The City and the City

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has made a press release stating that the reports that the EP favored dual-communion for Greek Catholics was false. That makes everything in a prior post become mere silly speculation, but that was expected. [via Eirenikon]

Rather than embarassingly gushing about the film any more than I have, I should probably instead take a hint from Peter Suderman and simply tell you that it is highly unlikely that there will be any film released this year that will be better than WALL·E.

While it would take a review to explain why I feel the film is relevant to this blog, I will instead only say that I would be happy to discuss the movie in the combox… and that it made me draw parallels between unreflective consumerism and the gnostic denial of the body.

First, a few links:

“Russian Church Stands against Human Rights”, Komersant (June 23)

“The Russian Orthodox Church refines its human rights conception in the run-up to the Bishops Council”, Russian Orthodox Representation to the European Institutions (June 23)

“Metropolitan Kirill: Caution of many Orthodox Christians speaking of human rights is justified”, Russian Orthodox Representation to the European Insitutions (June 29)

(There must be some apology for the quality of the translation of those last two; French versions are also available on their website.)

In the West, there are those among traditional Christians who long for a return to pre-modern naivete regarding the existence of God. (I’m going to be summoning up Charles Taylor here, to a degree.) They want to return to an order of things were belief in God is an unchallengable default; in a lot of ways, this is appealing when compared to modern and post-modern despair regarding the place of the human being within the world. Liberals influenced by post-modernism’s interior critique have taken this idea in a different angle: Traditional societies have a right to protect themselves from this modern disassociation (this is the intellectual current behind many defenses of Islamic terrorism). In the case of Russia, however, talking about human rights as allowing for behaviors that could undo society is rather like protesting once the cat is out of the bag. While certain aspects of public morality were still tightly controlled under the USSR, in every other way, the Russians have already been down the modern path much farther than most other peoples.

It must be remembered, however, that the “human rights” discussed here include things Americans take for granted. When we discusss, in this country, drawing a line in the sand over individual autonomy, it is usually over societal questions such as homosexual marriage or abortion. While the reaction against the Enlightenment has produced some persons here who wish the whole language of human rights and liberties would disappear altogether, this is still a small minority. While the plural of anecdote is not data, I do find it very interesting that I have seen more Ron Paul bumper stickers in Orthodox parish parking lots than those for all other candidates combined (yes, I do keep running counts), placing them in somewhat the opposite direction. And, in the interest of full-disclosure, while I’m not the bumper-sticker type, I also supported Dr. Paul’s candidacy.

I suppose what I’m asking for here is a discussion: Where should Christianity draw lines over how much freedom we believe that governments should grant persons?

It’s worth noting that you can never trust media reports of ecclesial news before this discussion begins. However, “Eirenikon” points out this bit of odd news from the EP.

Given the context of the current issues between Constantinople and Moscow, it seems unlikely that any such move would have much headway. The MP would read it as a way for the EP to extend its influence into areas (read: the Ukraine) that the MP thinks of as its soveriegn territory. Issues of nationalism are not yet alien to Orthodox ecclesial politics (as the struggle over the recognition of the Estonian Church, for example, betrays).

However, let’s take the statement at face value. What good could this sort of inter-communion without resolution of the outstanding issues bring other than a simple subordination of Orthodox interests? These are not articles of reunion, so there is no betrayal of Orthodoxy’s independence and theology as was found in Florence, but it does pose an interesting question: Does the EP believe (as some experts on the situation do) that the Great Schism is in fact no schism at all, but a lapse of communion?

Now, nothing will come of it if he does, but support and explication of such a view would lend it some power over the long term. I am sympathetic to it, but not being expert, clergyman or activist, my feelings are of little import. The basics of the view are this: The formal excommunications of 1054 were lifted; Orthodox and Catholics continued to inter-commune well into the 15th century in most places and into the 18th in a few; actions such as the councils of reunion presupposed that both bodies were the Church. Furthermore, I should note, the ancient ecumenical councils included proponents of both viewpoints; it was not until the issues were settled that supporters were anathametized. It is perhaps only through a true ecumenical council (it does not take an Orthodox observer of history to realize that the councils of union were not held on even ground) that the issues could ever be discussed in a fruitful manner. The current wine and cheese ecumenicalism is just a hobby for clergymen taken at the expense of the people of God.

Now, it is worth to note for non-Orthodox readers that if the EP supported such a thing, it means very little. Rank-and-file Orthodox (not just the “convert Orthodox” that Eirenikon oddly mentions) are very suspicious of ecumenical moves. I remember one Russian man telling me that the EP was no Orthodox bishop at all for the respect and honor given to the Pope in his visit to Constantinople. I understand this deep suspicion, even if I am both a convert and an American (and thus have a short memory for historical grudges).  The fact that this story involves the painful situation of the Uniates makes it even more unlikely to bear good fruit in the near future. It is the mere possibility that such a view is held by a prominent Orthodox bishop (and possibly the last EP to reside in what was once Constantinople) that makes this story potentially remarkable.

However, in the coming days, if the story does turn out to be substantially accurate, please take all optimistic hyperventilations with a grain of salt. While I don’t believe–as many do–that the problems are insurmountable and that both parties have “backed themselves into a corner” (I am, despite my failings, a Christian, so I believe in miracles–specifically the miracle of the Holy Ghost’s guidance of the Church), it is best to be a bit pessimistic, while retaining Christian optimism.

I believe G.K. Chesterton would agree.

While I very much hope the latest rumors concerning Rome and the Traditional Anglican Communion are true, I doubt it. I go to a TAC parish (one with a resident bishop) and was just talking with the curate last week about the topic. I asked if there had been any recent news, and he said there hadn’t, and didn’t seem to expect any anytime soon. So I expect any post-Lambeth announcement would come as a surprise to the bishops of TAC.

(either that, or they’re really good at keeping secrets)