www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Trinity and the Papacy

Hello everyone. I have two questions based on an older post that I have just read. These to questions are speficaly for Eastern Catholics in Communion with the Bishop of Rome and not for Eastern Orthodox Christians who lack communion with the Bishop of Rome. I am a Catholic of the Latin Church. I am not making this post to argue, I am simply very confused about a couple of things and I would greatly appreciate any polite answers I can get to these questions. Please bear with me and do not be offended by my sincere questions. I have copied and pasted the portions of the post that confused me. Thank you all very much in advance!

<<How about the statement from the Vatican on the Filioque? The Eastern view of this issue prevailed over Western ones. The Father was affirmed as the only source of the Trinity and the Creed without the Filioque declared normative, while allowing its liturgical use in the Latin Church to continue.>>

As a Catholic, I am taught that each person of the Trinity is Co-equal with the others and completely and equally God. What I do not understand is how the Trinity could be said to have a "source", if the Trinity is the One, Uncreated God. And if it is meant that the Father is the source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, how can these two persons of the Trinity be seen as Co-Equal and Equally God if they can be said to have a source, be it the Father or any other source? To me, the word "source", implies that at one point, these other two persons did not exist and then were created by the Father from Himself. Could someone please offer an explanation? Now on to the next section.

<<At the end of the day the only problem is that of Papal jurisdiction and infallibilty. However, I do not see this as doctrinal so much as practical. The concept of infallibility is found in both the East and West. It is the exercise of this charism that is the problem. While remaining loyal to the Pope, I think Eastern Catholics can question if it is necessary for the Pope to exercise this charism in an extraordinary manner as opposed to defering to an Ecumenical Council which is the historically normative form for the exercise of this charism.>>

Here, my question is this (I guess its a two parter). Do you believe that any Dogma proclaimed by the Pope by Himself but Ex-Cathedra is valid, such as the Assumption of the Virgin? As a Catholic, I have always been taught that any Dogma that is proclaimed is proclaimed because of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit sees fit for a Dogma to be proclaimed, shouldn't we accept the times that He desires to use the Pope in an extraordinary manner without the help of an Ecumenical council?

Anyway, I axiously await your responses. God bless!

Your brother in Christ,
Rick Okarski

Hi Rick --

For the record, I'm an Eastern Orthodox who was raised RC, spent a couple of years in the Eastern Catholic Churches before being received by the Orthodox Church.

Regarding the Trinity, the Orthodox view would be that the Father is the Person whose origin is in Himself, the Son and the Spirit have their origin in the Father and are distinguished by the means by which they are brought forth -- one is eternally begotten of the Father, while the other eternally proceeds from the Father. The Father, Son and Spirit are one because they all have the same source -- the Father. The Trinity itself does not have a "source", because the Father's origin is in Himself -- he is the sourceless source, the foundation of the life of the Trinity and, as such, the source of the unity of the Trinity as well. The Son and Spirit are equal to the Father in all things except for the fact that they do not have their origin in their own Persons. The problem you raise about there being one point when the Son and Spirit did not exist is best reflected upon by remembering that the begetting and proceeding exist outside of time. It gets pretty metaphysical, because as finite creatures it is hard for us to think of things in eternal terms, and such conventions of speech as past tense -- as vital as they are for human discourse -- can be highly misleading when speaking of eternal divine realities. Suffice to say that there is no point *in time* at which the Son and Spirit never existed -- their begetting/procession is something beyond the reach of historical time. It is very hard to understand, which is why the Fathers often advised not to pry too much into such things, and, further, that the way of "unnknowing", or apophatic theology, is superior to the way of "knowing", or cataphatic theology. Reflecting on the inner life of the Trinity gives one good reason to understand the wisdom of that patristic viewpoint.

I will leave aside the issue you have raised about the Pope, as I am Orthodox.

Brendan

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Brendan ]

About these excathedra proclamations: Yes, easterners do believe these things, and have always believed them. The reason they were proclaimed was that in the West, many people stopped believing in these truths, thus falling into heresy. Each proclamation does present its issues. With the Assumption, my understanding is that while the Theotokos was taken Body and Soul into Heaven, this is not remarkable in itself. It only follows reason that the only human to overcome the sinful nature, and one from whom the Godman took His Flesh, should not be subject to corruption or the practise of Relics, but as a symbol of our eventual Ressurection and reunification of body and soul, She who is the first fruit of the Resurrection should be placed there as a sign of our eventual destiny. The Eastern focuses on the Dormition, or Falling Alseep of the Theotokos. This is truely a Mystery, as she was not subject to Death, as sinners are, but that she fell asleep in Christ, perhps as we were originally intended. those are my thoughts, and if there is any correction necessary, please do so.

As for the Immaculate Conception, there is a bigger issue there, of a core theological issue. The dogma infers a concept known as Original Sin. This concept is an Augustine idea, and one not typically held by our Orthodox Brethren, and probably should not be held by the Eastern Catholics, either. The Eastern though is that we are inheritors of the fallen nature, not the sin and guilt of Adam. to me, the latter indicates that if we are borne with the sin of Adam, then we are created as inherently evil, a Manichaean and Gnostic view (remember Augustine was a Manichaean prior to his conversion, and the influence some of his thinking later on). If our souls are created by God, then it should follow that we are inherently good (the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak &c). Due to this weak body and good soul having to live together, there is a spiritual war that goes on internally to determine who riegns supreme. The Theotokos stands out, because she did completely conquere this nature, and brought it into accord with her soul. She did not let her frail human nature put her soul out of wack with God, thus she was able to live completely in Him, and He in her, thereby doing what we were intended to do from day one. Some Latins lost sight of this, and fell into the Protestant heresy that Mary was sinful like the rest of us. I hope this helps, and not hinders.

God bless.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: akemner ]

Rick,

Since my post is quoted, I'll will try to answer and your questions and clarify my statements.

1. The Father as the Source of the Trinity.

Each Person of the Trinity is equally God, "ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever existing, yet ever the same..."(Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom). What makes the Persons of the Trinity true Persons and not modes of one Person is that distinction truly exists. The Father is the Father because He begets the Son and originates the Spirit. The Son is the Son because He is the Only-begotten. The Spirit is the Spirit because He originates from the Father. He is not called a son because He is not begotten, only the Son is begotten. The Son does not beget nor does He give origin, if He did He would be a father. Yet the Son has all the Father has because He is the Son, in this manner we may say the Spirit originates from the Father and proceeds through the Son.

You will notice I say the Spirit originates from the Father. This is because the Greek in which the original Creed was written uses this term and not the term proceeds, which is problematic because of the confusion it creates. One can say the Spirit proceeds from the Son provided one is talking about the temporal mission of the Spirit. The Spirit does proceed from the Son in the sense The Son sends Him on His temporal mission. One can never say the Spirit take his origin from the Son because this is both incorrect and confuses the distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity.

As an aside, I was raised Roman Catholic and the Filioque was: 1. either not mentioned or 2. simply affirmed as correct and told the Orthodox were simply nit-picking over something they basically considered acceptable belief but illicit as to its insertion into the Creed (which is a gross oversimplification to say the least)

2. Papal Infallibility

Yes, I believe in Papal Infallibility. At the same time I affirm the normativity of an Ecumenical Council. This is how every major heresy or dilema was dealt with starting with the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem. If Councils were the norm in a time when the logistics of such a thing were an immense undertaking, why should they not be the norm now when travel and communications make holding a Council simple in comparison. What Dogma is so urgent that the Pope would need to act alone? The two previous uses of papal infallibility are poor examples because one they were widely held beliefs and the Popes did poll the worlds bishops. From an Eastern perspective only things directly concerning the Trinity, Christ, and how they relate to our salvation need dogmatizing and all that needed dogmatizing has been done by the Seven Great Ecumenical Councils. The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, while either generally held or considered acceptable belief, do not impact one's salvation so don't need (or can't) be raised to the level of dogma. The Latin Church also believed this for about 1900 years. Many Latin saints were quite actively opposed to the definition of the Immacualte Conception.

Infallibility is a charism given by the Holy Spirit to the Church, not a personal charism given to the Pope. If the Holy Spirit is prompting the Church to proclaim a dogma, isn't an Ecumenical Council the best means of conveying that truth? Where are the marks of oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity better represented? Where is there a better chance for the imput of the differing expressions of that truth? While I believe the Pope capable, I can not see the advantage or need for him to act alone or that the Holy Spirit would prompt him to do so.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Dear Rick,

With posters like we have here, you don't need me!

But I wanted to respond as someone who has shared your issues personally.

Actually, a great help to me was St John Damascene's work "On the Orthodox Faith" or "De Fide Orthodoxa" which both East and West accept.

He does respond directly to your question and even says, in effect, that the fact that the Father is the Source of the Trinity does not make Him greater than the Son and the Spirit, or the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds "through the Son" make the Son less than the Father.

Their relations one to another do not, therefore, characterize their identity as to Who each Person is in terms of "more" or "less" therefore.

Each is equal to the Other and possesses the same One Divine Nature.

For me, the Trinity can only be approached one step at a time and this in itself creates the experience of awe before the Great Mystery.

St Anselm expresses this in terms of our experience of memory, understanding and will. All three belong together and are dependent one on the other. Yet, there is an order that begins with the memory that begets understanding etc.

Both John of Damascus and Anselm work well together here!

Your question on the Papacy is an excellent one, especially in relation to the Eastern Church.

The Pope defines doctrines "Ex Cathedra" that is doctrines that are evident in Tradition (which includes Scripture and the Councils)for universal belief by all the faithful.

The dynamic between papal pronouncements and the theological traditions of other particular churches in communion with Rome is a fascinating one.

Just as the Pope has a role as "universal pastor," so too he is the Patriarch of the West, the Primate of Italy, the Metropolitan of the Roman Province and the Bishop of the City of Rome.

So therefore the theological prism from within which he understands the Faith is theologically-culturally conditioned by his own Particular Church, the one he heads. We do the same thing from within the prism of the Eastern Churches.

There are theological opinions that are held by many which don't impact on the universal faith held by all and which are legitimate (the "Filioque" would be accepted by the Orthodox as a theological opinion, as long as it isn't mandated for universal acceptance by inclusion into the Creed).

One such opinion, that started with Augustine, is that we somehow inherit the guilt of Adam's sin as opposed to the effects of that sin in terms of a weakened nature and death.

This view, that was never defined by the Western Church as an ex cathedra doctrine, held that we are born with the stain of sin on our souls.

A problem with this perspective developed when it was extended to the Most Holy Mother of the Word Incarnate. The Immaculate Conception was developed as a theological way to exempt the Virgin Mary from this view of Original Sin.

The East never accepted this Augustinian view and saw the Mother of God as being conceived and as having lived in total holiness.

So, yes, Eastern Catholics would accept an infallible doctrine promulgated by the Pope.

It is just that when it comes to the Immaculate Conception, it is a doctrine that is unnecessary to the Eastern theology of original sin and Mariology as a whole.

The Assumption has always been believed by the East, as we see from the beautiful liturgical texts of the service.

So I would say there are always two aspects to any papal pronouncement, the "pith and substance" of what the doctrine states and the "theological/cultural component" that reflects the Particular Church tradition of the Pope himself.

The interesting thing is that, when it comes to Mariology ("Theotokology"), we have always believed in the "pith and substance" of those Roman doctrines (Mary's total holiness and bodily assumption in to heaven) precisely BECAUSE our different theology led us to the same conclusion, but many centuries prior to their formal pronouncement at Rome.

See how simple and clear it all is . . .?

Alex

akemner:

NO, this does not help me out on the Eastern view of the Immaculent Conception. Please elaborate further! Where I am standing is that I see the verse of the Arc being made of Gold as symbolic to a sin free mother being the arc of the baby Jesus. Please Elaborate the Eastern view point futher.

Thanks!
I am looking forward to your reply!!!!

Dear Friend,

I am not Akemner, but I agree with your view of the Golden Ark as applied to the Most Holy Mother of God and it is completely acceptable, to my mind, to the theology of the Eastern Church.

The East does not accept that Mary ever had any "sin" on her soul, Original or Actual.

And She was adorned and sanctified by the Holy Spirit with every gift as befits the Mother of the Word Incarnate.

Some Roman Catholic theologians accept this Eastern view, since while the Immaculate Conception was defined as an infallible doctrine, the Augustinian view of Original Sin never was.

"Lex orandi, lex credendi" and this applies here as well.

Our Orthodox friend, the Melkite Emeritus, Brendan, once actually went home and looked up a whole string of quotes from the Orthodox liturgical texts (don't you just love him?) that witness to the Eastern Church's belief in the total holiness of the Mother of God throughout Her life on earth.

In our services, She is called "Ever-Immaculate" "Most Blessed Ever-Virgin" "All-Immaculate" etc.

And devotion to our Lady in the East is actually much more developed than that in the West.

There are more than 1,000 miraculous Icons of the Mother of God, many of which can be found in Poselianin's book on the same subject.

The Eastern Church ceaselessly praises Her with its devotional Canons, Akathists (from which your litanies were developed) and other very beautiful and theologically meaningful prayers.

She is constantly invoked throughout the Daily Office in each and every service and Hour, as often as the Trinity and Christ are invoked, so is She!

Thus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is completely unnecessary for the Eastern Church, Catholic or Orthodox as is that of the Assumption.

She is the Ark of the New Covenant, the Mountain from which Christ the Rock is cut, the Jar containing the Heavenly Manna and the Throne of God Whose Womb has contained the Uncontainable One!

Have a great day!

Alex

The Eastern Orthodox view is that our inheritance from Adam is our fallen, mortal nature, which tends towards sin. That is what we mean when we use the term "Original Sin" -- ie, it was Adam's original sin, the effects of which are passed on to us as our inheritance of mortality, our fallen-ness.

If Original Sin is viewed in the Orthodox framework, to say that the Theotokos was preserved from Original Sin means something like she was conceived with an immortal nature -- which Orthodoxy feels very uncomfortable saying because it tends to make Mary the great exception to humanity, rather than the great example for humanity -- because, unlike us, she will have been conceived with an immortal nature. In addition, we believe, and our divine services for 15 August reflect this, that the Theotokos died (and was immediately assumed into Heaven thereafter) -- making it very hard for us to agree that she was conceived with an immortal nature (which is the conclusion of saying that she was preserved in all ways from "Original Sin", as we understand the meaning of that term).

Beyond that point, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in agreement regarding the Theotokos -- namely that, regardless of her conceived nature, she failed to fall into actual sin by a singular act of grace and a singular act of acceptance of that grace. As a result, we can agree that the Theotokos was conceived without the "stain" of Original Sin in at least two senses: (1) we don't believe that anyone is "stained" with Original Sin in the sense that guilt is imputed (and the Catholic view is now leaning this way as well); and (2) we don't believe that one of the effects of the inheritance of Adam -- the tendency to commit sin -- bore any fruit in the person of the Theotokos. But we can't agree that the Theotokos was preserved entirely from Original Sin because this has implications about her conceived nature that do not mesh with Orthodox theology going well back centuries before the separation of East and West. Therefore, to Orthodox eyes, it seems more fitting to describe this as a Latin doctrine (as it meshes rather better with Latin anthropology) rather than a universal dogma.

Brendan

Dear aRomanCatholic@work,

Please forgive my poor ability to articulate my thoughts, especially after a long day that is a part of a long fortnight.

I am not sure on what it is that you are not clear, but i did edit and perhaps clarify a couple of things in my original post. I hope you are not upset because i did not mention (and thereby perhaps downplay) the importance of Mary's role in Salvation History and the Divine Economy. It is true that Fiat was necessary in allowing her to participate in God's Will for our Salvation, and in our Saviour being borne of her. It is fitting, that she who overcame our weakened nature and lived in complete Union with the Will of God, should be the Ark of He Who is both the fruition of the Covenent, and Himself is the new Covenent, as she is the only human worthy of God, because of the two reasons listed above.

Again, forgive any confusion I might cause, for I am a lowly student and servant of God who is just only begining his quest for his Master. Apart of the confusion may come from taht I still have one foot in the Latin Church, and one in the Byzantine, at least intellectually. most of my conclusions of the Immaculate Conception are mine own thoughtful meditations of the book The Icon by Fr Michel Quenot, where he goes into a little depth on the theological issues at hand.

akemner,

1st I am NEVER upset at anyone in this Forum! I love this forum!

2nd My work limits me to the amount of time I can spend studying "Other" things (i.e. I am a software engineer and have 2 spend most of my time doing Geek Things). Presently, I am on a path of changing Rites to become a Byzantine Ruthenian so I am trying to excel my understandings of the Church without having to read too many books (because my time is limited). In addition, my Wife (who started this path before we got married) is becoming a Byzantine Catholic this Easter and we are learning this "stuff" together.

3rd I am a Histroy "Buff" and I have recently found GREAT interest in the Early Church Fathers (e.g. St. Basil), so I am trying to tie all of this into my understandings of them.

Please Forgive Me if I came across in a wrong light. Hopefully, now u understand for future reference.

p.s. I am A.K.A aRomanCatholicGuy

Ray

Dear Brendan,

Good explication of the Immaculate Conception, friend!

The only qualifier I would add, and I'm speaking as a Catholic (aka heretic, uniate, source of bad in the world - hee, hee) is that when you say that our Lady is not entirely free from Original Sin you don't mean "Original Sin" in the Augustinian sense.

For St Andrew of Crete and others, Original Sin is death et al., and if the Mother of God truly died, then she suffered the effects of Original Sin in that sense.

Since our common liturgical tradition is clear that she did, in fact, die then there is no question about this.

It is just that she never had any "stain" or actual sin on her soul owing to her exalted status in grace as the Mother of God Incarnate.

Right?

Alex

Dear Ray,

Did you mean you do "Greek things" which is why you were led to the Byzantine tradition?

Hee, hee!

Alex

Alex --

No stain (like everyone else) and no actual sin -- yes.

Yes, I agree that it is due to a different understanding of "Original Sin" -- the Latin/Augustinian view on contrast with the Greek/Eastern view. Simply based on that fact, it's pretty impossible to accept that a dogma based solely on the Latin/Augustinian view is universal.

I think that we can get past this one by reformulating the IC dogma so that we can all agree that the Theotokos was free from any stain from Adam's sin and free from actual sin and was preserved from actual sin by a singular act of grace and a singular act of cooperating with that grace. If the Latin Church can agree that this is the "universal dogma" aspect of the IC dogma, with the rest being Latin doctrine based on the Latin understanding of Original Sin, then we can get past this one, I think.

Brendan

Let an amateur laymen have a go at this: Can it be agreed to that at the Theotokos' Conception, she received the graces that Christians receive through the Mystery of Baptism? The Latins speak of washing away the stain of inherited guilt through it, while we speak of the sanctification and purification that it grants (the restoration of the damaged ikon and likeness of God) through the power of the Holy Spirit. It restores the bond of communion with God that Adam and all of humanity lost due to Original Sin. Maybe this effect, this initially deformed state of the soul we are born with, its departure from and loss of the likeness of God, and the lack of Grace that is bestowed at Baptism, can be seen as Original Sin, which the Theotokos was free of since she was conceived.

In IC XC
Samer

Dear Brendan,

You've expressed what I have always believed and I have no problem with it, it is truly orthodox . . .

It should never have been a significant issue among us to begin with. What else is new . . .

Somehow, some Cath'lics, my aunt included (she's not a theologian, but she thinks she is) got it into her head that because the Orthodox don't accept the Immaculate Conception doctrine, then that must mean they accept its opposite formulation - that you guys (I mean * "Orthodox Christian believers") believe She was sinful etc.

I must admit that that was my initial reaction when I first took up ecumenical relations with you guys (* OCB).

But I soon realized that the problem was not with Mary, but with Augustine.

Am I an idiot, or what?

And if I am, what does that say about my aunt?

(I really do love her, and in that sense I am truly "relativist").

Have a good evening,

Alex