www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Does the rejection of Western doctrines make a man anti-Catholic?

Let me begin by saying that I simply do not believe that the rejection of the various Roman Catholic doctrines created over the course of the second millennium makes me, or any other man for that matter, �anti-Catholic.�

Is it really anti-Catholic to reject the Western doctrinal innovations of the last one thousand years?

In my opinion it is not, because the rejection is not founded upon any hatred or malice; instead, it is based upon a denial of the presuppositions underlying the Western doctrinal tradition, which -- of course -- is founded upon the philosophical theology of the Scholastics of the medieval period, and not upon the teachings of the Fathers.


Now, in connection with certain specific Western doctrines:

Does the rejection of the Scholastic idea of "created" grace make a man anti-Catholic?

No, I do not believe that it does. The Eastern rejection of �created� grace is based upon the doctrine of uncreated energies. In other words, grace is uncreated, because grace is God Himself as energy.

Does the refusal to reduce the persons (hypostaseis) of the Holy Trinity to "relations of opposition" make a man anti-Catholic?

No, it does not. The Byzantine theological tradition holds that the persons of the Trinity are distinction, not because of any concept of �relation,� but through their distinct modes of origin (tropos hyparxeos). In fact, because God is adiastemic, it follows that He is beyond any form of dialectic of opposition.

Does the rejection of papal supremacy (i.e., the novel Western idea that turns the doctrine of primacy into a despotic power over others, and which holds that the Pope, in the ordinary exercise of his office, has supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over each particular Church and over the entire universal Church; and which, as a consequence, fails to properly account for the simultaneously synodal and primatial nature of the Church) make a man anti-Catholic?

No, I do not believe that the rejection of the Papal claims made during the course of the second millennium makes a man anti-Catholic or anti-Papal. All the bishops are equal in the sacramental power of order that they have received, and so there can be no �supreme� or �universal� bishop within the Church.

Does the rejection of the �filioque� (i.e., the Western theory which holds that the Spirit receives His subsistent being from the Father and the Son as from a single principle) make a man anti-Catholic?

No, I do not believe it does; instead, the rejection of the filioque simply involves the recognition of the importance of the monarchy of the Father within the Godhead, because � as the Greek Fathers unanimously taught � God the Father alone is the source, font, cause, and principle of divinity, both in connection with the existential origin of the other two hypostaseis, and in connection with the divine essence itself.

Does the refusal to accept the Western theory of �doctrinal development� (i.e., the theory that involves the reduction of doctrine to intellectual concepts instead of seeing it as an experience of the divine) make a man anti-Catholic?

No, I do not believe that it does. Instead, the rejection of the theory of �doctrinal development� by Eastern Christians reflects the patristic understanding of doctrine as an experiential encounter with God, that is, as a real participation in God's own uncreated life and glory, through a unidirectional eruption of the uncreated divine energies into the created order; as a consequence, the Church�s doctrine cannot be reduced to intellectual concepts that can �develop� over time.


Clearly, none of these doctrinal clarifications, or any of the others that could be added to this list, necessarily involves an anti-Catholic polemical attitude; instead, they are simply doctrinal statements that recognize the unchanging and unchangeable nature of the faith, i.e., of the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3).

Now, as far as the primacy is concerned, it was only after I read a speech by Archbishop Vsevolod, an Eastern Orthodox ecumenist and supporter of primacy within synodality, that I came � rather reluctantly � to the painful recognition of the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not in communion with Rome, but are in fact in submission to Rome, and because this is the case, they are not in a position to defend their legitimate rights within the Church. Now, with that in mind, I have realized that the Eastern Orthodox Churches � at least in some sense � are the true advocates of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and all the Churches of the Byzantine tradition. Thus, I hope and pray that the Orthodox Churches stand firm and promote a proper understanding of the doctrine of the primacy, an understanding that conforms Papal primacy (and regional and local primacy) to the way it was �formulated and lived in the first millennium.� [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, �Principles of Catholic Theology,� page 199] It is only if primacy is properly situated within the synodal structure of the Church that it can function as a true instrument of unity, because as Metropolitan Zizioulas of Pergamon said at the Symposium on the Petrine Ministry (May 21 to 24, 2003):

Thus, primacy is not about power over others, nor is it to be understood as a type of legal jurisdiction; instead, primacy within synodality is about service (diakonia) and love (agape) in support of communion.


Finally, since I mentioned it above, I thought that I would provide an excerpt from the speech by Archbishop Vsevolod on the primacy, but before doing that I suppose that I should preface the quotation by saying that the Archbishop, throughout the whole opening portion of his speech, highlights the need for the primacy based upon the life and experience of the Eastern Orthodox Churches over the past few centuries. Thus, it is clear from his own comments that he is not opposed to primacy (local, regional, or universal); instead, he is opposed to the way in which the Western Church understands primacy; as he explains, the Eastern Orthodox Churches cannot accept �. . . the manner in which Roman Primacy currently functions, and specifically we cannot and will not accept the manner in which the Roman Primacy currently functions vis-�-vis the Eastern Catholic Churches, as set forth in John Paul II�s Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, and as one could discuss with regard to any number of practical matters,� and then goes on to say that, although �it is desirable to produce a code of Orthodox canon law, . . . the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is ecclesiologically �papist� in the extreme, both in its content and in its manner of promulgation. The very idea of the Bishop of Rome unilaterally promulgating such a Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches would have stunned the Eastern Churches in the first millennium.� Now, with these preliminary remarks out of the way, here is the extended quotation from Archbishop Vsevolod�s speech:

Now, taking into account what Archbishop Vsevolod has said, I do not foresee any advance on reconciliation between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches until these � and other � weighty concerns are addressed, and an agreement about the true nature of the primacy within synodality is set forth.

**Note: I must give credit where credit is due, because I read the quotation above at the Catholic Answers Forum in a post by Fr. Deacon Ed, and shortly thereafter purchased a copy of the article.

I am responding to the message by Apothepoun, if I understand how blogging works. In many of the differences in the way the Eastern Catholics view a theological premise and the way the Roman Catholics do is often a matter of symantics. As I read the language of the blog I am aware that I am unfamiliar with much of the terminology of our Eastern brothers and sisters but in the end find our beliefs are pretty much the same on many points. Authentic Roman doctrine of the Trinity also rejects the relational aspect of Trinity. Paul VI rejected the "modes" of the Trinity. Roman theology says the three are truly one, all uncreated, neither of which having power over the other. In this respect we view the Holy Spirit proceding (filioque) from both the Father and the Son. After all Jesus said that HE would send the Spirit. I truly believe that in most cases we just need to work out our vocabulary so we can understand our shared Catholicity.

Sadly, I cannot agree with you. Moreover, I do not believe that Paul VI rejected the Scholastic theory that says that the persons of the Trinity are relations of opposition, but I would be interested in reading any statement of his that backs up this assertion.

Now as far as the doctrine of grace is concerned, I do not think that the differences are merely semantical, because the Eastern doctrine of uncreated grace cannot admit as valid any concept of a "created" grace, because grace is God Himself. To say that there is such a thing as "created" grace, is like saying that there is a "created" God.

As far as the filioque is concerned, as an Eastern Catholic I reject entirely any doctrinal formulation that would make the Son a cause (secondary, mediate, or in any other sense) of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit receives His existence as person (hypostasis) from the Father alone, and not from the Son (as St. John Damascene makes clear). The Son's "sending" of the Spirit, concerns the Spirit's manifestation, both temporally and eternally, in the divine energy, but not His origination as person, which comes only from the Father.

That being said, it is clear that many of the differences between East and West cannot be reduced to semantics, but involve real substantive differences. I say this because the metaphysical presuppositions of the two sides are different, and these metaphysical differences are the main reason why the various councils of the Latin Church, held during the second millennium (e.g., Lyons II, Florence, Vatican I, etc.), will never be able to be used as a foundation for unity between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The two theological traditions appear to be self-contained wholes; and so, any attempt to blend them together would be futile.

Thus, I think the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was correct when he said that: "The manner in which we [i.e., East and West] exist has become ontologically different."

There is a great difference in the sending of the Spirit into the world after Christ's Ascencion and the eternal relations among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Orthodox certainly do not deny that the risen Christ sends the Holy Spirit as "another Comforter." This is clearly taught in the Gospel of John. However, this is a different question from that of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

All of the various Catholic groupings Chaldean, Byzantine and none Byzantine are in full communion with the 'West' or RCs (whatever/whichever)and not with the Orthodox. Those who find they believe as do, the Orthodox take themselves over there as their is no point in being Orthodox theology but not Orthodox. Getting themselves under the right Omophorion. Hence why the various Eastern Churches in communion with the Roman Pope sit on the same side of the table in talks with the Orthodox Churches.

You appear to be saying, and correct me of course if I have misunderstood your views, that it is not possible for an Eastern Catholic to actually hold the doctrines of the Byzantine Church and remain in communion with the Pope. It seems to me that you are equating being Catholic with being Latin Catholic. Now, if you are correct, there are only three possible solutions to the present dilemma: (1) an Eastern Catholic, who actually accepts the doctrinal tradition of the Byzantine Church, must simply become Eastern Orthodox, and this position -- as far as I can see -- best describes your view of the matter; or (2) an Eastern Catholic is really a Latin Catholic pretending to be Easterner by following Eastern liturgical practices, while simultaneously rejecting the doctrinal tradition of the Eastern Fathers; or (3) an Eastern Catholic must embrace both Eastern doctrines and Western doctrines, even when the Western doctrine contradicts the Eastern tradition, and this -- of course -- requires the person in question adopt a type of spiritual and doctrinal schizophrenia. I find all three of these position repugnant, because they exhibit a type of Latin ecclesiastical imperialism. The idea that Easterners must simply submit to Western formulations that are in fact inimical to their own spiritual, liturgical, and doctrinal traditions, involves a type of Latin triumphalism that has not been acceptable since before the Second Vatican Council.

That being said, I do not agree with your position, because it ultimately makes Eastern Catholics second-class citizens within the Church. Moreover, your position, if taken to its logical conclusion, destroys ecumenical dialogue, because the Roman Church would actually be dissimulating in its present talks with the East, since what is really required for the restoration of communion is the complete and total capitulation of the Eastern Orthodox Churches to the Roman.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I wonder how many of the bishops in the Melkite Church continue to hold to the Zoghby initiative.

Does it make you anti-Catholic, no, it makes you Orthodox. I believe that when we take Communion in a Catholic church we are professing not only communion with the Lord but also with Church teaching. Like, Kerry taking Communion or homosexuals taking Communion. These are wrong to take Communion because they are anathema to Catholic teaching. So, if you do not profess the teaching of the Church as your own, why call yourself a Catholic? Find a church you agree with i.e. Orthodox.

So it is your contention that it is not possible to be Orthodox and to be in communion with Rome at the same time.

Truly sad, because that bodes ill for the restoration of communion with the Eastern Orthodox, while also making the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches pointless.

Nevertheless, I am pleased by one thing about this thread so far, because -- for lack of a better term -- political correctness is falling away and people are actually speaking bluntly to each other.

P.S. - I must say that I never thought about equating Eastern doctrinal positions with the endorsement of the immoral agenda of the pro-homosexual groups in Western society.

Sayedna Zoghby+

GOD GRANT HIM MANY MANY YEARS!!!

Melkite Bishop John Elya [melkite.org]

Yes, it was a popular initiative. Now of course it must be said that Rome rejected the initiative. Nevertheless, my question remains, because I wonder how many of the Melkite bishops still support it? God bless them all.

P.S. - There is another thread on this issue at this very forum.

A note to the moderators.

If any of you think that this thread is divisive, or should it become in any way disruptive, you should close it, because it is not my intention to cause division or rancor at this forum.

The sole point of this thread was to provide an answer to Ebed Melech's question (in another closed thread), and in the process explain my own theological views.

God bless,
Todd

Apotheoun you have ommitted the non Byzantine Churches who are themselves not in Communion with the Byzantine Orthodox and the Church of the East which is as far as I know not in communion with either of the other 2 groups of Churches. Yet to each and every one of these Churches there is a Catholic Eastern Rite opposite number in full communion with the Pope of Rome. So which theological position are you able to hold and which do you reject from among these separated Churches, who are also separated from each other and still be Catholic? In my view there is no third camp (Easter Rite Catholics) and the various Byzantine Orthodox Churches have said as much to Rome in regards to the dialogues between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. One church can't have contratictory theological stand points especialy when they are trying to resolve these very same matters with Churches they want to unite with ulitately. Being able to take Holy Communion in another Church is a statement by the one taking communion that they have no barriers in belief, one if faith even with that particular Church they are frequenting. So if people take Holy communion falsely, they only hurt themselves and make a false statement to those around them of their beliefs.

Todd,

Any fair-minded person would answer your rhetorical question in the negative, and we all know this.

Who has labeled you anti-Catholic for not believing in Catholic doctrine? It might've just been a slip of the tongue or keyboard. And your indignation would certainly be justified were he to keep insisting that you were anti-Catholic simply because you don't assent to certain dogmata.

That said, to bring up the question of whether or not these specific doctrines as taught by the Church are a reflection of reality, will certainly cause strife and conflict, and seems not to be wholly relevant anyway, if one looks at the reasons for your post in a narrow manner.

Certainly, I believe in those "created doctrines," as you say, but we can all respect each other's right to his or her beliefs without resorting to slapping an undeserved pejorative on someone.

Right?

Logos Teen

P.S. And I must totally agree with the others who've stated that you cannot hold to these beliefs and be a Catholic in good standing (...let the gnashing of the teeth begin ). More interestingly, why would you wish to be in communion with those who believe different dogmata than you, while being barred from Communion (for good reason!) in churches with whom you share your views? That seems very curious to me. The entire point of communion with each other is that we believe the same things in matters of doctrine. If this is not the case then that so-called "communion" is a lie, a sham, a dishonest and deceitful ploy.

Pavel,

Every Eastern Church should be faithful to its own doctrinal tradition, and so, none of them should be required to embrace the doctrinal innovations created by the Latin Church during the second millennium. Christians must stop equating being Catholic with being Latin.

God bless,
Todd