Fr. Mark McMonagle
The twentieth century opened with many hopes and beliefs in the progress of humankind. Colonialism was in full swing globally. The American ‘Century’ hadn’t begun as of yet and the nineteenth century ended with the roaring 90’s. The churches were yet to seek 'ecumenism' as a fundamental means of reunification. As a result of the colonialism of European nations, the churches also began burgeoning with new members through evangelism and indigenous leader development. There was a sense of a golden age just around the corner. The nineteenth century was very peaceful with the exception of two horrible wars, to wit, the Napoleonic and the American Civil War.
What was to be unleashed onto the twentieth century could not have been foreseen except through the discerning eyes of prophets, of which there were very few. Being myself a child of this century it is difficult to distill the essence of it into a brief few words. Ever since the advent of Christ, the Church has been involved to greater and lesser extents in the history of the world, this century notwithstanding.
At the turn of the century the Catholic Church was still essentially Tridentine even post Vatican I. The Pope’s infallibility in all matters relating to the faith was endorsed, as was the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The Popes, Leo XIII and Pius X, promulgated a number of encyclicals and bulls that responded to modernism in the world and its influence on the Church.[1] The positions held cast mixed signals. Where some biblical and theological inquiry had now been allowed, it was nevertheless constrained to ‘tow the party line’. The Popes reemphasized the primacy of care for the poor and those that labor under poor conditions. Over the course of the twentieth century the Popes played roles in world politics that are sometimes bewildering and sometimes relieving. For instance, in WWII, the Pope remained adamant against Communism, the persecution of Catholics and war in general. However, despite declarations against Nazism he did not try to intervene on a grand scale on behalf of the holocaust victims. Post war society has accused him of the neglect of love and responsibility for which he wasn’t able to supply a suitable defense.
Two significant Popes of the twentieth century were, John XXIII and John Paul II. The former convened the first ecumenical (though actually Catholic) council by a Pope in several centuries. The resulting Vatican II set in motion both positive and negative forces within her communion. The liturgy was encouraged to be read in the vernacular, theology was open to more discussion and ecumenism was beginning to be investigated. The latter Pope is the first non-Italian Pope in several centuries. His personage and impact on the world had restored an image of what a Christian can look like if that life were attempted to be lived. He openly forgave the man who attempted to assassinate him, has asked forgiveness of Protestantism for the violent offenses done against it, asked forgiveness from Jewry for the same and has attempted to open dialogue with the Eastern Churches. He remains staunchly Roman Catholic in dogma and tradition, but has exerted an effort to be compassionate that hasn’t been seen (in my opinion) since the likes of Leo the Great. He understands politics, poverty, persecution and pride, and has from this observer’s point of view helped Catholicism. The negatives are the chronic forbearances to review the papal bulls, decrees and dogma that have alienated her from the rest of Christianity.
Protestantism is a different story. At the start of the twentieth century, there were several divergent paths that Prostantism was moving along. Separating the branch (when considering protestantism as a branch of Catholicism) into conservative and liberal persuasions is insufficient to describe the various thrusts it chose intentionally or inadvertantly. By the end of the century, Protestantism saw roughly 22,000 denominations and independent movements. Conservatism within Protestantism came down as reactionary or fundamentalist on one hand as evidenced, for instance, in the strict Biblicism of “the Scopes trial” and American other forms of grassroots Christianity. Liberalism came down on the side of the theology of Tubingen and American Ivy League Seminaries.
The Eastern Church as described by Gonzalez[2] is described as being pro-ecumenical which in some synods and jurisdictions is true but does not take into consideration the many within the Eastern Church that believe ecumenism to be a serious heresy that compromises the canons, the councils and the entire deposit of faith.
What of the persistence of the enlightenment revolution, that is best known as Modernism or Postmodernism? The Catholic Church may have denounced it as a challenge to the authority of the Church (much in the same way it responded to Protestantism at Trent) but adopted certain features in it’s theological inquiry where such men as Crossan through biblical criticism that spoils the scripture in an unprecedented way.[3]
Protestantism, including evangelicalism, has chosen some of the features of modernism with it’s need to qualify itself in terms of worldly definitions and categories. Ironically, from my own experience, I have seen the proclivity toward compulsive reforming[4] in the Pentecostal circles. What I have observed is that because “the Spirit listeth where It wills, and nobody knows whence it comes or wither It goes, such are they who are of the Spirit”, Pentecostal theology teaches that the Spirit will not do anything except what is spontaneous, thus changing His manifestations among His people constantly. As a result of this reading on John’s third chapter there is the reinforced belief that tradition is anathema to the Spirit, liturgy is staid and the Spirit will direct His people to experiences that are more felt than real and solid, sober and grounded in a holy routine and rhythm, such as has been enjoyed by the Saints of the past. Because of American anti-intellectualism and anti-traditionalism the enlightenment, chauvinism of modernism has found a fertile field to grow. This I believe is unfortunate because this tendency has depleted the saints of finding common ground of orthopraxis, that is, if it is true that the Spirit shifts His workings on a daily and unpredictable pattern then praxis depends upon a felt interpretation of spirit and scripture without consultation with accepted practice, belief or honor worked through in ages past. Of course, it is easy to see why those that hold to this kind of theology would be anti-ecumenical.
At this point, I would like to introduce a word into this paper and reflection that is an important one for our time. ‘There is no precise equivalent to the term prelest in the English lexicon. It covers the whole range of false spiritual experiences: from simple illusion and beguilement to actual possession. In every case, the counterfeit is taken as genuine and the overall effect is an accelerated growth of pride and/or deception. A warm, comfortable sense of special importance settles over the person in prelest, and this compensates for all his austerities and pain.’[5] The context from which Fr Seraphim writes is the overwhelming delusionality of the present day that ensnares the world and attempts to lead the faithful astray. Prelest appears to be manifesting itself in many ways. If one looks at the Ecumenical movement one may see that there is misbelief about what the gospel is and the subsequent effects of compromise on important issues of faith and practice such as in renunciation of the world or an emphasis on justice that becomes self-justifying and Pelagian. The creed, it seems, in like manner, is not an item for discussion. Why? Because it is definitive of Christianity.
On the grassroots level where most American Christians seem to be, at least the ones I am most intimately acquainted with, have been drawn into the pseudo-theology of 'all religions believe in the same God.' This is fostered by religionists that have departed the Church to spread a message that is contradistinctive and an assault on the Tradition of the Church. Based on the definition of Prelest as self-delusion, prelest is alive and well. The biggest danger that this poses is its power to bring about mass apostasy in the name of Jesus.
I hope I am wrong about this.
We should take this lesson from the twentieth century that man is sinful and his works are subject to decay and misapplication, that optimism is sometimes nothing more than denial and pessimism nothing more than pride in our own opinion. Hope comes from God who doesn’t change, has never changed and will not change. As a result, His Church is an eternal creation destined to have no darkness in it (even if it is in a world of darkness now). May we pray for the wisdom to know the difference between true light, false light and darkness.
[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity (Peabody, Massachusetts, Prince Press, 1999), 300-302.
[2] 338-344.
[4] Thomas C. Oden, Agenda for Theology, After Modernity…What? (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1990), 64.
[5] Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, (Platina, California,St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1975), 11.