RedState.Org recently ran three book reviews of Thomas Woods’ How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t comment on it, but I have read the three book reviews, and I can comment on them. Each had serious flaws, but the first was of truly notable merit. Let’s read . . . .
JOSH TREVINO:
"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," by Thomas Woods, PhD, is a book masquerading as a necessary corrective that reveals itself as an inadequate one; and a serious work of history marred by some deeply unserious historiography. By which I mean that I disagree with it theologically. The author’s stated intent is to counter much of the calumny which has befallen the institution of Catholicism in the modern era — specifically the calumny that it is and has always been an anti-modernist, anti-science, anti-humanist force — and in this, his approach makes the fatal errors of answering the critics on their own terms, and adopting Catholic historical prejudice to a degree that weakens his broader argument. Allow me to smear Catholics up front by referring univocally to "Catholic historical prejudice." I’m still an unbiased arbiter of history, myself, though.
It is the latter flaw that we turn to first. Those familiar with Church history know that <scare quotes>"Catholicism"</scare quotes> as we understand it was a concept that emerged in nascent form only with the progressive divergence of the Greek and Latin Churches between the 11th and 15th centuries; the Catholic Church as we know it in the modern era did not emerge until roughly the 16th century.
When I refer to Catholicism as "we" know it, the "we" in question is, of course, myself and my cat, Tibbles. Tibbles is an expert on such matters and assures me that the word "Catholic" wasn’t even used until roughly the sixteenth century. There was no consciousness of the Catholic Church as a distinct institution prior to that time. In fact, Tibbles’ papyrological studies have revealed that the quotations attributed to St. Augustine in the fourth century displaying a clear institutional awareness of the Catholic Church in contrast to other churches are, in fact, forgeries salted into the historical record by tricky papists.
The same goes for all the other evidence for the existence of the institution today called "the Catholic Church" prior to the sixteenth century. The Protestant Reformers may have thought that they were protesting against an institution known as "the Catholic Church" that had been around for centuries, but in fact it had only been in existence for a few weeks, following an extensive salting campaign undertaken as part of a hoax stemming from a college fraternity’s hazing rite. Please see Tibbles’ doctoral disseration for the references.
This latter Church development, mostly codified in the Council of Trent, came about as the Church defined itself against a Protestant Reformation. When I say "codified," I mean "made up out of thin air" rather than "confirming what was already in existence, against which Protestants were protesting."
whichProtestantism emerged as something rather different from, and more lasting than, previous anti-hierarchical rebellions such as Arianism, Donatism, and the Cathar and Hussite movements. By "anti-hierarchical" I don’t mean "against hierarchy," for each of these groups had bishops.So, when we–Tibbles and I–speak of Catholicism as understood as that Christian church led by the Pope in Rome and governed by his clerical and bureaucratic apparatus, we are certainly not speaking of the historical Church from the time of St Peter to the modern day. For there were no popes in Rome prior to roughly the sixteenth century, nor did they have any clerics associated with them nor any bureaucratic apparatus. Tibbles has shown that all the alleged "records" of such individuals are fake.
NSurprisingly, none of this seems to matter to Wood. It is as if he is completely unaware of Tibbles’ brilliant work in this area. The great accomplishments of the fourth through eleventh centuries, when the Church — and specifically the monastic communities — essentially alone preserved the civilizational heritage of antiquity, are presented as specifically Catholic accomplishments. The nerve! It is as if Woods really believes the records purporting to show that the monastic communities of the fourth through the eleventh centuries regarded themselves as Catholic institutions!This is fundamentally inaccurate on several counts, most notably in that much of the preservation of the Roman and Greek corpus took place in imperial Constantinople, certainly never a location within the orbit of the Bishop of Rome. Yes, Constantinople was never within the "orbit" of the Bishop of Rome. Not even before the East-West Schism, when the Rome and Constantinople were in communion and councils like the First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) were saying things like: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome" (canon 3).
(Excepting, of course, a rather regrettable sixty years or so beginning 1204, which Woods sensibly omits as an accomplishment of the Catholic Church since it would harm my case.) Indeed, following the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453, the arrival of these preserved manuscripts in the baggage of Greek refugees was a major spur to the Renaissance in Italy. See! The fact that post-schism Byzantines preserved manuscripts important to Western civilization ipso facto disproves the idea that the Catholic Church had anything to do with it!
The reality is that the preservation of civilization in Europe during the Dark Ages and medieval era, while creditable to Christianity at large, was not exclusively, nor even mostly, the doing of the Pope or a Catholicism that did not then exist. By way of parallel, it is wrong to credit to the United States the spread of democracy in the world during an age of monarchy, beginning with the American Revolution. The U.S. as Tibbles and I know it today did not exist in 1776 for there were only thirteen states at the time, its people spoke a now archaic form of English, and they were far less democratic than we are. It was only with the Warren Court that what we now call "America" became truly democratic, and thus it is a category mistake to attribute any democratizing influence in the world to an America that did not then exist.
When "we" speak of America, we mean America since the Warren Court, just as when "we" speak of the Catholic Church, we mean the Catholic Church since the sixteenth century. Tibbles and I are entitled to do this since, as Humpy Dumpty told Alice, "When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less."
In certain tea parties that Tibbles and I frequent in modern-day Christian Orthodoxy there is a certain (misguided, to my mind) nostalgia for "Western Orthodoxy," which is defined as the Latin or "Western" rites as they existed prior to the late-medieval split between Constantinople and Rome. According to this thesis, prior to that, all Christendom was "Orthodox," and hence we can discuss St Patrick of Ireland, for example, as an Orthodox saint. While there is theological validity to this, it is a dishonest reading of history. Historical dishonesty thus can be theologically valid. — St Patrick almost certainly never looked to the Constantinopolitan Patriarch for guidance, for example — and it is also an misleading interpretation of cultural heritage, for nobody should be allowed to take pride in anything that the West has ever done. Westerners must only execrate their ancestors and laud the glories of Byzantium.
The consequent establishment of "Western Orthodox" parishes in the United States and Britain, which utilize various forms of liturgy extant in the churches of the era of the Venerable Bede, is based upon this false appropriation. Westerners must repudiate all of their own liturgical heritage and adhere strictly to the one, true form of liturgy as practiced in Constantinople, "where also their Lord was crucified."
Woods is guilty of precisely this same error from the Catholic side: his interpretation of history, and specifically his presentation of Catholicism through the medieval era, leads inevitably — though he shrinks from making this point explicit — to the concept of a pre-split "Catholic Greece," among other things. I mean, just because both East and West regarded themselves as being part of one Church prior to the split, and just because that Church was commonly called the "Catholic" Church in that age, and just because it had the bishop of Rome as its foremost bishop according to the First Council of Constantinople (among others), that in no way allows a Catholic to lay any kind of claim to the heritage of this age!
It ill-befits any person from any Christian tradition to posit such a <adjectival meltdown>thinly-defensible, revisionist, and ahistorically exclusionist</adjectival meltdown> interpretation of Church history. By which I mean: I disagree with Woods theologically. I hold it as a theological truth that the Church before the split was Orthodox rather than Catholic. Woods therefore must be wrong historically. If the evidence is against me, so be it. As I’ve already established, historical dishonesty can be theologically valid.
Now, let me be up-front and state that I am coming at this from an Orthodox perspective. Yes! Disclosing one’s point of view half-way through a piece is being "up front" about it! I hope, though, that the reader finds that the argument against this manner of historiography stands on its own.
The second major flaw in Woods’ book stems from the first. <syntactical meltdown>In claiming all things for Catholicism, and in concurrently expanding Catholicism to claim those things he wishes to claim, he of necessity does so according to that which he wishes to refute.</syntactical meltdown> Woods finds the charge that the Church is a retarding force in the development of modern civilization — specifically modern science, which seizes his attention, and hence his book, to a great degree — to be one that eminently deserves answering. All of which is just to say: He wants to show that the Catholic Church isn’t anti-science.
His implicit acceptance of the equating of science with civilization (I have to say "implicit" acceptance because if I didn’t then he’d protest that he hasn’t equated science with civilization and that I am setting up a straw man), and his explicit acceptance that the Church may be justified on these terms (whatever that means), are both profoundly wrong.
This is not the place to examine in full the contention that science is an independent, self-justifying value (since Woods presumably didn’t claim this), or the contention that science is itself an independent, self-justifying indicator of civilization (which Woods presumably also didn’t claim). It is enough to say that the Catholic Church and Christianity at large reject both these views. They are thus irrelevant to the matter at hand. I only mention them so I can dazzle the reader with my sparkling philosophical prose.
Modern Catholicism quite laudably espouses the position that, as a Catholic priest from my own childhood explained, "Good science and good faith do not conflict." This begs the question of what constitutes "good science." Certainly there is quite a lot of bad science: the Dachau hypothermia experiments, the eugenics movement, and the Tuskegee experiments are only the tip of that iceberg. Particularly in an era where science is pushing the frontiers of human control — although not human wisdom — ever further, it is the Church that has frequently been the loudest voice in reminding society that knowledge is not an end in itself, and that its application is not inherently useful, wise or right. In a faith the holy text of which begins with an allegory of unwise knowledge and its consequences, this is in keeping with its most ancient intellectual traditions. That they are still applicable and cautionary thousands of years after that allegory’s first telling is a testament to the enduring nature of man and his folly.
One searches in vain for this recognition in Woods’ book. Instead, we are treated to a proud catalogue of mostly monastic and Jesuit accomplishments in science and technology. How dare Woods try to prove that the Church isn’t anti-science without mentioning my personal hobby-horse on the subject! Tibbles is outraged and spitting up hairballs!
These in themselves are good things inasmuch as they demonstrate that the Church is not a wholly malign force in the temporal world, pace the attacks of its critics. But Woods appears to forget that the Church is not justified by those things. This is a subtle point. When I first read Woods, I missed it, thinking that he was merely conducting a negative apologia–showing that the charge of the Church being anti-science is false. But Tibbles’ careful reading of the text revealed that Woods was actually doing a positive apologia, claiming that people ought to be Catholic because of how much good science the Church has done! He thus forgets that the Church is not justified by how much good science it’s done!
iIndeed, from the standpoint of the believer, the Church in the world is justified by the simple act of belief and the promulgation of the worship of Christ. All those miracles and fulfilled prophecies that Jesus and St. Paul so keen about were just a waste of time. To justify it on any other terms — say, a clever tenth-century Benedictine integration of waterwheels and trip-hammers, or a useful seventeenth-century Jesuit advance in lens-grinding — is to implicitly accede to the secularist contention that it is material betterment that is the bellwether of human progress, and the moral justifier of institutions. In this, the Church in the modern era will lose, and lose badly: no local parish is the equal of the supermarket in the provision of bread to the masses; no bishop alive has utilized waterpower so well as does the Tennessee Valley Authority.Why, then, does Woods keep telling us that we ought to be Catholic because it will give us technological doo-dads and material prosperity? I mean, I haven’t seen this kind of pro-technology apologetic for Catholicism since John Paul II wrote his most recent encyclical on the virtues of consumerism and the sacramental character of shopping at Best Buy!
Useful social advancement based upon the rational satisfaction of material needs is, of course, the basis of the domestication of dogs, just as the law of gravitation operating between bodies that have mass in the Einsteinan space-time continuum is, of course, the basis of why a domesticated dog will drop to the ground if you suddently disintegrate his legs. It is not what distinguishes nor what "built Western Civilization," nor, one hopes, is it the purpose of man on earth. Not that Woods said it was those things. I’m just showing off my sparklingly intellectual prose again.
It is that transcendent need to define and achieve that purpose–i.e., the purpose of man on earth–that the Church, and religion in general, presumably seeks to fulfill; and if it is to be justified, it must be on those terms. It is the task of the Church’s apologists to do so, and to argue that that transcendence has not lost an iota of its relevance in our era. Tibbles therefore decrees that it is superfluous and counter-productive for a person to write a book on the Catholic Church’s role in the building of Western Civilization. The only books that should be written are those showing the value of transcendence in the world today!
Thomas Woods shows how well the Catholic Church, as defined by him and most of mankind, has delivered on those material needs for millennia. Fine, say the critics he attempts to refute: can we not accomplish this today by means of a government program without this Jesus baggage? There is no good answer to this question in this book since it was not a book about proposed government programs. Since it is the crucial question of the modern age, it is an omission that reduces Woods’ work from a serious apologia to a collection of trivia–a charge that can be equally leveled against any book published today that is not an apologia based on the value of transcendance in modern society contra irreligious government programs. That’s the only kind of book that counts!
I therefore fault the book because the author chose to write on a theme not to my liking.
Tibbles, feeling generous, gives it one hairball out of a possible five.
READ WOODS’ BOOK FOR YOURSELF.
Let’s hope Tibbles chokes on the hair ball next tme he undertakes such scholarship.
How utterly bizarre. Until his “up front” admission that he writes from an <cognitive dissonance quotes>”Orthodox”</cognitive dissonance quotes> perspective, you might easily think (the Constantinople references aside) that he was the most wild-eyed of Fundamentalists. The Catholic Church as we know it today didn’t emerge until the SIXTEENTH CENTURY??!!?! When did Orthodoxy “as we know it” emerge??? Great fisk Jimmy.
This just proves my anti-cat thesis. This explains the great apprehension of letting Pope Benedict’s cats inside.
Jimmy: You really should comment over on RedState.
Oh how I do love the RedFont Report. I laughed so hard I had trouble breathing.
And kudos for the Humpty Dumpty quote.
…cleaning coffee from keyboard due to excessive snorting….
Steven D. Greydanus,
If the writing is in red, the author didn’t say it: its part of Jimmy’s satirical fisking.
Never mind. The author actually said that. My bad.
Not that one wouldn’t ordinarily take such a claim as part of a fisk rather than part of what someone sctually stated (and stated all serious-like).
Hi all.
Now, I don’t think anyone has ever questioned my ultramontane credentials, although I’m sure y’all are about to. But this is the most misguided use of a fisking I’ve ever seen.
As an initial matter, you really need to read the book to appreciate how horrible it is. It has a laudable goal, but the means it uses are ridiculous.
Trevino is Orthodox, a convert from Catholicism. He’s hardly an unyielding Orthodox apologist. Oh, and you might try to find some sort of proof that when he decries that “dishonest reading of history,” he’s actually lauding the idea that the Western Church was Orthodox.
If anything, I think trevino was too kind. Reading the book, and the review, might help you in this regard.
Yikes. And this is from a Republican? I thought that Republicans were a little friendlier to organized religion.
Thomas,
Jimmy was not fisking the review with regards to what was in the book. He was satirizing the voice (I’m sooooo smart) and fact-checking some of the dates/facts used by the reviewer.
This review by Trevino is not all that great a review. It does not tell me how well the book was written, how well sourced and annotated it is, if it was easy to read, or if it got in depth about anything in particular. It didn’t even giving a broad overview of what is covered, beyond what I could learn just from reading the title. This review simply attempts to refute what is in the book. It’s not a review of the book, it’s an attack against the contents of the book.
So, to review the review, I give Trevino 1 star out of 4. He doesn’t explain the good and bad of the book, he just disagrees with various historical points within the book. But at least it gave Jimmy something to work with, and gave us an enjoyable time with Tibbles.
Jimmy, this is great stuff.
Josh
I am almost certain that Tibbles the cat is in the employ of the Easter Bunny.
I’ve never heard of Thomas Crown, but I have heard of Alice von Hildebrand, who gives the book a beautiful back-cover blurb, and I got quite a nice phone call from Scott Hahn on the book, so I suspect I’ll get over this.
Maybe he was, but that doesn’t mean Jimmy was too unkind to Trevino. After all, just as the fact that Woods’s book has a laudable goal doesn’t automatically mean the book isn’t ridiculous (that’s as may be), so the possibility that Trevino’s review might in theory have a laudable goal doesn’t mean that the review isn’t ridiculous.
T. Woods:
I was the subject of a major motion picture. You may have heard of it.
In all seriousness, I’m glad you found someone who wanted the skeleton of an argument for a ninety minute airline flight. I have to admit to being tricked by those back cover blurbs into thinking there was some substance there, so I do credit you with being able to draw such wonderful, if misleading, reviews.
As to the rest: I think you’ve all misread trevino’s words. Badly. But he can defend himself if he so desires.
Tim J: LOL! Yes, Tibbles is without doubt a devotee of the Easter Bunny!
Thomas Crown: Regarding the motion picture, yes, I heard about that Affar. 🙂
Regarding misreading Josh Trevino: I don’t think I misread his claim that “the Catholic Church as we know it in the modern era did not emerge until roughly the 16th century.”
Nor did I misunderstand his claim that “‘Catholicism’ as we understand it was a concept that emerged in nascent form only with the progressive divergence of the Greek and Latin Churches between the 11th and 15th centuries.”
Nor did I misunderstand his use of such claims to block crediting the Catholic Church with civilization-building work done earlier in Church history.
It is, as the fisk suggested, the equivalent of defining “America as we know it today” as beginning with the Warren Court and then denying America credit for any democratizing effects it had earlier in its history.
One cannot take an institution that has existed for a longer stretch of time and then use this kind of arbitrary “as we know it today” move to deny its influence at earlier stages of its history. That is what one would appropriately call “deeply unserious historiography” if one were of a mind to use such high-falutin terms.
Regardless of how an institution has changed over time, the institution either did or did not do certain things. If it did them, they are to be acknowledged as part of its historical patrimony.
I believe that they are about 1400 years off there.
“…St. Ignatius, writing in A.D. 110, called [the universal church] the ‘katholike ecclesia’, giving Catholics their name.”
– TRIUMPH, by H.W. Crocker III, p. 30.
I probably shouldn’t dignify this silliness, as it’s more a product of Akin’s misguided prickliness than any actual attack on the Catholic Church, but there is a nugget here worth responding to, viz.: “Regardless of how an institution has changed over time, the institution either did or did not do certain things. If it did them, they are to be acknowledged as part of its historical patrimony.”
Here we have an entity (the modern Catholic Church) that is a descendant of a preexisting entity (unified Christendom, which considered itself literally both catholic and orthodox) which itself no longer exists. It is not the only descendant, nor does it have claim, by its own lights, to be the sole legitimate descendant. Now, can the accomplishments of the predecessor be claimed as the “historical patrimony” of the various successors? Of course. But here Akin is disingenuous: Woods’ contention is that those accomplishments are not merely “historical patrimony,” but outright accomplishments of the successor per se. He does not differentiate between predecessor and successor at all: a mistaken conflation illustrated easily enough by envisioning Kazakhstan’s commemoration of its defeat of Nazi Germany. Or, as one prefers, by envisioning a book lauding the Orthodox Church’s preservation of knowledge in the West during the Dark Ages. The logic of the book in question readily justifies both.
Another of Woods’ mistakes is to continually assert that the accomplishment of a member of group X is an accomplishment of group X. In reality, this is not always the case: my blogging will go down in history neither as an accomplishment of the Orthodox Church nor the United States of America, despite my affiliation with both entities. But enough said here.
Other strange bits above — Akin’s cat fantasy and his inability to recognize a difference between theological and historical truth among them — I leave to the reader to plod through.
Need it be said, by the bye, Akin may always come on over to Redstate.org and even post a Diary as it pleases him.
“Here we have an entity (the modern Catholic Church) that is a descendant of a preexisting entity (unified Christendom, which considered itself literally both catholic and orthodox) which itself no longer exists.”
Tacitus, please. No Catholic agrees with this false dichotomy. As a convert, let me just say, that we in the Church have a different culture and tradition that is both constant and continually blossoming — as any true culture of God on Earth should.
The Science Before Science by Anthony Rizzi is a great book on this subject. Not only is the author a brilliant scientist, but he is also a brilliant philosopher. The book is incredibly dense but also very clear in tracing the philosophical and historical roots to modern science to the Church philosophy of the sacramental universe (among other, undeniably Catholic philosophies).
Rizzi, however, does not credit the Church as much as he credits Catholic culture for being the fertile flower bed in which modern science took form. He is not alone among other historians, philosophers, and scientists who have published similar books.
The fact that you can take the great wealth of Catholic philosophy and theology all the way back to the time of Christ and still have something that is uniquely Catholic and uniquely applicable to Catholics today speaks louder than your prancing about with made-up dichotomies about Christ’s various failed churches with no real unity despite the fact He wanted a unified Church to act with visible authority as the Earthly branch of the Kingdom of Heaven (aka the ETERNAL Kingdom of David — also created by God).
Or am I mistaken? Is there an ancient BAPTIST text out there that proves the innate holiness of the God-created universe and therefore paving the way for the incarnation, an understanding of the eucharist, and the freedom to study creation as a pursuit to get closer to God?
“Here we have an entity (the modern Catholic Church) that is a descendant of a preexisting entity (unified Christendom, which considered itself literally both catholic and orthodox) which itself no longer exists.”
Tacitus, please. No Catholic agrees with this false dichotomy. As a convert, let me just say, that we in the Church have a different culture and tradition that is both constant and continually blossoming — as any true culture of God on Earth should.
The Science Before Science by Anthony Rizzi is a great book on this subject. Not only is the author a brilliant scientist, but he is also a brilliant philosopher. The book is incredibly dense but also very clear in tracing the philosophical and historical roots to modern science to the Church philosophy of the sacramental universe (among other, undeniably Catholic philosophies).
Rizzi, however, does not credit the Church as much as he credits Catholic culture for being the fertile flower bed in which modern science took form. He is not alone among other historians, philosophers, and scientists who have published similar books.
The fact that you can take the great wealth of Catholic philosophy and theology all the way back to the time of Christ and still have something that is uniquely Catholic and uniquely applicable to Catholics today speaks louder than your prancing about with made-up dichotomies about Christ’s various failed churches with no real unity despite the fact He wanted a unified Church to act with visible authority as the Earthly branch of the Kingdom of Heaven (aka the ETERNAL Kingdom of David — also created by God).
Or am I mistaken? Is there an ancient BAPTIST text out there that proves the innate holiness of the God-created universe and therefore paving the way for the incarnation, an understanding of the eucharist, and the freedom to study creation as a pursuit to get closer to God?
“Here we have an entity (the modern Catholic Church) that is a descendant of a preexisting entity (unified Christendom, which considered itself literally both catholic and orthodox) which itself no longer exists. It is not the only descendant, nor does it have claim, by its own lights, to be the sole legitimate descendant.”
Leaving aside the issue that we dissent from all of this — what do you mean by the comment about its own lights?
Mary, Catholicism recognizes Orthodox sacraments as valid, acknowledges the legitimacy of apostolic succession within Orthodoxy, and allows the Orthodox to receive Communion. (Sadly, many — if not post — Orthodox leaders are too proud to return the favor; certainly a point of Catholic moral superiority in my book.) So by the Catholic Church’s own lights, it is not the sole legitimate heir to the original, unified church of antiquity.
StubbleSpark, I am confident that there are plenty of Catholics who have a perfectly fine grasp of history.
Speaking of sacraments — we recognized baptism by all manner of heretics through the ages. This doesn’t mean that we don’t know the difference between heretics and the Church.
And we do not recognize Orthodox practices, insofar as we do, because they are Orthodox, but because they are Catholic.
The Catholic Church cannot be understood fully from outside. That becomes more and more obvious to me as time goes by (and not just from the comments here).
As for the book–I haven’t read it, but isn’t he rehashing Christopher Dawson?
And we do not recognize Orthodox practices, insofar as we do, because they are Orthodox, but because they are Catholic.
Ah, arrogance: an arrogance that, thankfully, the Catholic Church hierarchy does not appear to share in these matters.
The arrogance is on your part, friend. This position of the Catholic Church has been the same through out the ages. If you don’t believe me, read about Pope Gregory the Great.
This position of the Catholic Church has been the same through out the ages.
The position that that which the Catholic Church approves of is ipso facto Catholic? Heh. How is it that a Church that is so broadly sensible has spawned a cadre of zealots who are not?
“Here we have an entity (the modern Catholic Church) that is a descendant of a preexisting entity (unified Christendom, which considered itself literally both catholic and orthodox) which itself no longer exists. It is not the only descendant, nor does it have claim, by its own lights, to be the sole legitimate descendant.”
First off, this is very wrong. The Church has never relinquished its claim to be that same Church that was the beacon of “unified Christendom”. Yes, this unified Christendom was both “orthodox” and “catholic”, both terms which you still see faithful Catholics use to refer to themselves. (There never was a time wherein Catholics considered themselves just one or the other) As Jimmy points out, in the Council of Constantinople, Constantinople upheld the supremacy of Rome as the see of Peter. Unified Christendom held Rome as supreme, and the bishop of Rome as its Pope. Hence, the pre-schism saying…”Roma locuta, causa finita est”. It was Constantinople that opted out of the deal. They were the ones that broke the communion they swore to uphold by upholding Rome’s supremacy. It is Constantinople that moved away from Rome. Or, even if you claim that it is Rome that moved away, no matter where Rome moves, its supremacy means that Constantinople should’ve followed. The Constantinople of unified Christendom disappeared long before 1453, but Rome remained.
Of course, which brings us to Catholic recognition of Orthodox apostolic succession and sacraments. This should not be taken as a surrender to the legitimate claim of being the sole remnant of that former unified Christendom. The Church only approved within Orthodoxy that which remained unchanged in form and substance from the time before the split. In essence, the Church only acknowledges within Orthodoxy that which was still Catholic. Orthodox doctrine not aligned with Catholic doctrine remains anathema. Rome offered the same deal to Canterbury. Anglican succession was recognized until they started ordaining women. (Married priests are a disciplinary, not a doctrinal, issue.)
“Now, can the accomplishments of the predecessor be claimed as the “historical patrimony” of the various successors? Of course. But here Akin is disingenuous: Woods’ contention is that those accomplishments are not merely “historical patrimony,” but outright accomplishments of the successor per se. He does not differentiate between predecessor and successor at all: a mistaken conflation illustrated easily enough by envisioning Kazakhstan’s commemoration of its defeat of Nazi Germany.”
Ahhh, no, here, it is you, Tacitus, who is being disingenuous, placing a dichotomy where there is none. You make the strange and mistaken assertion that the Church as a grown institution is a different Church, institutionally, spiritually and substantially, than the Church in its institutional infancy. Lest you forget, the man who called the Council of Trent holds the same office as the men who called the Councils of Constantinople, Nicea, Jerusalem, etc. That same office, Constantinople once held as supreme when Christendom was unified. (Coincidentally, where is Constantinople’s Petrine contender?) While there may have been some changes within the context of doctrinal development, it is very absurd to claim that the Church of Pope Benedict XVI is not the same Church as the Church of St. Peter, Pope Linus, Pope Gelasius, Pope Leo the Great, Pope Gregory the Great, etc. etc. Sure, we may say metaphorically that the man and the child he once was were “different people”, but to say that the child and the man he grew up to be were not one and the same person is not only illogical, but whimsically annoying. It is that fact that makes the Kazakhstan analogy weak and untenable. In fact, I’ll say that the Kazakhstan analogy is more befitting the Orthodox. After all, it is Kazakhstan that was a former republic within the Soviet Union that stopped Hitler at Stalingrad and not vice versa…just as Constantinope was once a diocese in that unified Christendom centered and anchored in Rome, by the grace of God.
“Heh. How is it that a Church that is so broadly sensible has spawned a cadre of zealots who are not?”
Because She has gained a cadre of enemies and detractors who lack the same trait.
I’m joining the discussion late in the game, so forgive me if I comment on something said higher up on this page. Thomas Crown objected to Jimmy’s comments on Trevino’s review. Thomas Crown wrote a review of his own, in which he criticized Woods for, among other things, calling St. Augustine “Catholic”. He says: To a Catholic, it seems unobjectionable to describe Augustine of Hippo, for example, as a Catholic Saint. To a non-Catholic, this is picking a fight that need not be started. Yet it is a fight that Woods insists on picking throughout the book.”
Forgive me, but I’m puzzled about this claim. In what sense is it problematic to say that Augustine is a “Catholic” saint? In fact, most Orthodox theologians think of Augustine as a heretic. Just Google “Augustine” and “filioque” and “orthodox” and read some of the Orthodox comments on Augustine. Or is Thomas saying that the Eastern Orthodox Churches secretly accept the filioque and all the protestations were a show?
As far as Saint Augustine being an Evangelical Christian saint, I wasn’t aware that the Evangelicals were much into venerating saints, but I’m open to being corrected.
I’m really not sure what Tacitus is objecting to. It’s simply a matter of historical fact that Catholic Church (or “Roman Catholic Church” if he prefers) has had a very different approach to philosophy and the sciences than the Orthodox Churches have. Is he denying that the translation of the texts of Aristotle and other philosophers in the 12th century led to the development of a Scholastic tradition and of the natural sciences in the West? Was St. Thomas Aquinas not Catholic? St. Albert the Great? Blessed Duns Scotus? Ockham? Were they crypto-Orthodox?
I’m not sure that Gregory Palamas would share your enthusiasm about the Western intellectual patrimony.
Tacitus:
First, let me welcome you here. If you’d like to hang out and participate on the blog, that’d be great.
Several additional points:
1. As a newcomer, please take note of Da Rulz.
2. You should note that Rule 1 prohibits manifest rudeness in the comboxes. While you can certainly critique the ideas or claims of others, it is not acceptable to cavalierly accuse other people of moral faults such as *arrogance* or *being disingenuous.* Since you have done this several times, you are in violation of Rule 1. If this behavior is not corrected, Rule 4 will be invoked and the offending posts will be deleted.
3. It is understandable that as someone who has recently been satirized by me, you might feel the need to blow off a little steam. You have already called me “a spluttering moron” in public. If you feel the need to blow off additional steam, feel free to send me a nasty e-mail or explain what a jerk I am again on your own site, but I will not have a flame war errupt in the comboxes.
4. It is also understandable that as someone who frequents a political site, you may be used to an environment with a different politeness quotient than this one. Consequently, you’ve been given slack thus far, but the conversation is now in danger of descending into a snarkfest.
5. Others involved in the discussion should take note as the same rules apply to them.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Just for reference, when I said
To a Catholic, it seems unobjectionable to describe Augustine of Hippo, for example, as a Catholic Saint. To a non-Catholic, this is picking a fight that need not be started. Yet it is a fight that Woods insists on picking throughout the book.
I did not mean to say that Augustine was not a Catholic saint. Assuredly, he is. I meant to say that if Woods is trying to win a polemic argument, it would behoove him not to tick off his opponents before he starts.
I say this because (1) I’m Catholic; (2) I know other Christians do not see Augustine as a (purely) Catholic saint; and (3) it is a failing of Woods’s book to lose his audience before the argument starts.
That is all.
Egads, what a discussion.
I have to say that the review itself was very odd because until the author suddenly announced his Orthodox credentials, it didn’t read Orthodox. At all. The concept of Church history was strangely.. well.. unOrthodox. I mean, the bit about St. Patrick not being a proper Orthodox saint was mindboggling, and entirely out of line with the Orthodox understanding of the Church.
Congratulations Jimmy! 🙂
With just this article, I think you’ve beaten The Curt Jester for “Most Satirical Blog of the Year”! 🙂
Jimmy,
I’m sure that “spluttering moron” was intended to be an expression of the very ecumenical spirit that Tacitus found lacking in your comments on the Woods review.
I can’t but help feel sorry for Tibbles. His knowledge of history has clearly been distorted by his master. He didn’t know any better, poor kitty. Josh Trevino, on the other hand…