That post I put up about my conversion to Orthodoxy was not only the longest post ever, but it has attracted the most number of comments. I wrote the post in one two-hour stretch, and posted it without re-reading it. So there are some things I want to make clear that might not have been from the long, rambly opus.
1. I am not now nor do I have any intention of being an embittered ex-Catholic. Quite to the contrary, after I got out from under the burden of feeling responsible in some way for the Scandal -- that is, for fighting it -- I was able to reacquaint myself with the great things about Catholicism. I literally pray for the Pope daily, and for the Church, and can now better see the Catholic Church in her totality. My preoccupation with the Scandal, the filth and the extreme injustice the institutional Church visited upon children and families hid that from me. I freely confess, because I deeply believe, that there is great truth, beauty and holiness in the Roman Catholic Church. You won't find a Catholic-basher in me (though I will continue to be critical where warranted, in my role as an opinion journalist; it's just not personal anymore).
2. I don't deny that reason played a minor role in my conversion. It was primarily emotional and psychological -- but I do deny that that minimizes matters. As I've said, a decade ago, I argued with a friend considering Orthodoxy and Catholicism that all that mattered was doctrinal truth. He said he worried about raising Christian kids in the mess that is US Catholic parish life. I dismissed those concerns, and said he should instead concentrate on the doctrinal arguments. Well, real life -- and having kids of my own -- showed me how brittle that position was, and is. Human beings are not machines. We all have to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, between radical objectivity and radical subjectivity. I used to think that being a Christian was merely a matter of finding the most logical arguments, intellectually assenting to them and doing your best to live by them. It is far more complicated than that, and I found through the scandal my intellect humiliated. A dear friend of mine used to be Orthodox, but left in his teenage years because he desperately needed Christ, and the only experience of Orthodoxy he had was in his family's spiritually dead Greek parish. He is now a passionate Evangelical. I used to think he was fooling himself. I still couldn't take the path he chose. But I understand why he chose it, and have no interest in judging him, only helping him to be as faithful to Christ as he can be.
[More later ... I won't be posting till later today, when I hope to have some BIG NEWS for everyone!]
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUponAdvertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Ross Douthat
- The Confabulum
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Amy Welborn
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Top Features
- How to Let Go of Past Loves
- 15 Hidden Health Secrets of Lemons
- The Lord Is My Shepherd: The 23rd Psalm
- 10 Ways to Transform Toxic Thoughts
- 8 Irish Blessings for Luck
- Prayers for Jobs and Money
- 10 Uplifting Quotes for a Depressed Heart
- 10 Ways to Honor Thyself
- 8 Ways to Increase Hope
- When Did She Really Grow Up
Regarding the IC, there is a huge difference between dogma and theological opinion.
The IC within Roman Catholicism has caused confusion. James stated that the Roman Church has not stated one way or the other if the Theotokos died, yet we have all heard from Roman Catholic priests that she did not die. One would have to believe that comment was based on the IC.
I would remind our Roman Catholic friends that the feast of the Dormition was an Orthodox Catholic feast that was introduced into the west by the east. To try to change it from what it was to what some in Rome say now lacks a little integrity.
And yes, the fall in the west is not the same as in the east so before you can suggest that an Orthodox Catholic could believe in the IC you have to first agree on what both sides say original sin is and isn't. When you do that you may find that the agreement you think is there isn't.
Evan>
Mary was spared of original sin, not the consequences of sin in the world. Of course she could die. Why is it that you folk always seem to misunderstand that?
Now, it's perfectly possible she did not die. It's possible she did. Catholics are free to believe either, though popular devotion to Mary tends to make the first position more popular.
-------
"before you can suggest that an Orthodox Catholic could believe in the IC you have to first agree on what both sides say original sin is and isn't. When you do that you may find that the agreement you think is there isn't."
Some Orthodox have believed in Augustinian original sin, as I've already mentioned. I don't see why they would not be allowed. The Orthodox discovered Augustine much too late to condemn his theology of the fall in an ecumenical council. If Augustine had been known in the East a thousand years earlier, many more might subscribe to it today.
There are significant numbers of Eastern Catholics who believe in IC. That's their choice. Perhaps they trust the teaching of the Church on this matter.
But they need not to. I don't think the different theologies of the Fall are that great a barrier between the two churches---one side need not "convert" to the other. The issue of papal primacy and ecclesiology is a much tougher problem.>
"Eastern Catholics are not required to hold the Western theological perspective of original sin, and thus they are not required to swear to the Immaculate Conception."
That's not quite true. It's a dogma of the faith in the RCC and the ECs are in communion with the RCC so have to accept the RCC's dogmas.
I agree that this one is controversial. Some ECs claim they don't have to believe it but I think they're grasping at straws here. Dogma is dogma in the RCC. It's not just dogma for the RCs.
"These theological "differences" are really only differences in emphasis or perspective. Like the four Gospels, with their different perspectives and emphases of the same truths."
It's more than this. Read St. John of San Francisco's book about the Theotokos. It's bit polemical, IMHO, but it lays out, very well the EO opinion about the IC.
"There's a really nice overview of the Immaculate Conception from an Orthodox perspective here:"
This isn't an Orthodox perspective because Dr. Roman isn't Orthodox. He's Ukrainian Catholic.
"Some Orthodox have believed in Augustinian original sin, as I've already mentioned. I don't see why they would not be allowed. The Orthodox discovered Augustine much too late to condemn his theology of the fall in an ecumenical council. If Augustine had been known in the East a thousand years earlier, many more might subscribe to it today."
I don't think you mean to be condescending here, James, but this comes across as being condescending to me, i.e. if only they'd known about St. Augustine they would have agreed with him. That ignores the fact that what St. Augustine wrote is inconsistent with much of what was written by the Greek fathers.
There are those within Orthodoxy who believe that St. Augustine is not a father of the Church because what he wrote about original sin isn't Orthodox. I won't go that far but I think we have to acknowledge that his view on these things was different from his Greek counterparts. To assume that the Greeks would have accepted it had they known of it assumes that it's superior.>
I don't assume all would have accepted it. But it shouldn't be a surprise that some might find Augustine's interpretation of what Paul said in Romans 5:18 ("Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."), and of Christ's requirement that we be "born again," compelling.
Augustine was one of the most holy and erudite bishops ever in the Church, celebrated for his attacks on heresies, considered a saint by both East and West. His words carried much weight in the Latin-speaking West. Had his words been available in the Greek-speaking East, he might have gained quite a following in that part of the undivided Church. He wasn't considered a "Latin" (and thus to be viewed with skepticism) until later. As it was, his views on sin and grace did gain (much later) a following among some circles of Orthodoxy, especially in Russia and the Ukraine.
However, at no time do I mean that Orthodox SHOULD adopt the Western perspective on original sin. Your own perspective does not fall into the trap of semi- or neo-Pelagianism, so we do not consider it a heresy.>
"However, at no time do I mean that Orthodox SHOULD adopt the Western perspective on original sin."
But here's the rub, James. To accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in the way that it was understood when it was promulgated, one must accept the western perspective on original sin. Therefore, the RCC essentially dogmatized the western understanding of original sin.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.