www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Liberal and weak clergy

Dear Friends,

Theologians aren't the real culprits - liberalism isn't confined to them.

A friend of mine who teaches at a RC high school (and is an Orthodox priest himself) took me to their chapel ( and this is supposedly a snooty independent school ) to show me circles on its floor that are used for meditation exercises (I forget what that is called).

A student in my religion class told me his weekday religion teacher taught that Christ's raising the widow's son from the dead need not have been an actual miracle - the young fellow could have been asleep etc. (!)

Theological liberalism is something that can grip the Church throughout.

It makes itself "respectable" by being seen to be tied to social liberalism and activism, as if the former were a necessary foundation for the latter.

But I would propose the such liberalism is less keenly felt in Orthodoxy than in contemporary RCism.

Do you think this is true? Do you think RC's join Orthodoxy sometimes in reaction against liberalism in their Church? Is there anything about the approach to faith in Orthodoxy that makes it a less safe place for theological liberalism to sprout and develop?

Alex

You may have a point, Alex, about RC motivation for joining Orthodoxy. And it does seem that Orthodoxy has less tolerance for anything that doesn't fit with Tradition. However, I have met Orthodox individuals who are just as secular as any RCs I have encountered.

Dear Charles,

FOR SURE!

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Charles,

But "secular" and "theologically liberal" are two separate fish, are they not?

The former has basically rejected all religion or most of it.

The latter has a particular interpretation of religion and, I would add, wishes to impose it on the entire Church.

Would you agree?

Alex

Hi Alex,

I am not Charles, but you are ofcourse more than correct! The theologically liberal Orthodox generally don't impose their mentality on the Church...although I have heard subtle heretical theology from some Greek Orthodox theological profs and bishops.

The problem is that one needs to be very well catechised to have the discernment to pick this up.

In Christ,
Alice, who asks pardon for adding her two cents!

(with Gaudior back, I couldn't resist the temptation to borrow the unique 'Gaudiorism' style of closing! )

We must not forget how many who consider themselves theologically conservative are also causing problems within the church. They see theological questions as having only one answer (usually in RC churches, a Thomist answer), and will ridicule and question the hierarchy if the hierarchy does not meet their narrow theological view. This causes even more problems because they then confuse many of faithful, and help continue the disregard for the hierarchy in a way which is far worse, imo, than the so-called liberal. Why? Because they claim to be more "authentic" while a so-called liberal will often acknowledge the speculative nature of their exercise.

To quote Solovyov's representation of Socrates' reaction to the conservatives and sophists (liberals of his day):

I had a feeling that the 'L' word would get misinterpreted here! :rolleyes:

Perhaps we should use the word 'modernism' or 'heresy'. What I heard from one bishop's mouth to a group of rich people: "you are all good people who don't need confession" was pure heresy as far as I am concerned....

Alice

Good point, Alice. Can we not say our God who loves mankind is liberal in love and mercy?

One of the Optina Elders at the turn of the century, when asked by a learned man about the Enlightenment, modern philosophical thought, conservative vs. liberal, etc. The starets simply replied, chotki in hand, that as a Christian we should conserve all that is beautiful and true that has been given to us through our faith, and be as liberal in love and charity as we can be.

Alice,

But the problem is that "conservatives" can also be heretics, and in general, form theological opinions which are every bit as influenced by the modernists they claim to oppose. They allow the so-called modernists to call the shots, and they just reverse everything stated, becoming the other side of a wrong coin.

So it is even better not to say "liberal" means "heretic." We must not forget the Donatists thought St Augustine was "liberal." Yet who was the heretic?

Dear Diak,

Well, that kind of 'liberalism' is truly a good thing!!!

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Henry,

I think that we agree?

'Liberal' as we commonly use it in today's Orthodox vernacular, usually means reinterpreting and changing holy traditions and theology.(for instance, the bishop who told that group of rich people that they were good and didn't need confession, has also implied that all people are going to heaven--he was generally thought of as a 'liberal', though thank God, in his old age, he seems to have gone back to traditional Orthodox practice and theology)

I can see the misinterpretation, so I suggested using other words.

Perhaps many of us are interchanging or confusing political implications with ecclesial implications?

Oh--this is SO confusing! You know who the master of confusion is, so let's all agree to understand what the other is saying!

In Christ,
Alice, who thinks that this may all be a matter of semantics?

Dear Henry,

Some Orthodox and others would say, "Both!"

Alex

ROFL

Agreed. I dislike the use of political terms in the Church and I think they're wholly inappropriate. The Magisterium is very broad it permits for all sorts of interpretations and manifesations of piety. From my opinion liberal and conservative are terms that should be restricted to those who flagrantly disagree the magisterium. The former title we can apply to those who participate in mock ordinations of women and the latter those who reject the Second Vatican Council etc. For a Catholic, faithfulness is to agree with the doctrine of the See of Rome. Deviance either right or left is heresy and from that point onwards you can call it what you want. But before that its merely Catholic.

Alex,

Terms like "liberal" or "conservative" isn't the issue, though many are taught to convey the problem in such terms. They have too much of a political meaning in them. Their meaning also changes with the times. Last century's "liberalism" is today's "conservativism."

In the past, the terms most likely to be used was either "orthodox" and "orthopraxis" and, of course, "heterodox." Either a person (church teacher, cleric, bishop, layman or woman) teaches with the mind of the church or he/she doesn't. One is either orthodox or one is not.

But first define "orthodoxy" and then we can go from there.

Many folks have a a-hierarchical understanding of dogma and praxis. EVERYTHING is important. Whether Father incenses the entire church before liturgy is as important as Father teaching that Mary, the Theotokos, is the fourth person of the Trinity (or Quadinity). Unfortunately, most will probably leave the church due to any changes to the former than the latter.

But the Church entrusts its clergy, teachers, and bishops to teach orthodox doctrine. If it can't find a voice there then those people who know how the Holy Spirit can be impended will leave for their spiritual welfare. A lack of orthopraxis may be a symptom of lack of orthodoxy. But this is a big maybe. Unfortunately, many folks even leave when the clergy ARE doing what is right, liturgically, spiritually, doctrinally, and in discipline.

Everyone has a tendency to pick their battles. Whether the battle deals with putting on armor for Christ is another story.

Here is my challenge: Can we talk about this without using such terms like "liberal" and/or "conservative?" I dare you. Many may feel comfortable with political terms. But a church can include many people of different political persuasions. And many people over the course of history within the same church have also killed each other over politics. Maybe terms like "orthodoxy" and "heterodoxy" (Aaaaaghhh!) are too 'politically' incorrect and, therefore, speak of a higher reality that goes beyond our social politics?

Joe