the cuppboard

badwolfcomplex:

In Defense of the Catholic Church Against the Polemics of James Likoudis

cuppboard:

Very interesting post. The author writes:

In this post I shall defend the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Church against the criticism levied by the Roman polemicist James Likoudis, a “convert” from Greek Orthodoxy.  This article was published in an arch-traditionalist journal based in St. Paul, The Wanderer, the radicalism of which I have come to dislike despite its old opposition to the Americanist heresy perpetrated by Archbishop John Ireland (who was also destroyer of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America and real founder of the Orthodox Church of America).  

The following quote was particularly powerful to me, and articulated schism in revealing way (emphasis mine): 

[You cannot artificially parse the Byzantine tradition into its pre-1054 “Catholic” phase and its later “dissident” phase.  It is a seamless garment, one which we accept the fullness of.  The later natural and organic developments explain and clarify the earlier ones.  There is no rupture or disjunction in the Byzantine tradition.  Likoudis, not Fr. Gurovich, is the one confused here.  And Likoudis is to be blamed for his polemics working in opposition to Christian unity in violation of the truth.  He is disseminating error, driving a wedge of separation where none really exists, and putting himself in opposition to the Eastern Churches including those with whom he is in communion as well as those whose reconciliation the mind of the Church ardently desires.  Schism is not something that we can unilaterally blame on those who ended up in separation from Rome - schism between Churches is not a complete cutting-off from the Body of Christ as it is in St. Jerome’s definition (which is rebellion against one’s lawful bishop), but rather a shameful and unacceptable wound BETWEEN bishops.  As Kyr Elias Zoghby of thrice-blessed memory pointed out, “we are all schismatics” - not just the Orthodox.  We are in schism from them just as much as they are in schism from us, and woe to those who wallow self-satisfied in their pride because they ended up in communion with the Rock upon which Christ built His Church and with whom communion is necessary for salvation - you are still your brother’s keeper, and you are still in schism from those cut off from that Rock, and in schism from fellow Christians to whom the duty of charity obliges communion.  A Roman Catholic can fall into danger of being is just as much guilty of schism as St. Photios or anyone else, for as St. Thomas Aquinas declares, those who relish in division and separation are just as much schismatics as those who engage in it.  On theological questions, matters of the intellect moreso than the will, let us give the benefit of the doubt, but here Likoudis is simply wrong.  And he is wrong on a matter of grave importance, concerning nothing less than the wound splitting the Heart of Christ in two.]

I would love to hear any thoughts on this article. It certainly helped me clarify the way I think about the different Catholic Rites and their relationship with the Orthodox Church. 

I haven’t read the whole article or its commentary yet—I plan to—but let me say something about the commentator.

I know the guy who writes this blog. I promoted him, ages ago. He has a lot of great things to say about the unity and relationship between Catholics and Orthodox, among other things, but he also has an arrogance problem the size of Saturn.

Allow me to illustrate: Recently, there was some confusion over a charismatic Catholic group called the Neo-Cathechumenal Way. If the charges leveled against their practices are true, they are heretics of the worst sort. Pope Benedict, orthodox to the core, staunch defender of all things Traditional, the head of the universal Church to whom all Catholics owe their obedience for his office even if he personally is int he wrong, recently approved their charism. Critics of Benedict, including this guy, simply exploded, going on about how the pope is giving license to heresy, how the Church is heretical, and threatened to no longer remain in communion with him, etc etc etc.

And then—whoops! Of course the pope wasn’t approving heresy. He approved their original charism and issued stern warnings against the alleged abuses and liberties they were taking, reaffirming the orthodox faith in all ways and no uncertain terms. The point being, as he has shown me in real life over and over again, this guy affirms the authority of the pope when it suits him. He likes to talk about how, no longer being Protestant, he’s not his “own pope,” but he filters everything about Rome and the Primacy of Peter through his own personal standards of what’s “best.” Nor can you debate with him—he cares less for truth than being right. He also thinks he can lecture at length about how Rome has no business regulating the lifestyles of Eastern rite priests, because Eastern churches are autonomous in that way, and then turns around and defends the East dictating to the West that priests “simply shouldn’t” be celibate. 

I say none of this to invalidate what are his likely quite valid critiques of the article, but to point out that someone who tries to acknowledge the pope’s legitimate and universal authority and then in the same breath defends the idea that the pope has absolutely no say in the affairs of Eastern churches or doctrine—which is, after all, supposed to be one, universal truth—is arguing for a contradiction in terms and working from a serious double-standard. Don’t let him deceive you into thinking that one can defy the pope’s legitimate authority and remain in legitimate and full communion with the Universal Church.

I used to have a lot of respect for this guy, I really did. He’s intelligent, well-read, and articulate—far more so than me. But he continually pushes his own anti-Western/Roman polemic and freely dances on to the schism line when he thinks it’s up to him to determine how wrong the Church against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail” is—and no amount of redefining schism as “mutual” will change the fact that, while mutual human hurts and wrongs there certainly are, to define the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as in schism with itself is to deny the unity that Christ proclaimed when he invested Simon as the foundation Rock.

I had no intention of bringing this up on tumblr, but since this article was posted, it might as well be said. TL;DR: He’s arrogant enough to think whatever his opinions are is where true orthodoxy lies, has a huge chip on shoulder about the Latin Church, and therefore anything he says about the primacy of Rome has to be taken with a large grain of salt.

I’m sure your real life encounter trumps what admittedly little experience I’ve had with him via blogs, so I’ll put this here so that others who follow my tumblr can be aware of your concerns.  I will say that I personally have never had any issues with him, and he’s been nothing but informative and civil to me. However, I am certainly no theologian, so I might not pick up on any of the issues Q mentioned. 

I must say though — on his blog, he states he is a 22-year-old grad student. Don’t ALL of them have major arrogance issues? ;)