“Who Will Guard the Guardians?” – Fr. John Behr

Posted on by
6

Aside from how much one disagrees with Fr. John Behr’s essay, I appreciate it being well-written. The title “Who Guards the Guardians”? is a good summary. In light of the fall from orthodoxy or the courage to act against heterodoxy in the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy, who will guard the hierarchs themselves? That’s the gist. To be clear, the occasion centers upon matters surrounding the Russian Orthodox Church underneath Patriarch Kirill of Moscow who is being spotted as actually, if not potentially, a heretic. Fr. John Behr seems to indict other unnamed hierarchs who have stayed silent and who may as well be undermined.

While reading this essay, one might almost get the feeling that they are reading a Lutheran who decries the maintenance of ecclesial structures that, being quite far in distance from dominical foundation, or being of the esse of the Church, were founded merely for the bene esse (good benefit) and have surpassed their valid function. These accidental structures are instilled for the well-being of the Church, i.e., to better uphold the gospel, but when and where they become counterproductive to that end, they can be set aside and/or reformed. But Fr. Behr is a well-known Eastern Orthodox priest and theologian. His consistency is not invalid so much as it is simply a surprise.

I am not here trying to agree or disagree with what Fr. Behr says about the Russian Church, nor to promote the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) Sister Vassa whose accusations against the Moscow Patriarchate serve as a spring for Behr’s essay. But I did want to share an observation that one can glean from all the goings on in Orthodoxy nowadays, especially among the apologists. This is about how different some Eastern Orthodox folks perceive leadership failures, whether of a doctrinal or disciplinary nature, from that of Catholic folks during the current chaos going on in Rome and worldwide.

Accusations against one particular hierarch is not the most we’ve seen. Aside from the movement, inspired by the Orthodox canons, of the “True Orthodox” Church (a traditionalist community who identifies itself outside of communion with “World Orthodox”, i.e., the 14 autocephalous churches that are understood to comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church by the majority of people), we’ve heard many thundering anathemas and outcries, especially from the magisterial court of the internet, of Patriarch Bartholomew for his more purported “left-leaning” tendencies. And if they say so of him, they surely echo the same for Archbishop Elpidophorus of GOARCH.

We’ve seen this. We’ve grown accustomed.

We’ve also seen, more lately, anathemas of the Patriarch of Moscow and all-Russia for his support of the war in Ukraine. Those who usually support the Ecumenical Patriarch are to be found in this camp (certainly not comprising all). However, now we are seeing the emergence of Orthodox who decry both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow, and even of those who remain silent in their episcopal shoes while the defections take place for everyone to see.

Meanwhile, those converting to Orthodoxy (or those who have converted already) have a notably different experience with hierarchical defection than the same kind of folks who are converting or have converted to Catholicism. It does not seem to bother the Orthodox convert as much if the Patriarchs are lukewarm, acting in maleficence, or possibly heretical even. They can lounge on your couch and casually describe the fallout of their leadership while not even noticing a problem of internal consistency with their ecclesiology. The vital immunity from a total ecclesiastical apostasy comes from the whole rather than from a strictly defined sub-group, such as the Patriarchs and Hierarchs of national churches.

In Catholicism, however, there is a very strictly defined sub-group, that is perceived to determine the health of the whole body such that if and when there are problems to be found with it the whole Church is extremely sensitive to whatever ailment ensues. That sub-group can even be identified as 1 single hierarch, the Roman Pontiff. In contrast to the Orthodox convert, the Catholic inquirer or convert can find himself in a bit of a strategic war with the current Pontificate, in order to maintain an intellectual consistency with what is understood to be Catholic ecclesiology. They might take 10 minutes to look into what Pope Francis teaches with an audio, video, or written record and quickly realize that they are suddenly caught in that moment of a chess game where your opponent’s formation spells their imminent victory, and they have to muster up a counter that will prevent defeat. They feel that pressure because the truth of Catholicism is vested so much in the vital stature of that 1 man who is Pope. And with the current occupant of the Papal throne, one can easily feel this way constantly.

There is more.

We might understand this predicament for the Catholic inquirer or convert (𝐴𝑛𝑑 β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’ 𝐼 π‘‘π‘œπ‘›’𝑑 π‘šπ‘’π‘Žπ‘› π‘‘π‘œ π‘ π‘Žπ‘¦ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘’ πΆπ‘Žπ‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘™π‘–π‘π‘  π‘‘π‘œπ‘›’𝑑 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑙 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ π‘ π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’, 𝑏𝑒𝑑 πΆπ‘Žπ‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘™π‘–π‘π‘  π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘› π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘’ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘”π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘¦ π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘œπ‘“π‘‘π‘’π‘› 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒 π‘€π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘Ÿπ‘–π‘’π‘‘ π‘Žπ‘π‘œπ‘’π‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘ π‘’ π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘”π‘  𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘π‘’ π‘π‘Žπ‘šπ‘’ π‘œπ‘’π‘‘ π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘‘π‘Žπ‘’π‘”β„Žπ‘‘ β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ π‘¦ 𝑖𝑛 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ 𝑒π‘₯-π‘π‘Žπ‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘‘π‘Ÿπ‘Ž π‘šπ‘œπ‘‘π‘’. 𝐼𝑑 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘›π‘”π‘’ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘” 𝑖𝑛 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘–π‘Ÿ 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒, π‘›π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘€π‘œπ‘’π‘™π‘‘ 𝑖𝑑 π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘š π‘“π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘š π‘π‘œπ‘›π‘‘π‘–π‘›π‘’π‘–π‘›π‘” 𝑖𝑛 πΆπ‘Žπ‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘™π‘–π‘π‘–π‘ π‘š.). What we might not understand, rightly so, is the enterprise of Catholic apologists who show their face in front of the public with a big fat smile and promise to their viewers and listeners that such pressure as described above is not only not necessary, not only not reasonable, but even that someone is unfaithful for sensing it. These apologists themselves usually have had years of feeling said pressure themselves but have developed, over the course of a long time, very careful ways to play with words, conditionals, variegated possibilities (regardless if they STRETCH the imagination), and David Copperfield-like tetris to take what they understand appears to be a problem and make it a non-problem. To any careful observer, simply the work that needs to be done for this is an illustration that the same chess game is masked by a delusion or a mirage of intellectual consistency and problem-free philosophy.

Such is the cost.

This price being paid by the Catholic apologist is impossible to hide. Someone recently sent me a picture of an EO YouTube commentator who said that when he feels the urge to return to Catholicism, he simply tunes in for 10 minutes to a certain YouTuber and the urge quickly goes away. Who can blame him?

But, dare I ask whether the Orthodox convert who can speak casually of the the leadership woes in Orthodoxy? I would say that it is easier said than done. In the first place, there are certainly more issues than the war in Ukraine and the jurisdictional squabble between Constantinople and Moscow. I’ve had my own temptations to “go East” many years ago and I never gave in. With my patience, however, I’ve had the opportunity to see many of my fellow Catholics swim the Bosphorus and live there long enough to tell me the various tales. In particular, I’ve seen how one’s flight from Catholicism to Orthodoxy in an effort to flee liberalism for conservative Christianity can lead to one’s leaving World Orthodoxy for “True Orthodoxy”.

This is becoming more widely known. Who doesn’t know about the rise of Orthodox Ethos (Fr. Peter Heers) and the resistance movement within World Orthodoxy? Recently I read an Orthodox decrying the inconsistency that he sees between the Council of Florence’s anathema to all schismatics and the contemporary Vatican policy on ecumenism. It did not dawn on him that in almost all the ecumenical events that were had in mind involved the participation of the Eastern Orthodox, at high levels. Often enough the more “TradOx” (traditional Orthodox) who tolerate being in World Orthodoxy holds a stake in the more “faithful” Russian Orthodox witness (in contrast to the opinion of Sister Vassa and Fr. John Behr, of course), and yet how often do these traditionalists know about the fine text of the Cuba agreement between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis? This is a joint declaration, friends. This document accepts, as a premise, that both Catholic and Orthodox churches can have a combined witness *and mission (!)* to preach the Gospel without competition, that both can have martyrs for Christ and that there should not be any proselytism from one side to another (citing Paul’s commitment to not build on another [Apostolic!] man’s foundation in Rom. 15:20).

What Orthodox can make disappear the joint prayers at Rome itself in the presence of EO Patriarchs and/or their representatives. This has even touched the Oriental Orthodox. Recently, Pope Twadros II celebrated the Coptic liturgy in the St. John Lateran Archbasilica of Rome, which holds the chief cathedra of the Pope of Rome. Whether its Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or even Anglicans, we’ve mutually crossed many boundaries laid down in ancient canonical law.

But Catholics alone are the ones to be falsified?

This comes to what I call the emergence of individualism in Eastern Orthodoxy. How does this thinking go? While it might be the case that the immune system of Catholicism stands or falls upon how well 1 man is doing, the Pope of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, the claim goes, can withstand fighting off a virus even if the whole Episcopate is infected with it, because there are the anti-bodies to be found even at the lowest levels of Christ’s mystical body that can serve to stave off total infection. But how does this work out when remaining in communion with a defective Episcopal network itself being a cause for infection? “Well, I still have my faith! And the divine liturgy!” – but does that not potentially open the situation to an individualism where a cell can pretend to have its full vital health while disconnected, or out of the engagement, from the whole existing body? Do not the Orthodox believe that who and what is commemorated at the altar is a confession of what one identifies with in agreement of mind and sanctified communion? And if the clergy refuse to abstain from these open commemorations of unity with the wider world of defected Patriarchs, how does the individual cell avoid the compenetrated infection unless it can find itself living on its own?

I’ll let my Orthodox audience answer.

I’ll end by saying that it is an interesting time to be either Catholic or Orthodox in the last 10 years. So much to see. So much to learn. So much to enlighten. So much to quench ecclesial triumphalism.

Who Guards the Guardians?