Lowercase orthodoxy

Actually it means "straight weight," since doxa is a translation of the Hebrew kabod, which means "glory" or "weight." Paul even seemingly makes a play on words based on this in 2 Corinthians 4:17, which only his Greek-and-Hebrew-speaking readers would have caught.

FWIW, glory/glorify/doxa is difficult to translate. Look at the instances of the word in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible and see if you can come up with a single translation that works in all instances.

Since there are some in the Orthodox churches who are quite theologically liberal in their beliefs, is it possible to distinguish yourself from them by describing yourself as an orthodox Orthodox?

I agree fully with your post, Rod.
It always impresses me how much people knowingly misuse language so as to obfuscate their underlying intent and philsosphy. Eventually, and we are practically there a lot of the time now, language becomes meaningless and words know longer mean anything substantive because they can be re-defined by any and all to mean whatever they individually want them to mean. Perhaps this is a modern Tower of Babel in which all are speaking the same words and language but cannot communicate with each other. And perhaps we will eventually be reduced, or should I say returned, to primitive grunts and squawks that only reflect our emotional states.

The big problem with those who profess their 'orthodoxy' is that they often measure it against what they think orthodoxy should be. Not more than two weeks, a gentleman at relatively popular Catholic web site stated, "The bishops are moving toward orthodoxy." That might be the dumbest statement I've ever seen. As much as liberals are wrong to make 'devout' a purely ephemeral construction, political conservatives in the Church are wrong to make orthodoxy some checklist.

"the fact that the antonym to "orthodox" is "heterodox." "

The opposite of heterodox should be homodox, and the opposite of orthodox should be plagiodox. Assuming that hetero is the opposite of ortho is to beg the question as to whether there is a single One True Teaching. That assumption strikes me as unproblematic when you're talking about Roman Catholicism, which has a single magisterium. However, it is much more problematic when you're referring to Christianity in general, for example.

Not many religions really do have a single, focused, identifiable magisterium. The only ones other than Roman Catholicism that I can think of are Mormnonism, Sevener Shia, and various little sects.

Not many religions really do have a single, focused, identifiable magisterium.

Agreed -- which is why I wouldn't know how to identify an unorthodox Orthodox Christian, except those who, say, denied any part of the Creed, or who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Other than that, I don't know, because Orthodoxy doesn't have anything like the Catholic Magisterium.

I should make clear that in this discussion, I'm not talking about people's behavior. I fully expect that heaven has a vast contingent of Catholics who weren't fully orthodox, and that hell has acres of Catholics who were rigidly orthodox in their beliefs, but who had no love in their heart for others [and the same goes for believers in other Christian churches and traditions]. But that's not to say, then that orthodoxy (right belief) is irrelevant.

The academically minded may quibble over how orthodox Catholic "thought" is but may I be so bold as to point out that sacramentally-speaking Catholics are irrevocably marked as "once baptized-always baptized" and thus Ms Kerry's title isn't so far off. (Even Frank McCourt ceases to be Catholic simply because he says so.) When we strangle our will by twisting it away from the flow of the Divine Will, our 'communio' on the Catholic vine is reduced to "hanger-on" status like that of a shrivelled leaf in Fall that the wind has not yet shaken to the ground. Without acts (praxis) we lack the ability to photosynthesize the sunlight of Revelation, our lives wither and die, to be pruned and burned in the fire.

And yet there are many "conservative" worshipers of Tradition that are just as withered and gnarled. Their "culturual" praxis is reduced to that of a virtuous pagan who hews to historical rules because they guarantee "triumph" in the agora of secular "praxis" ie political or economic expediency. St Ignatius of Loyola understood this, as a recovering vet wounded during patriotic service, he experienced a change of heart that led him to found a new order, the Jesuits, dedicating their efforts "ad maiorem Dei gloriam" (To the Greater Glory of God) in other words, acts ought reflect the glory back to our Lord, not us the agents...

Rod's post evokes first millenial debates on Monophysites, Eutychians and Nestorians. If you are convinced Jesus was a brilliant and congenial "spirit" who never actually had to suffer the vagaries of the human body including pain, then one could justify mimicing brilliant and congenial conduct to get away with being called Catholic, while being a rather effete one. If on the other hand you are convinced that Jesus was the most heroic rebel who ever lived, then one could justify mimicing heroic rebellion to get away with being called Catholic, while being a rather obnoxious one. However Jesus (in his own lifetime) was recognized by his mother and his disciples as a much more profound encounter: he was The Christ. He promised even more: his Advocate the Holy Spirit would guide acting persons to participate in his Glory if they dwelt where he "pitched his tent".

We are not called to compete with those who promote a temporal glory by claiming spectator status on the sidelines of the Game of Life. Christ himself suggested leaving them behind "brush the dust off our feet" and, like Paul, 'run the race' on the playing field of the Game of Life. Christianity is no SpectatorSport - we were made in His image to follow in his tracks. (And he will put the wind behind our backs, such that those sitting on the fence will marvel and wonder at what Christians are capable of and seek to emulate us too) Read any history book to discover how many modern nations copied Western modes of governance of liberal compassion, while others were led astray by authoritarian ideologies founded in a temporal metric of "passing the winning line" sacrificing present existentials for an illusory future good, for example as in China's one child policy, coercing the killing of another human being in the pursuit of consumerism for the masses. Are we that far removed? Our civic leaders propose an anemic "liberty" of thought, yet enforce a "dictatorship" of praxis: "The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose." Nancy Pelosi, Meet the Press, Aug. 24

Add Rush Limbaugh to the spectators in the bleachers (nosebleed section!):
H/T Mark Shea: markshea.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html#5953862965104382658 (add http://)

"... held forth with his own vast exhalation last Friday and declared:

"Now, as I mentioned yesterday, I pray to Jesus Christ often. I have read and studied the Gospels. I know Jesus Christ. It would never occur to me to refer to Jesus Christ as an agent for change.

Now it could be that the version of Scripture Rush reads doesn't have, as the very first public proclamation of Christ, the words "Repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" Perhaps he simply overlooked all that business about being "born again" and "being transformed by the renewing of our minds" and becoming "new creations" and all the rest of it."

So, how does this work when the majority of Catholics have been defined by the Better Catholics as not good Catholics, in fact not really Catholics at all?

Good point. For those who were badly catechized, they are living out the faith as best as they can. When taught what the Church teaches, they may well be astonished, but, hopefully, they will also grow in the faith; both in belief and practice.

M.Z., your comments make my point rather nicely. I was not talking about what people believe, but rather, what people believe is true. Even Senator Biden understands this distinction. He claims to believe that life begins at conception but does not think it is actually true, for if he did, he would have no problem seeing this truth reflected in our laws. After all, what would we think of person who said he believed that global warming is true, but that our environmental policies should not reflect this truth? We may think that he doesn't really believe that global warming is true.

Moreover, there is more to the creeds and Scripture than a list of orthodox doctrines. For those doctrines themselves presuppose a cluster of other beliefs that have implications in a variety of other areas. For example, if one believes in the Incarnation, a reasonable question would be, "When precisely was the Son of God incarnated?" According to the Gospels the Son of God resided in Mary's womb. That is, the unborn Christ was both fully human and fully God ala Chalcedon as a fetus. Thus, to say that the human Jesus became "the Christ" at some later time in his development is in fact to embrace the heresy of Adoptionism.

The question is not whether liberal Catholics believe the Nicene Creed or that human persons are truly human persons from the moment they come into existence at conception. The question is whether these liberal Catholics think that those who deny these beliefs are mistaken.

rombald: the opposite of orthodox should be plagiodox.

I like that. But I always thought it was skoliodox.

But we should stop this unseemly perithamnobasis (beating around the bush). The opposite of "orthodox" is "heretic".

M. Z. Forrest,

What seems normative among theological liberals and progressives is one or both of two notions, either of which are tantamount to denying the authority of the creeds:

One is the notion that it doesn't really matter if one believes the creeds or not, even in the process of saying them along with others who *do* believe what they -- both the creeds and themselves -- are saying, in the moment that it is being said.

The other is the notion that the creeds in particular and the broader tradition of one's church more generally are authoritative only to such extent as they can be reconciled with whatever the political -- as opposed to the theological -- party-line for "liberals" and "progressives" might happen to be on a particular Sunday: that week's chattering points, which are "of course" more "relevant" to "how we live now" than a bunch of musty old creeds written by musty old men a long time ago, a long time before, say, 1968, the year in which "we" not only came to have *all* the answers, but in which we also came for the very first time to have *any* answers at all.

Rufus, I wouldn't worry about it; M.Z. is simply bringing some "Vox Nova" sniping at Mr. Beckwith over here, which he really oughtn't do.

M.Z., of course "liberal" Catholics are no more or less likely to reject the Incarnation, Creed, doctrine of the Trinity etc. than any other sort of Catholic (though it should be pointed out that many of us experienced first-hand the denial of Christ's divinity by people in the Church during the "God-as-giant-smile-button-in-the-sky" days in the 70s). But the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a lot more than the basic principles spelled out in the Creed etc., and to me a "liberal" or "heterodox" person is simply a person who feels free to reject anything that the Catechism teaches.

Notice that I use the word "reject." We're not talking about a person who hasn't read the Catechism in such depth as to understand that the Church considers, say, torture or artificial contraception intrinsically evil, but instead the person who after learning that the Church teaches this and studying the matter comes to the independent conclusion that he can't and won't give at least the ordinary assent to these teachings that is required from the faithful.

Of course, catechetical instruction in America has been a mess for about the last thirty or forty years, so it's not that surprising to encounter a Catholic who sincerely believes that some teachings are "optional" or subject to widely varying interpretations. Charity compels us (however orthodox we are, or think ourselves to be) to approach someone in this position as if they simply don't understand what the Church teaches on the subject, to direct them if possible to a sound source that will explicate the teaching in a way that may make it clear, and to offer such help as we're capable of offering. But when you encounter someone who intractably believes, for instance, that the Church is "sinning" by not ordaining women, or some such thing, there is little you can do except pray fervently for them.

Oh, and I would say that the bishops are moving more toward "orthopraxy" myself, having finally (one hopes) begun to grow weary of the constant and often-silly liturgical innovations that have interfered with the ability to offer reverent worship to God at Mass.

Anyone who believes that bishops are incapable of teaching heterodoxy had better not look into the Arian heresy. Or at the record of a few sitting American bishops.

Modernists downplay the term "orthodoxy" because their orthodoxy is to deny orthodoxies.

Beware of Greeks bearing words.

Roland: There has never been a case of a pope's having been deposed for heresy.

Lexi Con: How about having been anathematized for heresy - i.e., Honorius I?

That's a good point. It is generally stated that Honorius' seeming defence of monothelitism was not an ex cathedra teaching, but a rash opinion intended to condemn monophysitism.

The more alarming thing here is that Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Oecumenical Council forty years or so after his death. I guess you just never know.

I find felt banners, cheesy music, and pop-culture spirituality annoying, myself, M.Z. It's especially annoying when these things are incorporated into the parish worship while more traditional elements are pushed out; I have known people who have left the Church over nothing more than this, though I find that sad.

On the other hand, a friend in college who had left Catholicism for Evangelical Christianity kept talking about "not being fed" by the Church. It seemed a strange phrase owing to the centrality of the Eucharist in the Catholic faith, but I came to understand that he was talking about the spiritual deadness of the Catholic parish he'd known on the east coast, where banal liturgies full of trendy elements were coupled with homilies designed to affirm the congregation in their comfortable affluence, and where the parking lot grand prix afterward made any talk of "community" or "fellowship" a not-very-amusing joke. Sadly, my friend had walked away from the Catholic Church without ever really getting to know the faith; even more sadly, there are many people just like him in the Church in America, with one foot out of the door when they see what looks like community in the non-denominational church down the road.

Erin Manning:
"I find felt banners, cheesy music, and pop-culture spirituality annoying, myself, M.Z. It's especially annoying when these things are incorporated into the parish worship while more traditional elements are pushed out; I have known people who have left the Church over nothing more than this, though I find that sad."

As a convert to the Church who has remained Catholic, I agree that it sad when people leave the Faith over different worship styles, but I think for some of those who leave, it is more than an issue of style and aesthetics. All too often, the worship reflects shoddy theology. When I went through RCIA in college, the local parish- a typical American parish- allowed a heretical priest who denied the necessity of baptism for salvation teach the class on the Sacrament of Baptism. There was also a lot of talk about the Mass as predominantly an expression of community (rather than the Sacrifice and Real Presence). It made me think the next time I was attending at Mass, listening to the umpteenth refrain of "..And I will raise you up on Eagle's Wings", why one would endure what they think is bad music if there was no real significance of being there anyway. (As in, one can get community at the local pub, but can't get the Real Presence there). M.Z. asked rhetorically, whether this is liberalism. I don't think this is liberalism in the contemporary political sense (and certainly not in the classical definition of a political liberal), but this is certainly religious liberalism, the adherents of which may or may not identify themselves as political liberals.

"I'm sure it has nothing to do with personal choices and everything to do with what the Church did to you. Felt Banners!!!"

If congregants can not offend, why did St. Paul condemn behavior that may make one's brother stumble? Again, read the book. (http://returntorome.com) Here's the essence of it, from the introduction:

What I hope to offer here is an account of a personal journey that focuses on my own internal conversation, or struggle, between the Protestant theology I embraced during most of my adult life and what I’ve come to think of as my Catholic constitution, which I have to believe had always been there. Much of this book is a celebration of the Christianity that has shaped my life, intellectually and spiritually, both in its Protestant and Catholic forms. I do indeed explain how and why my mind changed, but with respect and admiration for the Evangelical Protestants whom the Holy Spirit used to deepen my devotion to Christ, which I carry with gratitude into the Catholic Church.

Thus, this book is a narrative intertwined with encounters, arguments, criticisms, and reflections. It is not meant to be an apologetic for Catholicism or an autobiography in the strict sense. It is my hope that this book may effectively, with grace and charity, communicate to my fellow Christians, both Protestant and
Catholic, an understanding of the reasons and internal deliberations that culminated in my departure from and eventual return to the Catholic Church.

Mere Catholic, you'll get no argument from me! Often and often I've been in that situation, of knowing that weak worship reflected weak theology and shoddy practices.

However, and this took me a long time to learn, this isn't universally true. I've met small-o orthodox Catholics who *love* "On Eagle's Wings" because it was sung at the funeral of their child who died tragically in infancy. I know a priest who occasionally adds an unnecessary word or phrase to a prayer of the Mass, but always, always, adds a "respect for human life from conception to natural death" petition if it wasn't in the list of prayers of the faithful for that Mass. Both this priest and the lady I mentioned earlier are young enough to have been raised in the post-conciliar Church, and I think it's not so much entrenched liberalism as simply the fact, regrettable though it is, that many of us in this group of Catholics don't always *know* what is right and proper and what is not in re: the liturgy.

A personal case in point/embarrassment for me is that I was bristling over what I was sure was an "abuse" at Mass not long ago--until I did some research and found that the "abuse" in question was an instruction from Cdl. Arinze *correcting* an actual abuse that has been going on since I was a small child! Many of us "post-conciliar Catholics" have little idea what's right and what isn't in terms of the liturgy, though hopefully renewed interest in liturgical matters and the coming new translation of the Mass will help us all get our liturgical bearings.

Grainne, your story too is a familiar one. I think the obedient Catholics in the days just after Vatican II suffered greatly, and the present reality of so many sedevacantist groups as well as people like your parents who left the Church for Protestantism is something that shouldn't be ignored. I think the Council became something it really wasn't in and of itself, for many Catholics in America: an all-encompassing excuse to reshape the Church to fit with their ideas of modernity and what modernity demanded. But the Church exists outside of time, in a manner of speaking, and nothing is so dated today as liturgical songs composed in the late sixties/early seventies, or church architecture that remains stranded in that regrettable period, or a philosophy of religion that thinks that truth ought to change with the times.

First Question: What exactly is wrong with the song "On Eagle's Wings"?

Secondly: I was not talking about what people believe, but rather, what people believe is true.

It's a simple equation: Belief = Truth is Faith.

That's just not how culture works. The meaning of any word, any concept, any cultural trope - anything, really - is defined by use. The fact that Bill Maher and Nancy Pelosi and others like them define themselves as Catholic makes them "Catholic." Others who define themselves as "Catholic" may object to that, but, well... tough. Language is inherently non-hierarchical and fluid. The only way you can impose your definition of something on someone else is to convince them to adopt it. If Nancy Pelosi calls herself "a good Catholic," and you can't convince her not to, than that's what "a good Catholic" means. If you don't like that, call yourself something else.

I think you are right about not stopping being Catholic. I remember asking one of my Jesuit theology profs how I could unbecome Catholic. He said, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic." I said, "what if I become a Buddhist?" He said, "then you'd be a Catholic Buddhist." Me: "But I'm a atheist and believe in reincarnation." Him: "then you're a Catholic atheist who'll be reborn as a Catholic."

Do what all the excommunicants of the past did - i.e., deny/reject a cardinal doctrine of the faith or do or state you believe one of the things anathematized by a council, or deny one of the things whose denial earns an anathema. That should earn you excommunication, if not by your Jesuit friend, at least by the authors of the anathema, which should still be valid. ;^)

Just some thoughts.

"On Eagle's Wings" isn't one of my favorites, either, but it's hard to see how you can quarrel with the lyrics. Aren't most of the words right out of scripture?

EricW, I appreciate your helpful thoughts. However, I think you're mistaken in assuming that excommunication expels one from the Church. It denies you the sacraments. But that's not the same thing. As an analogy, imagine that your mother has let you know she isn't speaking to you and that you won't be getting any dinner tonight. So you announce with insouciance, "Okay, then, I guess I'm not part of this family any more!" and start to walk out the door. I imagine you would find yourself hauled back in short order. "You're being PUNISHED! Who told you you could leave?" Excommunication is a punishment. For punishment to work, you have to remain under the authority of the punisher. Otherwise, you don't suffer. I could be wrong, but nobody has informed me of it yet.

Sigaliris,

The song "On Eagles' Wings" suffers from the "I-am-God" complex, in which the congregation sings for God and may thus be in danger of thinking that it IS God. See on this topic, "Why Catholics Can't Sing," which takes this an other similar illusions apart with great thoroughness.

Besides, there's the tune.

EricW, I appreciate your helpful thoughts. However, I think you're mistaken in assuming that excommunication expels one from the Church. It denies you the sacraments. But that's not the same thing. As an analogy, imagine that your mother has let you know she isn't speaking to you and that you won't be getting any dinner tonight. So you announce with insouciance, "Okay, then, I guess I'm not part of this family any more!" and start to walk out the door. I imagine you would find yourself hauled back in short order. "You're being PUNISHED! Who told you you could leave?" Excommunication is a punishment. For punishment to work, you have to remain under the authority of the punisher. Otherwise, you don't suffer. I could be wrong, but nobody has informed me of it yet.

Well, then, I guess you have only one option: You'll have to kidnap a consecrated host and videotape yourself torturing it and put the video on YouTube. That still may not get you un-catholicized, but it will get you a blogpost here at Crunchycon. :^)

Or, you can deny Christ and convert to Judaism. If that doesn't de-catholicize you, then it's only because Mr. Jesuit smarty-pants thinks he's God or something.

Brendan Moran: The Pope can scream and yell all he wants, but that doesn't change reality.

Reality? What's that?

Besides, popes don't scream and yell. They're typically laid-back sort of guys who know they have history on their side. They can smile at the vagaries of scientific gnosis and can wait for philosophy and science to expend their puny intellectual brawn and sink into the effete frailty of sciolism. Revelation cannot be refuted, only denied.

If the Pope says you are not Catholic, you aren't Catholic. He will even send you a papal certificate similar to the one he sent Marty Luther.

Who will remember you when a legion of historians is writing the reign of Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI? Your preposterous combox protests will go unheard in the vastness of the pleroma.

"Sorry, that's just how the world works in terms of language and meaning, whether people are open to it or not." BM

TR: You're statement could be seen as inherently meaningless. You say there is no objective reality in words. If so why do your statements about language mean anything or become "how the world works."

Or your statement is simply arrogant posturing. You on your lonesome do not get to decide how the world works in terms of language, meaning, or anything.

Now if what you're saying is that words mean what the consensus of speakers assign them to mean this is basically true, but this would still mean Pelosi can not assign herself the title of "good Catholic" because she is not a consensus of any speaker of any language. (Unless she's invented a language I don't know about or learned some nearly extinct language) True in some technical sense when she says "Good Catholic" she could be using some variant form of both those words. Like she could mean "good" as in healthy and "catholic" as in having a variety of tastes. Or she could be suffering from a form of aphasia where she says "Good Catholic" but means something totally different like "Italian American grandmother" or "Speaker of the House." I just don't think any of this is what's occuring. She is not using an obscure form of Esperanto, or suffering from a massive head injury, or what have you.

As a member of a distinct minority, I should probably stay quiet, but I like Eagles Wings. I guess this means I have no musical taste despite my years of classical training or that I'm not a very good Catholic.

But hey, I let my children wear flip-flops to church, too. (Despite my mother-in-law's disdain). It's a good thing that God, not my fellow parishoners, will judge.