resist the temptation to argue that this is much better (doing so can make you argue favorably about some fairly silly things). Apparently, our salvation is not predicated on a better Church – just on the Church. Be steadfast in the sacramental life. Say your prayers. Repent everyday for everyone and everything (especially for yourself). Give thanks always and for all things. Give away stuff, practicing an audacious generosity. That’s pretty much the Orthodox life.

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

PROtest. To test the pros, and why would one test the pros? To make sure they are utterly professional in all aspects of there trade.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Catlick]

I don't get the relevance of this article. The Orthodox 'Church' is heretical. 

[Lilllabettt]

Your use of quotes around the word Church is inaccurate.

You may refer to Protestant "churches."

The Orthodox Church is a real Church

[julianneoflongbeach]

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be an explanation on how it can be in unity without recognizing the papacy, which isn't possible, or trying to say that the Orthodox church is the only church and Roman Catholicism doesn't count?

[KnightofChrist]

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be an explanation on how it can be in unity without recognizing the papacy, which isn't possible, or trying to say that the Orthodox church is the only church and Roman Catholicism doesn't count?

There is only one Church, the Orthodox are part of that Church because they still have the Faith, however they are in formal schism (rather than heretical) because they reject the authority or unity of the Papacy.

Edited August 5, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[julianneoflongbeach]

Thanks... But that's not what I asked. I want clarification on the pov of the article.

[Seven77]

I don't get the relevance of this article. The Orthodox 'Church' is heretical. 

The 'cat' in your avatar is heretical. For real.

[Catlick]

There is only one Church, the Orthodox are part of that Church because they still have the Faith, however they are in formal schism (rather than heretical) because they reject the authority or unity of the Papacy.

The papacy is part of the Faith. This includes papal infallibility. Whoever denies papal infallibility is a heretic (material or formal) and thus outside the Church c.q. Body of Christ. 

The Orthodox Church is as much Church as women priests are priests. 

[KnightofChrist]

Thanks... But that's not what I asked. I want clarification on the pov of the article.

Oh, well I think the article could be briefly summed up as saying there is only one Church, there aren't any other churches so therefor the question of which church is 'better' is irrelevant. That this Church is timeless and unchangeable, it cannot be modernized or updated, it is the same today and tomorrow as it was in the beginning.  The article clearly rejects the papacy as a evolution, a change, and is therefor rejected. Whether or not the author of the article still sees the Roman Rite as part of the Church doesn't seem clear one way or another. Although with the rejection of the papacy perhaps the priest does not see the Roman Rite as part of the Church. But I don't think the Roman rite was really the focus, since it is only mentioned briefly. It seems the main focus is that there is only One Church and it is timeless and unchangeable. 

Edited August 5, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

 

The papacy is part of the Faith. This includes papal infallibility. Whoever denies papal infallibility is a heretic (material or formal) and thus outside the Church c.q. Body of Christ. 

The Orthodox Church is as much Church as women priests are priests. 

I do not think you will find any Catholic who knows these issues, traditionalist or not, who does not recognize the validity of the Orthodox priesthood. That is why, schismatic heretics or schismatic only, they are categorically different than any Protestant sect.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Basically - whoever has the Sacraments is a church. That's why the Pope Benedict said that Protestants can't be referred to as churches but Orthodox could. They have the Sacraments and the priesthood. Of course then Catholics and Orthodox disagree on which is the true Church...

The Catholic position is that the Catholic Church is it, and the Orthodox are in schism BUT they have churches with the Sacraments and valid priests, rather than communities like Protestants. There's a big difference between them also I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of striving for unity but the Orthodox have much more in common with Catholics than Protestants.

The Pope difference is serious and hopefully there will be full Communion one day personally I'd see that as a miracle from God. I really want unity and for the East and West to finally reunite..

But even though the difference on the Papacy needs to be dealt with, many other things wouldn't be an issue - liturgy, Sacraments, Our Lady, Eastern spirituality...they have monks and nuns.. God dwells in their Tabernacle in the Eucharist..  The Eastern Catholics were allowed to keep all their heritage when they became Catholic so those aspects are not divisions at all.

Some other points are disagreements and yes serious ones. Regarding the article itself, perhaps what its trying to say - the true church is not just some better church, but its true because its the one Christ made.

I think we can agree with that statement but of course a Catholic would just say that about the Catholic Church since we believe in the Papacy.

Edited August 5, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Egeria]

I don't know Marigold's motivation for posting this, but I can't help thinking that most of you are missing the point. The Orthodox Church believes that it is the one true Church and the Catholic Churches believes it is the one true Church, albeit with some variations on how we do this (the Catholic Church somehow thinks we are part of it, albeit imperfectly so, something the Orthodox Church does not exactly reciprocate, and this is rooted in different sacramental theology, but that is another matter...)

But it seems to me that the point that Father Stephen is making is that if you believe this (which both our Churches do), then what then? Then there is no point comparing our Church to other churches, and arguing that we are better than them. Rather, all that matters is our repentance.

[MarysLittleFlower]

One more point about trying to make the world a better place... I think that we should strive to be Saints and through that more would come to Christ which would ultimately help to increase the social reign of Christ the King. Its not wrong to fight for an end to abortion or wanting for the government to convert and follow the Church in morality...

But the way to get there best is letting Christ reign in our hearts and letting Him bring others to him, and then that will begin to transform more. We can still put in efforts like what people do to stop abortion etc... But while we do that its good to remember that the social reign of Christ starts as His reign in hearts. Our Lady can bring us to that. Personal holiness. Prayer and penance.

In the end if it becomes a social reign that would be a miracle and not our own efforts - but His reign in our hearts is also His action and not just human action. The two go together I believe - massive conversion and sanctification can be an act of God to help us get there.

However, what we calk the world would always be a problem and against the Church and would keep coming back to power even if weakened for a time, until the Second Coming and Resurrection. Until that point, there can still be times of a more Christian society with greater holiness am I right?

However that would be due to our growth in holiness with grace, not our human efforts or even ONLY the efforts of the Church. Rather, we need to let Him act with and through us in a supernatural way. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't know Marigold's motivation for posting this, but I can't help thinking that most of you are missing the point. The Orthodox Church believes that it is the one true Church and the Catholic Churches believes it is the one true Church, albeit with some variations on how we do this (the Catholic Church somehow thinks we are part of it, albeit imperfectly so, something the Orthodox Church does not exactly reciprocate, and this is rooted in different sacramental theology, but that is another matter...)

But it seems to me that the point that Father Stephen is making is that if you believe this (which both our Churches do), then what then? Then there is no point comparing our Church to other churches, and arguing that we are better than them. Rather, all that matters is our repentance.

though as Catholics we would disagree on which is the true Church, I think we would agree on the approach to not have it be an argument based on who is "better", because we are sinful humans and the Church isn't true because WE are better, but because Christ made the Church.  

The supernatural element of it is perfect even though the human is not. At least that can be the Catholic position too we'd just apply it to the Catholic Church

one thing that bothers me is when Catholics and Orthodox do things like compare miracles and Saints to see who's better. I mean yes God acts in His Church but He is free to act in any soul to help them and this can help dispose them better. He can use that to help them come closer to Him and even to the Church if He chooses that method. And yes miracles are a sign of His action but comparing them just seems like not the best approach. Its also hurtful to the other side instead of convincing them. Even when I converted from Prorestantism, I wasn't asked to renounce God's action in my soul from those days .. And His action ultimately helped me become Catholic, even lead me to the Sacraments. 

Or when people try to point out the opposite: sins. "Oh you had such and such event happen your church is not true!".. If anyone saw the movie about St Augustine (mostly good movie I'd just skip the impurity parts)  its just like that part where the leader of the Donatists says that the Catholic Church is not true because of St Augustine's past sins. Its a rather unfair argument. St Augustine won the debate by speaking of God being close to us though we are unworthy.

All those arguments about the mistakes of humans can easily be countered by examples of sanctity anyway.   But the reason I believe the Church is authority of Christ's words not because "its nicer" than some other church. Even if it has more human errors in history that doesn't change God's action... And God can work by bringing sinners to Himself and making them great Saints like St Augustine and St Mary Magdalene. 

Of course if we create scandal and push people from the Church if we are terrible Catholics and our witness is important. That is serious but if I'm failing in my witness that doesn't mean God didn't make the Church. 

Edited August 5, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower