Read Part 2
In this last part of our journey we will see where theory meets reality as we apply the schemes and drafts of the Fathers to the current crisis in all of its brightest manifestations. Let us go back to St. Basil’s roadmap for the crisis: First, there comes correction of error that is akin to healing a disease. Second, the weaker brethren must be accommodated. Third, the immune system itself should be well cared for, and its cells (‘the sound brethren’) supported in their fight for good doctrine and practices. Finally, with all processes going well, the reconciliation of the Church happens in terms of actual schisms and schismatic processes one can see now. Sounds good. But how to execute this roadmap?
The problem is, we are so sick we don’t know where to start. A crew of traditionalist surgeons is coming into the operating room to replace the old team. There they will find a suffering body that has undergone many extravagant types of treatment for so many illnesses, yet is still in critical condition. The first rule of a doctor is to do no harm, while a broader commandment prohibits stabbing just anyone with a scalpel – neither the patient, nor your crewmates who disagree with you, nor even those who seem to have destroyed everything before having to resign. So, these new surgeons will need the treatment protocol tested and authorised by St. Basil in order to heal that sick and broken down body.
Healing the Disease: Do no harm
In order to heal the division in the Church, it is necessary to combat heresies endangering the one true faith, but one cannot ignore the following collateral danger: being so intent on rooting out heresies that the cultural and spiritual diversity of the Christian faithful is ignored. Indeed, there always appears the cognitive distortion when that conceptual dichotomy between Orthodoxy and Heresy is entering the realm of real people in their idiosyncratic contexts. As fallen creatures, we are very susceptible to the incorrect delineation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ by oversimplifying the complexity of the world, reducing everything to a tribal warfare where good is what we know and hold to, although it must be vice-versa.
It is true that for healing the disease we have to start from a proper phenomenon, a most significant symptom, a heresy, which to identify may look like a simple task. According to the (Roman) Code of Canon Law, heresy is the ‘obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.’[1] That sounds straightforward enough, and the most obvious way to implement this law is with a hammer. But this approach is as simple as it is incomplete for the following reasons:
- The current crisis is very complex. St. Pius the X called Modernism the synthesis of all heresies. Neo-Modernism is more than that: the plague once targeting the theological brains has spread its metastases all over the ecclesiastical body and shaped reality to a significant degree. Dogmas alone are like X-ray therapy that, in order to be effective, needs some chemo.
- By its very nature the entire Tradition and Magisterium of the Church cannot be ever translated into the language of endless binary-code-like definitions equipped with precise and heavy anathemas.
- Besides, the connection between words and their meaning has greatly weakened in the modern era, which makes it even more complicated. Notions like religious freedom and ecumenism, synodality and ‘integral ecology’: polysemantic words, homonyms and empty slogans cannot be banned, lest we should see a deeper hell break loose.
As a result, we are left in confusion. One can feel the fever caused by the actual disease that makes our beloved Church shrink and perish before our own eyes. Unable to recognise and fight the actual cause, we start fighting each other in a manner similar to an autoimmune disease, complicating even more the whole run of the disease. For example:
A lay traditionalist may label a priest from his local Novus Ordo community as a ‘Modernist’ simply because Fr. Nice will not wear his cassock and say Mass in Latin on Sundays, cluelessly applying the term that is proper to Louis Marie Olivier Duchesne and Alfred Firmin Loisy – the true Modernist lords whom he would never call that name, and no wonder why: those heretics wore beautiful cassocks, said Masses in Latin and even spoke it fluently. They truly knew the tradition they wanted to destroy. They were raised in it, unlike poor Fr. Nice who just wants to be a good priest. In the meantime, married clergy is presented as a dividing issue between Trads and Liberals, while the Easterners who have preserved this ancient tradition are put between a rock and a hard place. Again.[2]
To avoid scapegoating and quick and easy (but damaging) solutions, we must go to the depths, which is only possible by starting from the concrete reality that concerns the essence of our faith. This reality will reveal the very precise symptoms for us to start from. An issue addressed in such a manner will unite the efforts of all benevolent Catholics to overcome the crisis step by step. St. Basil did exactly the same when he addressed the precise problem of calling the Holy Ghost a creature. He realised that behind this particular blasphemy was radical Arianism hidden in disguise – a heresy comparable to the disease we are dealing with now in its principles, roots and damage. Let us now look at a present example of the crisis and apply the principles of St. Basil and other Church Fathers to consider ways for Christ to bring together His wounded body.
Accommodating the Weaker: the Patristic Diagnosis Brings Hope
A Pew study of 2019 showed that 69% of all self-identified US Catholics said they believed the bread and wine used at Mass are not Jesus, but instead ‘symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.’
Canon 1 defined of the Trent Council says:
‘If anyone… denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood—the species Only of the bread and wine remaining—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation; let him be anathema.’[3]
Are all these two thirds of the entire Catholic population of the most powerful country in the world outspoken heretics? Let us see.
The Pitiful
22% among these ‘symbolists’ reject the idea of transubstantiation, even though they know about the Church’s teaching. It is indeed pitiful. The important lesson is that even the blasphemous heretics Basil regrets. He does not mock or condemn them, but shows a sad mercy:
‘…All who call the Holy Ghost a creature we pity, on the ground that, by this utterance, they are falling into the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against Him,’ – as Basil says[4] in his other piece of work on the matter, and so shall we pity those who don’t believe and literally reject the Church’s teaching on the most blessed Sacrament.
But even this group is not homogeneous: among these blaspheming Catholics there are priests like Fr. Thomas Rees SJ, who writes for the National Catholic Reporter his reaction to the published statistics the following:
I personally find the theology of transubstantiation unintelligible, not because I don’t believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, but because I do not believe in prime matter, substantial forms, substance and accidents. I don’t think we have a clue what Jesus meant when he said, “This is my body.” I think we should humbly accept it as a mystery and not pretend we understand it.[5]
Fr. Thomas obviously has problems with two very essential things:
- Obedience to the Church and appreciation of her dogmas in general;
- The content of what was dogmatised by the Council of Trent, i.e. what lies behind the Aristotelian words: no bread and no wine anymore, no symbol for no distant reality remains after the consecration, but Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Church wanted to be that precise, because she had all the reasons to. And no Catholic pastor has a right to undermine it. At the same time, an attentive reader cannot but admit: Fr. Reese does not deny the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, the ‘becoming’ of bread and wine in some basic sense. We may even hope that this Jesuit was trying to do a good thing and help the Catholic Church by amputating a large part of the dogma. He was wrong, of course, but this incident teaches us that we need to be very careful in distinguishing different people and different ideas in order to help those who are weak. Or, shall I say, the Weaker?
The Weaker
In the letter to the presbyters of Tarsus St. Basil settles very distinct criterion of how to separate the wheat from the chaff and the Weaker from the Pitiful:
Union would be effected if we were willing to accommodate ourselves to the weaker, where we can do so without injury to souls; since, then, many mouths are open against the Holy Ghost, and many tongues whetted to blasphemy against Him, we implore you, as far as it in you lies, to reduce the blasphemers to a small number, and to receive into communion all who do not assert the Holy Ghost to be a creature, that the blasphemers may be left alone, and may either be ashamed and return to the truth, or, if they abide in their error, may cease to have any importance from the smallness of their numbers.[6]
Whom can we accept into fellowship, admonishing and revealing the mysteries of God? According to the same study, among the 31% who say they agree with Church teaching, 1% agree, but do not know what it is, and 2% think that the Catholic Church itself considers bread and wine to be symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after consecration. This is the most obvious category of the Weaker.
But there is another herd of Lord’s sheep we must reach… Next to the 22% of those who know and deny the teachings of the Church, the researcher places 43% of the ‘symbolists’ who think that their profession is identical with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The only thing that distinguishes them from the 2% of the ‘misguided loyalist camp’ is that they did not declare their particular loyalty in an explicit way. Is it worth labelling them as stubborn heretics?
In addition, in the bad guy camp there are 4% of ‘symbolists’ who do not know the teachings of the Church at all. And if they don’t know it, can they be judged for any crime other than guilty ignorance?
The Pew Review suggested it was 31% vs 69% in favour of the dissident crew. The ‘Basilian’ method made it 78% vs 22% in favour of the Catholics, among whom 28% can be listed among the Sound brethren with 50% of the general population just in need of some guidance. Actually, most of the 22% ‘heretic crowd’ will join the Church when presented with the Truth in the most intelligible way, or be ashamed if they reject it. Now we shall talk about those whose job it is to guide them.
The Sound Brethren
Judging by my own experience and research, I dare to believe that these Sound believers who strengthen their Weaker brethren can be Western Traditionalists, novus-ordinary priests and parishioners, religious of various novelty, members of Charismatic movement (who are also devoted to the Sacramental life[7] and have adorations) or Easterners who, while seemingly unacquainted to this form of Eucharistic piety, are very much devoted to the Eucharistic Lord in their lives.
While the ratios may differ between the groups and also depending on what issues are under discussion, there is enough commonality between these seemingly diverse groups that motivate them to work together as Sound brethren. For example, whereas one group may tend to be more sound in terms of Eucharistic Adoration, another may be more sound in family ethics, such as having many children. Taken as a whole, there is diversity yet unity in this Sound group.
Reconciling: Harsh rules for the Sound Catholics
With eyes of mercy, up until now we have been looking primarily at the others: what they believe and do. Often when dealing with others and trying to implement changes on them based on one’s own sense of justice, private or collective, we find two outcomes. One is bloody tribal warfare. The other is a perfect fascist utopia that comes true when that war is won by one tribe and until it starts again.
In order to achieve peace and reach the brothers we need to change ourselves. The wisdom of the Catholic Church that the world sees as madness is repentance, that is, changing one’s own mentality and adjusting it to the divine will. I would like to conclude this essay with three stern rules offered by the Fathers.
Rule 1. A minimum agreement reached, stop arguing about words
Could there have been a more holy and orthodox man than Athanasius the Great? This was practically the last faithful bishop immune to Arianism who suffered from the heretics and even from the Roman Pontiff Liberius, who succumbed to fear and pressure from them and signed the sentence of his exile. Nevertheless, St. Athanasius defended that very Pope Liberius as ardently as he defended the Catholic faith.
Could there have been, again, a more saintly and zealous champion of Catholicism and reconciliation in the 13th century Eastern Church than Patriarch John XI Bekkos, who even died in prison, refusing to renounce the union with Rome?
The latter holy man quotes the former to defend the orthodoxy of the Latins before the Greeks, appealing to his fellow bishops and calling them to unity:
Those things then being thus confessed, we exhort you not hastily to condemn those who so confess and so explain the phrases they use, nor reject them, but rather to accept them as they desire peace and defend themselves, while you check and rebuke, as of suspicious views, those who refuse so to confess and to explain their language. But while you refuse toleration to the latter, counsel the others also who explain and hold aright, not to enquire further into each other’s opinions, nor to fight about words to no useful purpose, but to agree in the mind of piety. For they who are not thus minded, but only stir up strife with petty phrases …do nothing except ‘give their neighbour turbid confusion to drink,’ like men who grudge peace and who love schisms.[8]
What was written by an anti-Arian about the orthodox semi-Arians and cited by the Greek Uniate to defend the Latins centuries ago, can be equally addressed to all who are others in relation to us here today: the Traditional Latin Mass supporters and those who inherited the cause of defending the Latins, having made a poly-ritual Catholic unity their credo.
Catholics who confessed not to believe in transubstantiation should be given a chance to realise that they simply don’t know the difference between essential and accidental, having been formed by a long-standing nominalist philosophical standard. Most of them probably think that essence is about some chemical or even atomic qualities… The only thing required from them should be just not denying the dogma of the Faith. Then another Pew Review will show a new and a hopefully different picture.
The same principle applies to those popes and theologians who ‘smell of Modernism,’ but who agree to enter into dialogue with us, explain themselves and show their orthodoxy. St. Athanasius teaches us to avoid excessive suspiciousness, he tells us to trust our brothers and fathers in Christ. Arguably, he would be an ardent supporter of Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity as it relates to the Vatican II, the Magisterium of post-conciliar popes and all the theology around it. He would even encourage us to accept Pope Francis with his ‘sins against the common home,’ migrant hospitality, this walking-on-the-edge Catechism alteration on capital punishment, as well as some of his vague statements, questionable disciplinary measures and sloganised reform projects. At least, to the extent that the Holy Father himself would accommodate this mutual understanding, showing his care for the Faith, as sometimes he actually does and we all hope he will do more frequently.
St. Athanasius continues:
Irreligiousness is utterly forbidden, though it be attempted to disguise it with artful expressions and plausible sophisms; but religiousness is confessed by all to be lawful, even though presented in strange phrases, provided only they are used with a religious view, and a wish to make them the expression of religious thoughts.[9]
It follows implicitly from this text that, although one form of religiosity may seem subjectively more perfect than another, at least in its verbal and other formal representation, all Catholic piety cannot be reduced to that of ours. This principle applies equally to the Latins and the Greeks, as well as to all forms of religious life imaginable in the Catholic Church, including those post-conciliar, which are numerous.
At the same time, no artful sophism or eloquent phrases either in Latin, Greek or Church Slavonic should hide heresy, schism, or godlessness. Great heretics and schismatics of the past could successfully compete in oratory, poetry and hymnography with the most Orthodox Saints and Fathers, just like the 19th century Modernists could give any modern traditionalist a lecture in the knowledge of the divines, old school piety and baroque clerical fashion, exactly because they were raised within the tradition they so desperately wanted to destroy. After all, the Devil himself knows theology better than anyone among us, and he will not hesitate to use this knowledge in order to distract us from our prayer or steal all the faith, hope and love for our neighbours and strangers: it is by their fruits that we shall know them.
Therefore if they… make an excuse that the terms are strange, let them consider the sense in which the Council so wrote… that, even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine.[10]
These last words of St. Athanasius, quoted by John XI Bekkos in his apology for the Catholic Union that he sent from his prison at the end of the world, leads us to realise the next following principle.
Rule 2. Be ready for a dogmatic compromise with ‘others,’ which is Creed-like
The very word compromise, if it were conscious, could never boast of particular popularity among Western Traditionalists. Neither could the phrase ‘dogmatic compromise’ do the same. Complaining about the vagueness of the formulations stamped by that Vatican fax machine, many would sigh about the good-old times of strong and uncompromising Fathers. And who am I to judge? It is believed that their works led to the absolute triumph of peace and Catholic Orthodoxy over all the ancient heresies. However, it is not that simple.
The true faith was indeed established, and one of the clear signs of this victory is the Creed – a prayer sung in the East in almost every liturgy, on Sundays and holidays in the West. But that victory was neither unconditional, nor genocidal.
Actually, the Creed was a testament of compromise. Reading this Creed, we confess the triune God – the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: for three of Them is One and only God. It is notable, however, that in the very text it is only the Father and the Son who are directly called God, but not the Holy Ghost. Interestingly, the initial Nicene words on Him were even more terse – ‘… and in the Holy Ghost.’ The text we read now had been influenced by St. Basil’s theological heritage and was specially designed to fix the problem with Pneumatomachians who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost:
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
A proud Pneumatomachian heretic would never have agreed to these lines. Still, the Ghost is not named God directly. Why so?
Because the situation was more complex. In addition to outright heretics who said the Ghost to be a creature, in the 4th century there lived the so-called Tropics of Alexandria – some overly-critical theologians who found no formal basis for calling the Holy Ghost ‘God’ in the Holy Scriptures, although they did not consider Him to be a creature either. What should the orthodox Catholics of the time do with such stubborn people? Of course, they were not some kind of creepy heretics like the Eunomians who would directly call the Son a Father’s creature that is completely odd to the Godhead. The Alexandrians would rather say those creepy doctrines are odd, yet they still struggled with the term ‘God’ due to their hypercritical method in exegesis and theology.
St. Basil included those folks among the Weaker, but still Orthodox, brothers. That is, the Catholics. He wanted them to be received into full Communion, hoping that the Holy Ghost Himself would do the rest of the work:
Let us then seek no more than this, but propose to all the brethren, who are willing to join us, the Nicene Creed. If they assent to that, let us further require that the Holy Ghost ought not to be called a creature, nor any of those who say so be received into communion. I do not think that we ought to insist upon anything beyond this.[11]
To say the same thing in other words, the fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council and their successors in the East who formed the Creed 2.0 used a particular kind of descriptive language, as if quoting St. Basil’s most famous text we have read. The Holy Ghost is Lord. He gives life. He comes from the Father. He spoke through the prophets. To Him is due worship and glory as much as to the Father and the Son… Having listed all the divine attributes, it was for the sake of their Weaker brothers why the Council Fathers avoided using the word ‘God.’ They kept the door as open as possible, following St. Basil, who says:
For I am convinced that by longer communication and mutual experience without strife, if anything more requires to be added by way of explanation, the Lord Who works all things together for good for them that love Him, (Romans 8:28) will grant it.[12]
One must admit, it was nothing short of a dogmatic compromise, although not in the essence, but simply in the wording. If we sincerely profess the Сreed and honour the Tradition we received from the Fathers, then today we must seek to apply the same humble principle: a dogma is not a nuclear bomb to exterminate the enemies. Nor should we weaponise any less deadly means like the Catechism or any other normative document of the Church to ensure our own theological comfort at our brothers’ expense. Rather, dogmas and other teachings ought to be a vaccine against heresies designed for the entire flock: as much for us, as for the others, whom we must crave to commune with in order to mutually rejoice in God’s kingdom, growing in faith together. This is what the last rule is about.
Rule 3. ‘Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi’ only works, if we pray together
In order to demonstrate the divinity of the Holy Ghost and provide his reader with a powerful tool to carry that out, St. Basil refers to a common ground – baptism and liturgy:
As we were baptised, so we profess our belief. As we profess our belief, so also we offer praise. As then baptism has been given us by the Saviour, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, so, in accordance with our baptism, we make the confession of the creed, and our doxology in accordance with our creed.[13]
This Eastern passage reminds of the laconic Latin formula ‘lex orandi – lex credendi’ that makes the law of prayer the law of faith and has been extremely popular with the traditionalists. However, for this phrase to have any missionary and catechetical meaning beyond mere self-affirmation, we must pray together with the entire Church including those whom we want to convince and strengthen, unless it is truly bad for us, contradictory to the Canon law or to common sense.
Practically, it makes a rigid solution inapplicable for the Trads in regards to attending the Novus Ordo, as much as for us Easterners when it comes to occasionally participating in the Latin prayers and services. Being ready to invite the others and show them genuine interest and hospitality are among the common duties for a Catholic. During the time of St. Basil, both Weaker and Pitiful brothers could read any number of highly orthodox treatises that came from his pen, just as they can read them now on the internet alongside with tons of tradi-literature. However, it is only the unity in worship that creates ‘we’ and allows the same Holy Ghost to do His job of perfection.
I ardently hope that all the paths and examples that we have travelled through together during this rather lengthy journey will help us all to act like the Sound brothers, not like the princes of the Gentiles who exercise dominion over them, the great ones who exercise authority upon their brethren (Matthew 20:25). When the Lord turns again the captivity of Zion, we shall be like them that dream. That is why we need to elaborate the dream, think it through very thoroughly so that our mouths are filled with laughter, not gossip, and our tongue with singing, not shouting. I believe we can do this. I do believe even more that the Lord’s Spirit Himself will strengthen our hearts if only we open them to His gentle breath when the time comes for the traditional reconquista.
[1] Can. 751
[2] See, for instance, here: https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/is-the-vatican-resurrecting-the-failed-ruthenian-option-for-traditionalists
[3] Can. 1.
[4] St. Basil of Caesarea, Letter 159 (to Eupaterius and his daughter), URL: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202159.htm
[5] Fr. Reese T., ‘The Eucharist is about more than Christ becoming present’ at National Catholic Reporter, URL: https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/signs-times/eucharist-about-more-christ-becoming-present
[6] St. Basil of Caesarea, Letter 113 (to the presbyters of Tarsus.) URL: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202113.htm
[7] See, for example, in the collection of ‘Catholic Charismatic Renewal Resources’ done by Fr. Bob Hogan, BBD, URL [download]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjq6sPzj_mEAxU0AhAIHYwJDpAQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcccrsa.net%2Fcharismaticcenter%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FCharismatic-PG-Resources.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0L60UbqOgicc6XA95ng465&opi=89978449
[8] Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos 8, PG 26, 805 A-B; tr. NPNF ii.4, p. 485. Cited from the English translation of Apologia that was made from Scriptorum Graeciae Orthodoxae Bibliotheca Selecta (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1864) and published at De unione ecclesiarum internet blog URL: https://bekkos.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/john-bekkos-apology/
[9] Athanasius, De Decretis 18; PG 25b, 448 B-C; tr. NPNF ii.4, p. 162. Idem.
[10] Athanasius, op. cit., 21.
[11] St. Basil of Caesarea, Letter 113 (to the presbyters of Tarsus.), the ending words, URL: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202113.htm
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.