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

Certainly, believe whatever you wish. I do not see you as anti-Eastern because you believe in "created" grace or the filioque.

My only point is that Eastern Catholics should not have to accept, nor can they accept, Western doctrines that contradict the teaching of the Fathers of the Church (e.g., "created" grace).

God bless
Todd

P.S. - I would suggest that you re-read the thread begun by Ebed Melech, because the thread was closed for a reason.

On this we disagree, because I refuse to equate being Catholic with being Latin.

God bless,
Todd

As one who does not care much what Latins get up too behind closed Church doors (very progressive). The point being is that the various Churches of the East have not resolved their own mutual theological position.

I must admit with Teen I was wondering where this was coming from.

The opening post in this thread is a response to Ebed Melech's earlier (and now closed) thread.

Originally posted by Todd,

Well said on both accounts.


~Isaac

The following statement was made by the Patriarch of the Melkite Catholic Church at the Synod of Bishops in 2001, and briefly highlights a few of the problems present within the ecclesiology of the Roman Church from an Eastern Catholic perspective:

Taken from the Vatican website: Holy See Press Office: Synodus ...ral Assembly of the Synod of Bishops [vatican.va]

It's the schizophrenia that has caused the destruction of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome.

I think it would be a crime to close this thread...Todd you are articulate and have well thought out positions (it doesn't hurt that I 100% agree with EVERYTHING you have said ) and I absolutely know there are others who lurk here and feel exactly the same way you do...

This is exactly why the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome will never be accepted by either our Latin Bretheren (why would they respect us to "play Eastern" but must submit)...and the Othodox who see clearly the Western heresys (filioque and imaculate conception to name a few) that we must if not agree with can not state they are heresies but rather things we need to be open to...

Chris Gombos

Todd,

Since I was the one who brought up the issue of "anti-Catholic", perhaps it would be helpful to explain what I meant, as well as to offer a few points for consideration.

(BTW, the thread that Todd is referring to is here: Does Orthodoxy need to be anti-Catholic? . The reason it was shut down was because certain posters seemed to speculate more on Todd's spiritual state than on the clarifying questions I was asking.)

#1 - I equate being "anti-Catholic" with accusing the Church of Rome of being in heresy. By invoking the memory of St, Mark of Ephesus in the manner that you did, it is clearer where you stand on this. I stand by my position that if you regard the West as heretical, you are unequivocably an anti-Catholic. (You will notice that I clarified my use of the term in the post. I certainly did not intend to accuse you of base bigotry. Nor do I equate being "Catholic" exclusively with being "Latin".)

#2 - To deny the idea of the development of doctrine is to deny history. What shall we say of Nicea and its embrace of homoousious ? Or the development of St. Gregory of Nyssa's theology of the hypostasis as a unique theological development in the Church's doctrinal understanding of personhood? The development of doctrine (certainly as Newman regards it) does not seek to invent, but rather to unfold the further implications of the kerygma . Our Lord promised to send the Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. The idea that dogma exists as hermetically sealed from all development is fundamentalistic. (And let us say that if one embraces the doctrines of St. Gregory Palamas, how can one deny the reality of doctrinal development!) To me, the issue is not whether doctrine develops along a certain historical and theological (and, if you will, experiential) trajectory, but whether the positions of the West represent authentic doctrinal developments.

#3 - To say that the East "denies" anything presumes that the East (which East?) exists as a unified entity and always speaks with a single, magisterial voice. To a certain extent she does and has (liturgy, being an example, but even then, the diversity here is profound) but not to the extent that you seem to presume. Again, this boils down to issues that have been broached here in the past. You deny the concept of "created grace". Ok - point to a single ecumenical council of the Church that has ever declared that position as heretical. You deny "fiioque" and believe it to be heretical. Ok - point to a single ecumenical council of the Church that has declared it thus. You deny papal supremacy. Ok - point to a single ecumenical council that denies papal supremacy. You deny that a pope can ratify the decisions of a council making it ecumenically binding on all Catholics (East and West) in matters of belief. Alright, show me where such a matter has been defined by an ecumenical council. ....and so forth, and so on.

(As a side question - Have you been able to identify any official document from Rome that defines the concept of "created grace" dogmatically? For all of my searching, I have not been able to locate anything. - I am missing my handy copy of Ott. It seems that it is regarded as more of a point of theological speculation, and it is certainly not mentioned in the CCC.)

To my mind the issue should not be one of "denial" of Latin dogmatic positions as heretical, but rather discovering where the East may appropriately challenge the Latins to better balance, supplement and complement some of the positions Rome has taken. So instead of denying as heretical the Latin explanation of the Trinity, purgatory, indulgences, and the papacy, offer positively the Eastern perspective, and where necessary as evidenced by your quote of Patriarch Gregory, fight for your Patriarchal rights to be recognized canonically. Job may regard this as schizophrenic. How then would he regard such attempts by St. Maximos the Confessor to demonstrate that the Latins were not in heresy on filioque?

My issue is that you seem focused on resurrecting tiresome, age-old polemics (next we will be discussing the all important church-dividing issue of azymes, no doubt...talk about majoring in the minors!) that tend to add more heat than light. I return to the quotes from Ratzinger that I originally posted:

The hardening of your polemic against the Latins makes the discovery of the inner complimentarity of Eastern and Western developments virtually impossible...and is thus opposed to Catholic communion. You seem to associate being Orthodox with being anti-Latin, and hence, anti-Catholic.

Gordo

I have not read all the replies in this thread and so there may be a better one than mine. But I did notice the sincere way in which Apotheoun is struggling with his question and presented his arguments - for our comments. There seems to be a deep honesty there - amounting to good intentions.

The personal rejection of Roman Catholic doctrines - does not make one an anti-Catholic. There are various human reasons why someone would reject the doctrines. The Church extends its invitation and others are free to accept or reject that invitation.

As regards members of another church (a branch of the original catholic unity) the Roman Catholic Church advises their members to to abide by the faith and doctrines of their own particular church and seek their sanctification within the framework of their own church and traditions.

Since there is no hate or malice involved then that hypothetical person - would not be an anti-Catholic - in his person.

However� his actions or speech do become anti-Catholic in their effects� if that person (hypothetically not a Roman Catholic but a member of one of the other original catholic churches) are not in line with the mind of his own hierarchy and official church position on such matters AND he is aggressive and in a public way knowingly and with intent to publishing items with the purpose of informing and the education of others� to his own personal views that are detrimental to the faithful � as regards the Roman Catholic Church.

While a man�s personal intentions are highly significant� one can not ignore the effects of that which one does. These effects must be taken into account in conjuction with his intentions.

For example� if a man goes outside of a doctor�s advise and begin to treat a sick person with his own remedies and the self-remedies turn out to be detrimental to the sick person and the sick person become worse or die� the one who did such a thing is still responsible for his detrimental actions (even though he may have had all good intention). His personal mistake and fault lay in his act of a personal supplanting of the authority of the doctor - a supplanting which turned out to be in an area in which the our hypothetical person had no authority himself, no practical knowledge, and was mistaken. Perhaps he was unaware of his own limitations. But it is the way of life to always keep running into one�s own limitations. But that fact does not lessen our own personal responsibility for the effects which we un-intentional cause. Such unintentional acts lend themselves to - forgiveness.

No matter of the man�s personal good intentions - the effects of his acts are real and the reasoning of the possibility of any detrimental effects must be considered - before he acts.

If good intentions alone were enough to cure a sick person - there would be no sickness left in the world because everyone has someone who loves them and has good intentions for them. But we find that is not the case and even though (for example: cancer) cancer patients are surrounded by those who have good intentions - many cancer victims die - despite everyone�s good and best intentions and acts. Good intentions are not - nessesarily (in themselves) - effective.

Back to religion.

Someone (our hypothetical person) may personal reject some (or all) doctrines of any church. He can speak about his rejection, and the reasons, and debate� with his personal friends. That is one thing.

But if he take his views public with the intention of convincing others to his personal views AND those personal views are not in line with his own church (in other words he is not presenting the faith and beliefs of his own church hierarchy) that person is now solely responsible for the effects of his own actions and words. In the same way the man who disregards the doctor�s advise is responsible for the effects of his own treatments upon the sick person.

This is called - personal responsibility.

As regards our hypothetical person who rejects Roman Catholic doctrine in a public way AND spends public efforts to discourage others from those doctrines � if he become aware that others are taking his efforts and words as anti-Catholic � he should (in good conscience) discuss the matter with a competent priest within his own church (to determine if he is or is not presenting the beliefs of his own church - properly) And (in concert) he should objectively weigh the effects he has caused. Such questions as �Have I caused in others - any concrete good?� (the building up of faith) or has the majority of effects been confusion, chaos and arguments. Has the effect been one of peace or strife? What fruits has my presentations resulted in?

The �truth� is the truth - yet - there is a good way to use it and a bad way to use it. We are free to use it charitably or selfishly.

If (this hypothetical person we are taking about) has not used the �truth� in line with his own church and/or not in a virtuous and charitable way � then we should � welcome him/her to the human race! Where we are all free to grow by align our intentions according to their effects. As many times as we fail - we get up again and begin again. And again. And again. This is what (it seems to me) it means to be human.

This is the way I see things and I am not a teacher of - anything.

Peace be to you and to your church.
-ray

Pope Paul has had heaps of bad press over the years. In regards to the kneeling incident. Not many realise the Pope was horribly crippled with Arthritis in his legs. Hence if anyone ever noticed the MCs use to lift the hem of the Pope's alb/cassock for him to enable him to get up stairs in St Peter's. They also used to almost run at the stairs to get the momentum up to get HH up the stairs. So dropping to his knees (to kiss the feet of the visiting Metropolitan) was no stunt it cost him dearly in pain in those knees.

There is no development of doctrine, because doctrine is an uncreated theosis, an uncreated experience of God given to the saints through grace; and so, a man of today has the same experience of God that the Apostles received on Mt. Tabor. Thus, you are confusing the linguistic description of the experience, which is by definition distanciated from the actual encounter with God, that is, with the theophanic experience itself. A doctrinal formulation in human language is doubly distanciated from the actual event of encounter, which means that the linguistic formulation is not the experience itself, but is simply a "fence" around the experience, that is, the decree (horos) establishes parameters within which we can speak, but the decree is not the doctrine. In fact the Western confusion of the doctrine with its linguistic formulation is precisely what the Cappadocian Fathers condemned when they rejected the views of the heretic Eunomius.

That being said, the problem I have with the West is that it is reducing the experience of God to an epinoetic conception, that is, it is reducing it to an act of the intellect, and to the linguistic formulation that follows from that intellectual conception. Sadly, the West fell into this trap when it uncritically embraced pagan philosophy during the Scholastic period.

As an Eastern Christian I hold that the experience of God is a direct encounter with the uncreated divine energies, and that this experience exceeds both mind and body, because it is an uncreated gift, it is an eternal theosis imparted by God to those worthy of it (See St. Gregory Palamas, "The Triads," page 86). Now the description of this uncreated experience suffers a necessary distinciation as it is conceived epinoetically, and suffers a further distanciation when it is formulated linguistically. That being said, the West is talking about the linguistic formulation of a divine experience of grace as if it is the doctrine itself, when in fact it is a limited attempt to describe an unlimited gift of communion with the Tri-hypostatic God. Our epinoetic conceptions of God, and our linguistic formulations of the mystery, must never be confused with the event of communion with God in the divine energy, because to confuse these diastemic realities (i.e., human intellectual concepts and language) with the metadiastemic encounter with God through grace, is quite simply a form of idolatry.

I apologize for the complexity of my post, but hopefully now you can see why it is that I reject the Western theory of "doctrinal development." Newman was a great man, but he was also in error on this issue.

Gordo,

In a round about way I have already responded to your question about St. Mark of Ephesus, and here is what I said in my opening post:

Thus, I see the Eastern Orthodox Churches are representing the interests of all Eastern Catholics in trying to ensure that the doctrine of the primacy is clarified in such a way that it can truly serve the unity of the Church, rather than serve the aggrandizement of one particular bishop. That being said, I reiterate my prayer that a man of the caliber of St. Mark of Ephesus is present at the talks this fall, a man who can stand firm in promoting the doctrine of primacy within synodality, and simultaneously resist any type of monarchical view of the primacy.

Gordo,

I have of course read what Cardinal Ratzinger says both before and after the quotation that I like so much.

That being said, there is a terrible flaw in the good Cardinal's position, but before I address that issue, I note with interest the frank admission on Ratzinger's part about the Eastern Orthodox Churches having maintained unchanged the ancient faith of the first millennium, while he also freely admits that the Western Church has changed, and now has a new "form." I find this admission shocking, but it does lead into what I see as a problem present within Cardinal Ratzinger's proposal. Earlier he had indicated that the maximalist positions of both sides should -- at least in some sense -- be mitigated, and this of course is a good thing. But then he strangely fails to recognize that his own proposal, which would require that the East accept the doctrinal innovations of the West made during the second millennium, is in fact a "maximalist" position, that is, it involves the utter capitulation of the East to the West, while all that is required of the West is that she accept the East in the form that the Eastern Churches have always had. This does not seem to be a balanced proposal; instead, it is a proposal that requires that the East accept the Western concept of "doctrinal development," and everything that follows from that theory.

So you see, I am quite familiar with what Cardinal Ratzinger has said on this topic. I mean -- after all -- I read the book many years ago, but nevertheless I do admit that I quote the one text from it that I find most appealing quite often, and perhaps I should not.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Gordo, put yourself into the position of a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, or of a member of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and think about what Cardinal Ratzinger has proposed, because if you do that, I think you will admit that the proposal is heavily weighted in favor of the West to the detriment of the East.

Gordo,

I will give more thought to your point no. 3, and perhaps give a detailed response later, but I will say that your formulation of the point betrays a Western outlook on the nature of the faith and how the Church teaches. The Fathers of the Church were reticent to issue dogmatic decrees (horoi), while the modern West is "definition" happy, issuing dogmatic statements left and right. In certain sense the Magisterium has replaced Tradition in the Western Church, and whatever the Magisterium decrees is enacted, whether it be a totally new liturgy or a new dogma. The Orthodox East still has the strong foundation of Tradition, and so, a particular doctrinal formulation does not need to be explicitly condemned in order for a man to know that it is false.

That being said, I will give greater consideration to your comments in that section of your post.

God bless,
Todd

I am sorry that you think I am being polemical, because I have no interest in polemics. I simply do not agree with certain Western doctrines.

God bless,
Todd