Tuesday, March 20, 2007

East meets West, Orthodoxy meets Likoudis

James Likoudis, an Eastern Orthodox convert to Catholicism, has been hard at work. For many years a close associate of Catholics United for the Faith, he has been involved in a variety of undertakings. In 1981 he co-authored with Kenneth D. Whitehead a response to Lefebvrist criticisms of the Second Vatican Council and the reformed liturgy, which has been updated by Emmaus Road Publishing last year, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, Revised Edition (3rd ed., 2006). He has also gone solo with a critical review of Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas A. Woods' The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church (2002).

Whatever one may think of Likoudis' work in such undertakings, his forté clearly lies in his apologetical work vis-à-vis his own religious and theological background of Eastern Orthodoxy. I remember over a decade ago first encountering his apologia in summary form in his personal testimony concerning his conversion to Catholicism in an essay entitled "To Be Truly Orthodox Is to Be in Communion with Peter's See" in an anthology entitled Spiritual Journeys Toward the Fullness of Faith, edited by Robert Baram (1987). The essay struck me concise, cogent and compelling. I also remember finding chapters I thought important in his book, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism: Containing: the l4th c. Apologia of Demetrios Kydones for Unity With Rome & the 'Contra errores Graecorum' of St. Thomas Aquinas (1992).

That, however, is only the beginning of Likoudis' work on the question of Eastern Orthodoxy. The divine primacy of the bishop of Rome and modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Reply to a former Catholic (1999) provides what is probably the most thoroughgoing examination in English of the major objections made by Eastern dissidents to Catholic doctrines. In the words of Robert Fastiggi, "With a serene confidence gained by years of research, [Likoudis] calmly shows how most of the objections leveled by the Orthodox against the Catholic Faith are based on historical distortions, theological stereotypes, and suppression of counterevidence."

Likoudis' latest work, Eastern Orthodoxy and the See of Peter: A Journey Towards Full Communion (2006), provides probably the most comprehensive analysis of Eastern Orthodoxy from a Catholic perspective available in English. Beginning with three autobiographical chapters, Likoudis proceeds, in ten more chapters and two appendices, to furnish the reader with ample material for a profound appreciation of the gift of the papacy. These chapters treat not only the well-rehearsed areas of disagreement, but bring into focus areas of difference on the doctrines of original sin, Immaculate Conception, contraception, etc. Due in no small part to his own background and conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, there is probably no other English writer who has so exhaustively explored Catholic-Orthodox issues. This last book of the Likoudis trilogy is the fruit of more than fifty years of reflection and way well represent the culmination of his work in this venue. Likoudis' work is testimony to how the Holy Spirit has guided and continues to guide the See of St. Peter.

Of related interest:
  • Reviews The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy [Scroll to bottom of linked page.]

  • Reviews of Eastern Orthodoxy and the See of Peter [Scroll to bottom of linked page.]

  • Fr. Ray Ryland's review of Eastern Orthodoxy and the See of Peter (Crisis magazine, Dec. 2006)
    Excerpt: Likoudis calls our attention to a seldom-mentioned fact and sees in it “great hope” for the reconciliation of the separated Eastern Churches with the Catholic Church. The fact is this: No Eastern Orthodox rejection or questioning of Catholic doctrine, not even by their rejection of papal supremacy, is “binding in conscience on all Eastern Orthodox . . . .” Why? Because not a single Eastern Orthodox variation from Catholic teaching has ever been taught by what they claim as their final authority, an ecumenical council. For this reviewer, the implication is clear: The entire Eastern Orthodox apologetic—insofar as it deviates from Catholic teaching—on its own terms is necessarily and purely private opinion.
  • Vladamir Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy, ed. Fr. Ray Ryland (2002) [Hailed as a tour de force in apologetics, this is a powerful defense of the papacy by a Russian theologian with an encyclopedic knowledge of world and Church history.]

2 comments:

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

actually Chalcedon 28 specifies that Rome was given primacy (of honor not control) by the fathers, not by Peter and on account of it being the first city of the empire. this is anti papism. and an ecumenical council.

a later council affirmed rejection of the filioque and the papal emissary signed off on it.

Pertinacious Papist said...

Justina,

Like the text of Holy Scripture, the decrees of Ecumenical Councils sometimes need more than private interpretation to discern the normative meaning; which is why there remain a number of sticking points between Rome and the non-Roman eastern churches. Well, that and the personal rudeness and impudence of certain Roman legates on occasion, as well as instances where that shoe is on the other food.

An ineluctable fact, however is that Pope Clement in one of his letter to the church in Corinth (a letter from Rome, Italy, to Corinth, Greece) assumed ecclesial jurisdiction over the settlement of a dispute in that Corinthian church. That, as well as the eastern fathers up through St. Methodius and much beyond continued to affirm the papal primacy of jurisdiction, and not merely that of honor. See THIS, for a start.

The filioque has a basis in Scripture that both sides acknowledge and shouldn't be a dividing issue, except for the fact that Rome, again, imprudently countenanced the change in the creed with brazen disregard for the traditional creed. There were apparently some reasons for this in opposition to a relevant heretical tendency in the Iberian peninsula but no reason for definitively altering the creed. The eastern churches have a point here. But the objection rests solely on an assumption of creedal positivism and has no material basis in biblical theology. The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son as well as from the Father. It's in the Bible, for crying out loud.

Thanks for your most welcome remarks.

Kind regards, PP