Georgian Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin): On Protestantism, Catholicism, and “Latin Captivity”

 

(...)

— At various times, different heresies have “pressed” upon Orthodoxy to a greater or lesser extent. In recent centuries, the pressure of Catholicism and Protestantism has especially increased. Which of these heresies, in its influence, is more frightening for the Orthodox? Against which has a more perfect antidote been developed?

— Since the time of Rome’s falling away from universal Orthodoxy, we have accumulated extensive apologetic literature in which the disagreements between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are examined and studied in detail. It must be said that with each century the rupture that had formed became ever wider and deeper, due to the fact that Rome adopted new dogmas and canons incompatible with the teaching of the ancient Church. The increasing influence of the Jesuit order in the West introduced into the consciousness of Latin theologians a powerful current of liberalism and humanism (it must be said that the very word “Jesuitism” became a synonym for pragmatism and unscrupulousness in the means for achieving a set goal). Between Orthodoxy and Catholicism clear boundaries have been drawn, which neither Ecumenism nor the waves of growing secularization can shift or destroy.

With Protestantism the matter is more complicated. Unlike Catholicism, Protestantism represents a conglomerate of confessions, denominations, sects, and theological schools, as a result of which it does not have a unified theological concept. That which is common and characteristic for Protestantism, as if its credo, is the rejection and destruction of Tradition and its replacement with private opinions and subjective interpretations of Holy Scripture. It is precisely due to its formlessness and many-faced nature that Protestantism is more easily counterfeited as Orthodoxy. In this respect, it has its like-minded companions and allies—“Orthodox” modernist theologians who strive to discredit Holy Tradition and to destroy Orthodoxy itself from within the Church. Therefore, at present I find Protestantism to be a more disguised and dangerous opponent than Catholicism.

As for the antidote to false teachings and heresies, I consider the chief antidote to be the acquisition of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Grace makes not only the mind but also the heart of a person Orthodox, and he directly feels and knows through spiritual intuitions that salvation is possible only in the Church, in its Tradition, dogmatics, and liturgics; that the Church is the Ark, outside of which it is impossible to be saved from the flood of evil and sin. However, if we continue this analogy, even in the saving Ark there were found Ham and Canaan. For salvation, an essential condition is remaining in the Church, but salvation does not occur mechanically; besides grace, it also depends on the will and life of each person.

To speak about who is closer to salvation—Catholics, Protestants, or other heretics—seems to me pointless. During the flood, some people perished on the plains, others fled to the mountains and climbed to the highest peaks, but even there the waves overtook them—and all together found a common grave in the abyss of the ocean. To drown near or far from the shore is the same.

— What can you say regarding the notion of some theologians about the “Latin captivity,” in which, in their opinion, our Church remained for almost several centuries?

— As for the accusation against the Orthodox Church of being in a “Latin captivity,” this is a large-scale provocation of the modernists, the goal of which is to find a respectable pretext for carrying out their destructive designs and reforms within the Orthodox Church itself.

The modernists loudly cry out about the need to “cleanse” Orthodoxy from Latin influence, but in reality, they devised this device in order to cleanse Orthodoxy from Orthodoxy itself—to discredit the Orthodox Tradition contained in the Church’s hymnography, conciliar decrees, hagiography, and the Church’s typikon. The modernists are not even ashamed to dismiss a significant part of Tradition as mythology.

It must be said that Catholicism, at its foundation, has ancient Christianity, which was later distorted and disfigured by human inventions and passions, such as: merging with politics (which was manifested in caesaropapism), the use of forceful measures against those of other confessions, the destruction of conciliar principles, the cult of the Primate, the striving for union not only with other confessions but also with the semi-pagan spirit of the world (through permanent secularization). However, all these negatives do not give the right to regard Catholicism as an anti-Christian phenomenon, as Luther wished to present it. Before the tragic falling away from Universal Orthodoxy, Rome belonged to the united Church, and after the falling away it preserved a part of what had belonged to it. Therefore, while rejecting the errors of Catholicism, we must note that alongside the extraneous layers of human inventions there have been preserved in it remnants of the ancient teaching. Catholicism has defiled the ancient Tradition, but has not completely destroyed it. And Protestantism, with its iron hammer, smashed the remaining walls of an already ruined altar.

The next device of the modernists is the accusation of Orthodox theology of implanting Western scholasticism, as one of the proofs of the “Latin captivity.” It must be noted that scholasticism is by no means barren sophistry, but an effort to bring theological knowledge into a definite system, using the principles of analysis and synthesis, the methods of deduction and induction. Let us note that in the Old Testament Church there originally existed the oral Holy Tradition, but then, in connection with the lowering of the spiritual level of people, there arose the necessity of its fixation in the form of Holy Scripture, so that it would not be completely lost.

We can see something similar in the transition from patristics to scholastic theology—when it was necessary to preserve Christian speculative truths through a theological system. This was also a requirement of the time, in connection with the growing spirit of secularization. At the same time, in Orthodox theology, scholasticism did not reject patristics, but relied upon it. Unfortunately, in the West, along with scholasticism, rationalism began to penetrate theology—namely, the striving not only to give a general picture of dogmatics and to explain it, but to verify dogmatics itself through human reasoning. It was precisely this abuse that discredited scholasticism and undeservedly gave it a negative character. But scholasticism in itself was and is a necessary stage in the history of dogmatics; without it, modern theology would have turned into a chaos of private opinions. In the Orthodox East, scholasticism was for the most part used as a method of school instruction.

Scholasticism appeared in the West several centuries earlier than in the East; therefore, it is not surprising that Orthodox theologians could use certain Catholic texts as working material, removing from them errors and inaccuracies, cleansing them from later delusions and theological distortion. Such work is reminiscent of that which the Fathers of the Church carried out, using in their writings the language and terminology of ancient philosophy. At the same time, they reinterpreted such borrowings and poured new content into old forms, and in some cases developed and refined this terminology, adapting it to Christian teaching.

Until the 20th century no one reproached the Church for being in a “Latin captivity” or for departing from Orthodox doctrine. Only at the beginning of the revolutionary 20th century were voices heard demanding reforms of Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, some of these voices came from the theological schools. At that time, a part of the teachers and even priests were intoxicated with the word “freedom”; it reached the point where, within the walls of the Theological Academies, memorial services were demonstratively served for the instigators of the revolution (for example, Lieutenant Schmidt), sermons were preached and published in which the suppression of the uprising of 1905 (which Lenin called “the dress rehearsal for the October Revolution”) was denounced with anger, they took part in strikes, and so on—in general, they expressed solidarity with their future gravediggers. In this environment arose the slogan “renewed Orthodoxy” and appeared such a catchy expression as “the Latin captivity of the Church.” One of the prominent theologians of that time wrote: “The doctrine of redemption no longer satisfies our contemporaries—they need new ideas.” These words meant a renunciation of the eternal truths of Christianity for the sake of pragmatism.

There has never been, and could never be, any “Latin captivity” in the Church; otherwise, it would have lost its divine inspiration, ceased to be “the pillar and ground of the truth,” the keeper of the fire of Pentecost, and the spotless Bride of Christ.

 

September 10, 2014

Russian source: https://pravoslavie.ru/73492.html