No doubt this post might garner some interesting (and probably rather wild) commentary to go along with it, but I think that the Russian Catholic philosopher Vladimir Soloviev presents an interesting take on the split between East and West. Personally, I'm not sure what I think of the parable or Soloviev yet, but it's a fascinating read nonetheless.
"A
popular Russian legend tells how St. Nicolas and St. Cassian were upon a
visit to the earth. On their journey they met a poor peasant who had
got his wagon, with a load of hay upon it, stuck in the mud and was
making fruitless efforts to get his horses on.
'Let's go and give the good fellow a hand,' said St. Nicolas.
'Not I; I'm keeping out of it,' replied St. Cassian, 'I don't want to get my coat dirty.'
'Well, wait for me,' said St. Nicolas, 'or go on without me if you like,' and plunging without hesitation into the mud he vigorously assisted the peasant in dragging his wagon out of the rut.
When he had finished the job and caught his companion up, he was all covered in filth; his coat was torn and soiled and looked like a beggar's rags. St. Peter was amazed to see him arrive at the gate of Paradise in this condition.
'I say! Who ever got you into that state?' he asked. St. Nicolas told his story.
'And what about you?' asked St. Peter, turning to St. Cassian. 'Weren't you with him in this encounter?'
'Yes, but I don't meddle in things that are no concern of mine, and I was especially anxious not to get my beautiful clean coat dirty.'
'Very well,' said St. Peter, 'you, St. Nicolas, because you were not afraid of getting dirty in helping your neighbor out of a difficulty, shall for the future have two feasts a year, and you shall be reckoned the greatest of saints after me by all the peasants of holy Russia. And you, St. Cassian, must be content with having a nice clean coat; you shall have your feastday in leap-year only, once every four years.'
We
may well forgive St. Cassian for his dislike of manual labor and the
mud of the highroad. But he would be quite wrong to condemn his
companion for having a different idea of the duties of saints' towards
mankind. We may like St. Cassian's clean and spotless clothes, but since
our wagon is still deep in the mud, St. Nicolas is the one we really
need, the stout-hearted saint who is always ready to get to work and
help us.
The Western Church, faithful to the apostolic mission, has not been afraid to plunge into the mire of history. After having been for centuries the only element of moral order and intellectual culture among the barbarous peoples of Europe, it undertook the task not only of the spiritual education of these peoples of independent spirit and uncivilized instincts but also of their material government.
In
devoting itself to this arduous task the Papacy, like St. Nicolas in
the legend, thought not so much of the cleanliness of its own appearance
as of the urgent needs of mankind. The Eastern Church, on the other
hand, with its solitary asceticism and its contemplative mysticism, its
withdrawal from political life and from all the social problems which
concern mankind as a whole, thought chiefly, like St. Cassian, of
reaching Paradise without a single stain on its clothing.
The Western Church aimed at employing all its powers, divine and human, for the attainment of a universal goal; the Eastern Church was only concerned with the preservation of its purity. There is the chief point of difference and the fundamental cause of the schism between the two Churches.
It
is a question of a different ideal of the religious life itself. The
religious ideal of the separated Christian East is not false; it is
incomplete. In Eastern Christendom for the last thousand years religion
has been identified with personal piety, and prayer has been
regarded as the one and only religious activity.
The Western Church, without disparaging individual piety as the true germ of all religion, seeks the development of this germ and its blossoming into a social activity organized for the glory of God and the universal good of mankind. The Eastern prays, the Western prays and labors. Which of the two is right?
Jesus Christ founded His visible Church not merely to meditate on heaven, but also to labor upon earth and to withstand the gates of hell. He did not send His apostles into the solitude of the desert, but into the world to conquer it and subject it to the Kingdom which is not of this world, and He enjoined upon them not only the innocence of doves but also the wisdom of serpents. If it is merely a question of preserving the purity of the Christian soul, what is the purpose of all the Church's social organization and of all those sovereign and absolute powers with which Christ has armed her in giving her final authority to bind and to loose on earth as well as in heaven?
The monks of the holy mountain of Athos, true representatives of the isolated Eastern Church, have for centuries spent all their energies in prayer and the contemplation of the uncreated light of Tabor. They are perfectly right; prayer and the contemplation of uncreated things are essential to the Christian life.
But
can we allow that this occupation of the soul constitutes the whole
Christian life?--or that is what we must do if we try to put the
Orthodox East, with its peculiar character and special religious
tendencies, in the place of the Universal Church. We have in the East a
Church at prayer, but where among us is the Church in action, asserting
itself as a spiritual force absolutely independent of the powers of this
world?
Where in the East is the Church of the living God, the Church which in every generation legislates for mankind, which establishes and develops the formulation of eternal truth with which to counteract the continually changing formulas of error? Where is the Church which labors to re-mould the whole social life of the nations in accordance with the Christian ideal, and to guide them towards the supreme goal of Creation--free and perfect union with the Creator?
The
advocates of an exclusive asceticism should remember that the perfect
Man spent only forty days in the wilderness; those who contemplate the
light of Tabor should not forget that that light appeared only once in
the earthly life of Christ, Who proved by His own example that true
prayer and true contemplation are simply a foundation for the life of
action.
If this great Church, which for centuries has done nothing but pray, has not prayed in vain, she must show herself a living Church, acting, struggling, victorious. But we ourselves must will that it be so. We must above all recognize the insufficiency of our traditional religious ideal, and make a sincere attempt to realize a more complete conception of Christianity. There is no need to invent or create anything new for this purpose. We merely have to restore to our religion its Catholic or universal character by recognizing our oneness with the active part of the Christian world, with the West centralized and organized for a universal activity and possessing all that we lack.
We are not asked to change our nature as Easterns or to repudiate the specific character of our religious genius.
We have only to recognize unreservedly the elementary truth that we of the East are but a part of the Universal Church, a part moreover which has not its center within itself, and that therefore it behooves us to restore the link between our individual forces upon the circumference and the great universal center which Providence has placed in the West. There is no question of suppressing our religious and moral individuality but rather of crowning it and inspiring it with a universal and progressive life.
The whole of our duty to ourselves consists simply in recognizing ourselves for what we are in reality, an organic part of the great body of Christendom, and in affirming our spiritual solidarity with our Western brethren. This moral act of justice and charity would be in itself an immense step forward on our part and the essential condition of all further advance.
St. Cassian need not become a different person or cease to care about keeping his clothes spotless. He must simply recognize that his comrade has certain important qualities which he himself lacks, and instead of sulking at this energetic worker he must frankly accept him as his companion and guide on the earthly voyage that still lies before them."1
1 - Russia and the Universal Church, pg. 39-42

Dear Jason,
ReplyDeleteI find your blog very rich and inspiring. In Luke 10,38-42 Our Lord clearly shows the two paths He wishes us to follow to Him: Martha and Mary: the active and the contemplative. This is not to imply that either excludes the other but rather that they complement each other. In a sense, both is each.
Bl. Charles deFoucauld after leading a prodogal life, entered a Trappist monastery, changed monasteries, was eventually ordained and ended up living among the Tuareg in the Sahara in Algeria where he was martyred. He wished to live the life of Jesus at Nazareth - a hidden life among a community in which He presented the Love of God to all in His actions. As St. Francis of Assisi said, " Preach the Gospel. When necessary use words. " This was the path both men followed; both were profoundly contemplative while living actively.
The Roman Catholic Church must struggle to free Herself from the scourge of accommodating secular humanism and the "talking cure" with all it psychobabble. She needs to reinforce the fundamental Truths of Her Magisterium, the Sacramental system and the continuity of the Apostolic Tradition. She is, after all, the Rock against which the gates of Hell shall never prevail and outside of which there is no salvation. Just as the Ark of Noe had only one door, just as the Heart of Christ bears only one wound, just as He is THE Way, Truth and Light, so is She the only sure way into that Heart.
The Orthodox Churches must transcend their nationalism - not in their liturgy but in their perspective. Politically they have many of the same problems Rome had in the Middle Ages. These holy churches have suffered greatly under the Communists and have preserved their remnant through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Several of their bishops have ordained men to the Episcopate from other countries who, upon returning home, established their own "autocephalous" ( self headed/ independent ) churches! Their orders are recognized as valid and they are in sacramental communion with each other and Constantinople. The Orthodox are, as a result of this continued fractioning, organized from the bottom up viz a vis the Roman Catholic Church which is organized from the top down.
If only Holy Mother Church and all the Orthodox could come to the conclusion that it is not - and never has been - a question of "either/or" but one of "both/and"! all the more so with these two Churches than with any Protestant denominations - except the Anglicans, of course.
I love the Orthodox but they are so fractured I can't conceive of a general Unification. Maybe the North American Belarusian's or the Ukrainian Orthodox of Canada's Archbishop might see the Light or even the Patriarch of Moscow; but, short of the Second Coming, not during my life.
Maranantha!!!
KMK
One thing: several saints have two feasts in the year, not just St. Nicholas. And on non-leap years, St. John Cassian is anticipated on 28 February.
ReplyDelete\\Their orders are recognized as valid and they are in sacramental communion with each other and Constantinople.\\
Not true, Kenneth. Many of these schisms and sub-schisms are in fact NOT in communion with each other or even anyone else, much less Constantinople. OTOH, communion with Constantinople has never been considered the main criterion of Orthodoxy by anyone other than Constantinople
Should they be reconciled with the main body of Orthodoxy, they are usually received in their orders--but again, not always.