Reveal Your Saints and You Reveal Your Church

    

Understandably, there have been several articles, podcasts, press releases, videos, and other media in recent weeks for the meeting between the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis, the present archbishop of the city of Old Rome.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has spared no expense in promoting this event, which commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of a similar meeting in Jerusalem between the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI (January 1964).

For many, this event is little more than a well-leveraged commemoration of an extended olive branch between these two ancient, Christian faiths. For others, concern over the future of their respective churches takes center stage. Will this event be used as an impetus for doctrinal compromise? Will the future of either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman catholicism hang in the balance as a result of this pending exchange of pleasantries?

What concerns me most is not this event in particular, but the language and statements being made by those on either side of the proverbial ecumenical ‘fence.’ I am fully in favor of a ‘dialogue of love’ and mutual respect between both Romes—Old and New. But when it comes to doctrinal compromise or even dialogue, we must be far more careful. The post-doctrinal Rome of Vatican II is not the ‘stodgy’ church of Trent—but this means she is far more slippery.

The script behind this dialogue is not new. Going back to the councils of Basel, Ferrara, and Florence in the mid-fifteenth century, attempted reunification of the Orthodox churches of the East and the See of Rome has a storied past. But in every age, and at every turn, a Saint has emerged to preserve the apostolic faith in spite of frenzied attempts to usher in its demise. While some in the age of pluralism might prefer to forget, the Church honors three of these Saints as the ‘Pillars of Orthodoxy.’

Despite her best attempts at the contrary, the gates of Hades have yet to prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ. And if the Son of God is to be believed, they never will. This is an important, foundational belief to the Christian faith—it is not tangential or secondary. Ecclesiology is Christology, and when we begin to separate the two, we begin to separate the Church from her very Head and Life. This is not ‘extreme’—this is Christianity 101. This is our Baptismal confession.

Professor Alexey Osipov Professor Alexey Osipov
In September of 2000, the eminent professor Alexey Osipov (of the Theological Academy in Moscow) gave a lecture on the ‘Fundamentals of Theology.’ In that talk, professor Osipov focused on the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy and what separates us today—we know what separated us in the tenth, thirteenth, and even nineteenth centuries; but what about today?

In his lecture, the professor focuses almost singularly on the topic of glorified (or ‘canonized’) Saints. In the recognition of Saints, the Church reveals less about the glorified figures and more about herself. By revealing to the faithful a person worthy of both veneration and fervent petitions, the Church reveals her inner being; she reveals what she believes about God himself:

Indeed, any Local Orthodox Church or non-Orthodox church can be judged by her saints. Tell me who your saints are and I will tell what your church is. Any church calls as saints only those who realized in their life the Christian ideal, as this Church understands it. That is why canonization of a certain saint is not only testimony of the Church about this Christian, who according to her judgment is worthy of the glory and suggested by her as an example to follow. It is at the same time a testimony of the Church about herself. By the saints we can best of all judge about the true or imaginary sanctity of the Church.

Osipov goes on to then describe in detail both the writings and actions of several ‘saints’ of the Christian West; that is, of the Roman catholic church.

In this evaluation, he unapologetically draws a pointed line of demarcation between both Orthodoxy and Roman catholicism. When we look at certain ‘Doctors’ of the Roman faith, such as Catherine of Siena (fourteenth century) and Teresa of Avila (sixteenth century), we see—per professor Osipov—spiritual prelest, an open door to demonic deception, and an assurance of glory that rivals Christ himself.

Of Teresa specifically, psychologist William James once wrote:

[H]er understanding of religion was reduced to endless flirting between the worshipper and the deity.

This is no exaggeration, with Teresa herself revealing innumerable ‘flirtations’:

From this day you will be My spouse . . . From now on I am not only your Creator, God, but also the Spouse . . . The Beloved calls my soul with such penetrating whistle that I cannot overhear it. This call so touches the soul that it breaks down with desire. —Spanish Mystics, p. 88

In a drawn contrast, Osipov numbers great ascetics of the Orthodox tradition who spend their entire lives asking for yet one more day to repent. At the end of his life, Francis of Assisi remarks, “I do not know any transgression of mine that I have not atoned by confession and repentance,” while St. Sisoes of Egypt laments: “Verily, I do not know, if I have at least started the cause of my repentance.”

The mystical theologians of the Orthodox ‘East’ have routinely condemned this prelest or spiritual ‘flirtation,’ so exemplified by the doctors and saints of Rome. For example, in the writings of St. Nilus of Sinai:

Do not desire to see sensually Angels or Virtues, or Christ, otherwise you’ll go mad taking a wolf for the shepherd and bowing to demon-enemies. —153 Chapters on Prayer 115 (Philokalia, vol. 2)

And again, in St. Gregory of Sinai:

Never accept things when you see something sensual or spiritual, inside or outside, even if it has an image of Christ or an angel or a certain saint . . . The one who accepts it easily gets seduced . . . God does not resent one being attentive to himself, if one fearing to get seduced does not accept what He gives . . . but rather praises him as a wise one. —Hesychast Instruction (Philokalia, vol. 5)

Osipov concludes:

Unfortunately, the Catholic church has lost the art to distinguish the spiritual from the sensual, and sanctity from reveries, and thus also Christianity from paganism.

Since the 1970s, and especially since the fall of the Iron Curtain, dialogue between Rome and Orthodoxy has accelerated at an expected, and even profitable level. Many concessions have been made on the part of the Vatican with respect to the Filioque clause, for example, while a rediscovery of the Greek fathers has influenced Roman theologians like Benedict XVI, the (rare) Pope emeritus. A full transformation is far from reality, but the theological ‘direction’ of Rome is more ad Orientem than ever before.

Nevertheless, the walls that divide are real. They are neither the mere fantasies of ‘extremists’ nor the hobby horses of ‘radical traditionalists.’ A divide between both Rome and the East is palpable; it is definable; it can be clearly laid out and explained. Despite all of the advances in recent memory, there are real, meaningful, and importantdistinctions between Roman catholicism and the holy, apostolic, Orthodox-Catholic Church of the Christian ‘East.’

Many would immediately draw these distinctions by looking to the age-old signs: the Filioque clause, the mandated celibacy of clergy, azymes vs. the leavened artos of the New Testament, Papal supremacy/infallibility—and so on. But I tend to think the differences are more subtle and yet, strangely, more infectious.

The differences of both doctrine and piety lie not solely between altered Creeds and disputed Councils, but in our affirmations of who best represent our respective faiths.

Reveal your Saints, and you reveal your Church. And in this conversation, a difference between ‘East’ and ‘West’ could not be more pronounced.

See also
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis Sign Joint Declaration Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis Sign Joint Declaration Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis Sign Joint Declaration Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis Sign Joint Declaration
Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew signed a Joint Declaration with consequential importance for Christian unity and momentous impact on the suffering of Christians in the Middle East.
Ecumenism one focus of Orthodox patriarch's visit Ecumenism one focus of Orthodox patriarch's visit Ecumenism one focus of Orthodox patriarch's visit Ecumenism one focus of Orthodox patriarch's visit
The leader of the Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, is officially in Germany for a ten-day pastoral visit. However, political dimensions of his trip are evident.
Life and Miracles of St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco—One of the Greatest Saints of the 20th Century Life and Miracles of St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco—One of the Greatest Saints of the 20th Century
Bishop Alexander (Mileant)
Life and Miracles of St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco—One of the Greatest Saints of the 20th Century Life and Miracles of St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco—One of the Greatest Saints of the 20th Century
Bishop Alexander (Mileant)
"Sanctity is not just a virtue. It is an attainment of such spiritual heights, that the abundance of God's grace which fills the saint overflows on all who associate with him. Great is the saint's state of bliss in which they dwell contemplating the Glory of God. Being filled with love for God and man, they are responsive to man's needs, interceding before God and helping those who turn to them." Thus describing the ancient Saints, Vladyka John simultaneously summarized his own spiritual attitude which made him one of the greatest Saints of our time.
Comments
Justina9/27/2015 4:23 pm
Jerome, when you RC stop the hypocrisy of "annullments" which hypothetically could be more than three or four, and admit you are doing divorces, you might have credibility as at least capable of honesty.
Ross Berry7/8/2014 9:36 pm
One could also look to philosophers, instead of saints. The East followed Plato and innate knowledge, the West, Aristotle. Another way to look at this is innate, inductive, a posteriori, left brain, effects; versus empirical, deductive, a priori, right brain, causes. I wonder if a balance can't be found in the antinomialism of the two natures of Christ, or the Transcendence versus Immanence of the Godhead. Saint John Paul II said that the church has to breathe with both lungs. Similarly, perhaps it has to think with both sides of the brain. Perhaps these saints aren't so much wrong as complementary. Just as Eve (Zoe, Life) was made as a complement to Adam (Red Earth, Dead Dirt). God gave life to dead dirt. In the same way, perhaps, Gregory of Nyssa can meet Saint Thomas Aquinas. Or, as in El Greco's painting, Saint Andrew can meet Saint Francis.
Jerome5/26/2014 1:26 pm
"Unfortunately, the Catholic church has lost the art to distinguish the spiritual from the sensual, and sanctity from reveries, and thus also Christianity from paganism." When the Orthodox abandon their longstanding practice of trigamous marital morality (divorce and two potential "remarriages"), which is paganism and neither Christ's clear words nor Christian morality, then Catholics might start to take them seriously when they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24) by making it their daily business to go looking for polemical statements to make about spiritualities (which are secondary to the Divine Law, the latter of which Christ said there is no entering heaven without observing) while not taking the massive beam out of their line of vision (Matthew 7:5). Especially when St. Teresa of Avila is merely repeating the theology of the Song of Songs which signifies the Church as Spotless Virgin Bride of Christ, of which consecrated nuns are most certainly themselves a type as well as brides of Christ. If that's pagan, then a ball is a square. On the contrary, it is the Orthodox if anyone in this picture who have lost the art to distinguish paganism from Christianity, in ways important enough to run directly contrary to the plain and clear words of Christ, and might I add the "consensus of the fathers" which some Orthodox only invoke when convenient, but refuse to follow in its true entirety.
Walt Garlington5/26/2014 2:49 am
Mr Martini, Thank you for this article. Briefly, how would you apply this to Protestant churches? Walt
Steven5/24/2014 7:45 pm
Is there an English translation available of Professor Osiprov's lecture available?
Len 5/24/2014 6:47 pm
The good professor's points are noted however, those that wish to keep separate the people of God from one another may best recall, "Professing to be wise, they became fools.....". (Romans 1:22)
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 700 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook , or enter your information:
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 700

×