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

Gordo,

I also have no access at the present time to my copy of Ott's book, because a water pipe in my mother's house broke and a large part of the house was flooded; and so, in order to protect my books I have put the majority of them into storage.

Nevertheless, Western theologians hold that the Council of Trent defined the doctrine of "created" grace, and did so in the Decree on Justification.

Here is the pertinent text:

What the Tridentine Fathers taught in this text is that man is justified, not by the justice whereby God Himself is just (i.e., uncreated justice), but by that justice through which He makes man just (i.e., created justice). Now, this is precisely what the East rejects, because for the Eastern Fathers man is made just through a real participation in God's own uncreated energy of justice, and not some kind of created justice. A "created" grace cannot deify a man.

God bless,
Todd

The Pope and the ecumenical councils in the Catholic Church affect 'all' Catholics. If Vatican II has no right to enforce rules on the eastern rites then why did they even bother saying that eastern churches should 'take pains' to return to their traditions? Why even include eastern Catholics in ecumenical councils if eastern Catholics don't have to abide by them? I believe your mistake is equating being Catholic with being Latin. There is a difference. Whether Latin, Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, etc. They are all Catholic equally and the Pope is the universal Patriarch, not just a 'Latin' Patriarch.

Also in my honest opinion, sad to say, I never see the re-unification of east and west. The western church has moved on modernizing itself and growing (with the Holy Spirit's help) whereas the Orthodox are deadlocked into a corner with no ability to 'think outside the box'. Now this is a very negative view of the Orthodox and I am sure the flipside to this coin is that they view the western church as heretical. Well, the Church changes, it changes and grows all the time and to be stuck in the ninth century may be an indication that the Holy Spirit has 'moved on'.

I agree the East has a tendency to nitpick little things to death - often things the rest of the world considers insignificant. However, the ancient faith has much to offer modern society, and many would be drawn to the stability the East has to offer. But here's the problem I see. Unfortunately, the East seems to have lost any inclination toward missionary activity. We need Cyril and Methodius today more than ever.

Todd,

How can you be upset when people are dismayed that you deny Catholic doctrines, yet call yourself a Catholic?

Accepting the development of doctrine is not a Latin Catholic thing, it's a Catholic thing. Is there no other way for you to argue around this then to keep on saying, "I don't equate being RC with being Catholic?"

The fact is, we're in communion for a reason. We believe the same thing, at least officially. If we didn't, we would not be in communion. And if the Eastern Orthodox thought that the EC's officially were of the exact same faith as them, they'd be in communion with you, not barring you from the Eucharist.

Reality does not change according to a person's viewpoint. If you believe there is no development of doctrine, that it is not a matter of absolute faith that the Mother of God was assumed into Heaven (*not* permissible just as a theologoumenon), etc. then what you are saying is that you believe Roman Catholics, with whom you are in communion inside the True Church, are heretics, are being taught heresy, and are believing heresy as a rule of faith. How do you live with yourself, being a member of the selfsame Church which professes what you believe to be heresies? I could never do it, and were I to believe as you do I'd 'dox so fast it'd make your head spin.

Logos Teen

Dear Todd:
I'm quite impressed with your knowledge of the tradition and the strength of your arguments. But I'm struggling with aspects of your argument here. While on the whole I certainly have found the writings of the early Church Fathers to be far more edifying than those of the Scholastics, I'm concerned that sometimes the East is too quick to dismiss the Scholastics. In particular, I'm concerned that St. Thomas Aquinas is too quickly rejected. Though Aquinas certainly appropriated Aristotle quite extensively, he also made use of the Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine and St. John of Damascus. Also, Aquinas was clear about the limitations of reason with respect to theology. He admits that there are certain truths of faith that cannot be demonstrated through applying the tools of philosophy and are known only because they have been revealed by God and must be accepted in faith. The teaching that God is triune is the preeminent example of this principle. Also, is it not the case that many of the early Church Fathers, including some of the Eastern Fathers, made use of Stoic and Platonic thought (both of which are pagan)? Another thing I would point out is that while I agree that Western approaches of theology have too often been limited to serving as intellectual exercises (Geoffrey Wainwright, my theology professor in seminary taught me that theology should always be an act of prayer and praise), I don't think the intellectual aspects should be seen as somehow being bad, especially in light of the fact that Christ taught, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment." (Matt. 22:37-38)

Sincerely,
Ryan

There is a serious confusion here because in this thread Eastern Ecclesiology is being equated with Western Ecclesiology.

Communion is not about using all the same words, it is about holding the same faith in God. Think about it. We do not believe in the Creed, we believe what the Creed expresses.

Dear johnofthe3barcross you said:
I say:

The Catholic Church does not change or grow as you have stated...or so I believe was stated by the RCC. It merely continues to define 'Truths' that have always existed. In that sense, we can say that the Orthodox Church did not find a need to continue to define those 'Truths'. Although to be honest, I have found that Saint Gregory Palamas seems to have done quite well in continuing to define many of our Orthodox established beliefs.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear ByzTN you said:

I say:

The nitpicking is intentional...at least the way I see it. It will stop when the Orthodox Church is ready to make a serious commitment towards unity. AND THAT DAY WILL COME!

Zenovia

Zenovia,
The Church does grow in numbers and in dealing with new issues in contemporary society. The Church does change, not in doctrine, but in expression of Herself. You are right regarding the 'further' delineation of truth in the Catholic faith. It is like Aristotle describes: when looking at something in the distance you first see blurry blotches, coming closer you see forms, then getting closer still you see horses, and everytime you get closer you see more details of that elusive blotch. The same is true of doctrine; the closer we come to Christ the more details He presents of Himself. Maybe the fact that the Orthodox do not seem to identify these further details is that they have not been blessed by the Holy Spirit to do so?

I know that this might not be with in the topic of this discussion, but can anyone show me where I can see the official teaching of the Western Church on grace? Specifically, whether or not it is created or not. I know that people say the western church teaches that grace is created, but I would like to see where it officially teaches this.

Jesse Venner

Try this link:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

There is a search option. I tried it and heaps came up.

I agree with Pavel -check out the CCC. The USCCB website also has a copy of the Cathecism:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/

If it's search engine doesn't work well, try searching "usccb.org/catechism/text" in an advanced google search.

Or, you can always go with the printed version. Be sure to use the "big green" paperback or hardback catechism which has an excellent index. Using the novel-sized paperback's index is an exercise in frustration.

While you're there, would someone mind telling me where in the CCC it says that "development of doctrine" as Newman formulated it is a tenet of the Catholic Faith? I'm not doubting it, I just don't recall ever seeing it and would like a reference.

MarkosC [who only has the novel-sized paperback ]

Todd-

For the interested but less educated readers of this thread, would you mind telling us what "noetic" and "epinoetic" mean?

Thanks!

MarkosC

Hey, Jesse! Good to see you post.

Here are a couple of links that may be helpful.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MNGGRACE.HTM

http://theol.uibk.ac.at/itl/341.html#h4

http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1658

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace.htm

Of course, none of these links offer a comprehensive exposition on the Eastern doctrine.

One written source that does touch on the Eastern Fathers is Theology of Man and Grace: Commentary by Edmund Fortman, S.J.. I'm sure that Todd can recommend some others, especially since this seems to be a point of research for him.

Hope you are well!

Gordo

I was trying to process "epinoetic" myself.

I think Todd gets paid by the syllable! :p

Gordo