| Orthodoxy Reviewed |
 |
 |
 |
| Thursday, 31 August 2006 02:53 | |||
|
Avery Cardinal Dulles, writing about “The Orthodox Imperative” in the current (August/September) issue of First Things, provides a superb summary of the situation of authentic belief today
Resting much of his rhetoric on Cardinal John Henry Newman and G. K. Chesterton, he describes orthodoxy as “a loving adherence to the word of God in its fullness, with all its complexities, paradoxes, and mysteries,” a lifetime quest comparable (as Chesterton suggested) to a romance, replete with pleasant surprises. Which is, of course, precisely what orthodoxy really is for the fully committed. For examples, one need only contemplate the saints. The word “orthodox,” from the Greek, was employed from the very beginning to signify “holding to the truth of Revelation” – “right belief,” in other words. This is a crucial definition (what theological definition is not critical?) because recently so many interpreters propose that the word simply means “right worship,” a proposition that could easily, albeit erroneously, be derived simply from an analysis of the Greek taken literally. But such an interpretation, which can, and de facto has, led many Christians away from authentic doctrine, would permit validity of the theory that doctrine follows upon worship. The truth is that worship follows upon doctrine; the Creed underlies all liturgy. As Cardinal Dulles writes: “Purity of doctrine is the condition sine qua non of right worship and fruitful ministry.” Today, however, even the idea of orthodoxy is under attack. Cardinal Dulles cites Paul Tillich’s admonition that ordinary language “is not a medium of revelation.” For the Protestant thinker, revealed information simply doesn’t exist; neither do revealed doctrines. Religious statements have true value only insofar as they express or lead to an ecstatic experience of the divine. Thus for Tillich, Cardinal Dulles concludes, orthodoxy actually constitutes heresy. (The principle of contradiction, which is fundamental to philosophic search, is thereby contradicted, as if it were possible. Can one even conceive of a square triangle, or a triangular circle?) The idea of orthodoxy is also under attack for other reasons, chief among them being what Pope Benedict XVI, in his homily on the day he entered the Papal conclave that led to his election, called “the dictatorship of relativism.” Relativism can be either historical or cultural, Cardinal Dulles explains. The first, defended by Alfred Loisy, the French priest-historian who abandoned the Church (d. 1940), held that truths can become fallacies unless they are revised with so-called human progress. (He was, of course, censured, and rightly so.) The second, cultural relativism, wrongly theorizes that, in Cardinal Dulles’ words, “what we perceive as truth is inevitably a product of our own culture.” Thus, for example, it alleges that while the doctrine that Divine Revelation in Jesus Christ is final and unconditional for the West, those in other cultures can develop their own system of religious belief. A third assault against the idea of orthodoxy holds that certainties about Transcendence are necessarily elusive, simply not attainable. Hence, religion is relegated to the heart rather that the intellect. Another objection to orthodoxy is that it entails coercion. Coercion is always wrong, of course; Pope John Paul II once defended religious freedom of religion in these words: “The Church proposes; she imposes nothing.” Finally, here in the United States, orthodoxy is perceived as inimical to the highly prized attitude of individualism. Exclusion of authority in religion is seen by many Americans as a sign of maturity, and dissent is glorified. Yet, as Cardinal Dulles concludes, “the mind is not given to us for the purpose of self-assertion.” Rather, “it is intended to conform itself to what is real. Certain religious truths must be accepted on authority or else remain unknown.” “It sometimes takes more courage,” Cardinal Dulles declares, “to uphold unpopular teachings of the Church than to join the chorus of dissenters.” He cites Chesterton’s delight in discovering “an exciting new heresy of his own: orthodoxy.”
|
