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

Alex,

Slow down. Wasn't my question before yours? No cutting in line

Ghosty,

I find it strange that even though there has been quite a bit more doctrinal development (or whatever you would like to call it) in the West there seems to be a great deal more confusion. In talking to, and reading books by, Orthodox faithful you get a pretty cosistent -- with some variation -- explanation about Eastern belief. It seems that on issues like the interpretation of Trent, Vatican I, and Florence the West is just all over the place. Just a week or so ago I noted that the Vatican seems to flip-flop on the issue of Eastern autonomy and theology. Just what is required from Eastern Catholics -- or Orthodox for that matter -- in terms fidelity to "Western" theology. Personally I have no idea, and from the looks of it around here I'm not the only person who is somewhat confused. In comparison, the theological stability/certainty in the East is certainly inviting.

Dear Matt,

Excellent points!

(Sorry for cutting into line!)

Alex

Oh.

I recall somebody, I believe Fr. Anthony, saying the norms for marriage and re-marriage had been agreed to by both sides, at least in the United States. I don�t see how it could be otherwise actually, here or anywhere else. I have read on this board that Orthodox Christians can commune in Catholic churches if they desire to do so. I would assume that provision does not come with the stipulation that those in the Orthodox Church who may be re-married be excluded.

I think it best to look at our own shortcomings in regards to issues like this, before we have to look to correct somebody else. How annulments are handled and how many are annually granted in the United States is probably a case in point.

Andrew

There's no doubt that this is a most interesting thread: we've got some people saying that anyone who disagrees with Roman doctrine is an anti-Catholic, and others saying that disagreeing with Roman doctrine is a requirement of being a true EC.

For what it's worth, I for one think that both of these ideas are nonsense.

Just my $0.02.
-Peter.

P.S. I�ve not yet had a chance to read all the latest posts in this thread, so please pardon me inadvertently overlap with someone else�s post.

I�d like to weigh in on the filioque discussion.

I think there�s a lot of similarity between this issue and the one-nature/two-nature issue. Specifically, consider the pair of statements:

A. Christ has two natures.
B. Christ has one nature.

or the pair:

A. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
B. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

(To the latter pair, we could also add statement C, "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" which both sides use but understand differently.)

In each case, the two statements are contradictory; hence, only one of them can be correct.

The thing is, though, that which statement is correct depends entirely on how the terms (particularly the terms "nature" and "proceeds", respectively) are meant. That is, if the words are understood a certain way, then statement A is correct and statement B is false, but if they are understood another way then statement A is false and statement B is correct.

Thus, some have said -- correctly -- that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and others have said - correctly -- that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Dear Peter,

If you have concluded that I have said that disagreeing with "Roman doctrine" is a prerequisite for being an EC, then I will tell you, I have not said that.

Again, I am asking some questions of Todd.

To assert our legitimate Eastern Catholic patrimony which does, truth be told, include the absence of the Filioque, Uncreated Grace and everything else as Todd outlined.

That is the Byzantine tradition of which both EC's and Orthodox affirm.

If you are saying that to be Byzantine Catholic is to disagree with Roman doctrine, then we have a problem here - with your view of Byzantine theology.

I don't see how not having the Filioque, or asserting Uncreated Grace etc. is a disagreement or condemnation of Rome!

But that is my question to Todd - is Byzantine theology "different" and even "complementary" to RC theology - or does accepting the former imply one considers the latter "heretical" or - something else? In that case, how can EC's legitimately be in union with Rome and still be true to the integrity of their tradition?

That is my question of Todd, sir!

At NO time, have I said that Rome was heretical or have I considered Roman doctrine to be such.

We EC's have our own theological, ecclesial, canonical and spiritual traditions.

That they differ from Rome's - that is a certainty.

That they contradict Rome's as heretical - absolutely not.

We can review this point by point, if you like.

Or it is perhaps that I'm not understanding your position.

At what junctures do you feel that EC's have "crossd the line" and contradict RC doctrine?

Alex

Dear Peter,

I think I see where you are coming from with your example on the Filioque.

Rather than see the two positions as contradictory, let's put it this way.

Let's first of all collect what BOTH Rome and Orthodox/ECism agree on with respect to the Holy Spirit's Procession:

1) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the Source/Cause within the Trinity;

2) The Father sends His Spirit through the Son into the world;

3) The Holy Spirit is differentiated from the Son in the fact that He is Spirated/Proceeds from while the Son is Only-Begotten. The human mind cannot know or understand the difference between these two manners of proceeding from the Father - we can only know that they are different and so the Son and the Spirit are differentiated by the way they Proceed from the Father.

Rome adds further:

1) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (active spiration) and from the Son (passive spiration) i.e. Filioque. The Holy Spirit can also be said to be spirated by the Father through the Son (within the Trinity - St Thomas Aquinas).

2) The Filioque is part of the Nicene Creed.

Now, the issue is: does what West and East already agree on with respect to the spiration of the Holy Spirit sufficient for full unity, while leaving Rome's theologoumena as such?

EC's were never obliged to use the Filioque, but they were obliged to assert that the Filioque does not corrupt the doctrine of the Trinity.

And I accept that. My Church is returning to her traditions in this respect and has no use for the Filioque any longer. That does not mean it condemns it or that it rejects Roman doctrine.

Let's also agree that the RC doctrine of the Filioque affirms that the Spirit proceeds only "passively" from the Son and not in the same way as He does from the Father. To say otherwise would be to affirm two Causes of the Spirit within the Trinity - and that would be heresy.

Ultimately, Rome requires the Filioque to differentiate the Spirit from the Son within the Trinity. The East, holding to the ways of the first millennium of the Church, asserts what both East and West were content to assert at one time - that the manner of proceeding from the Father is what differentiates the Son from the Spirit.

The Filioque is a legitimate, in the EC view, Roman theological position (as it does not postulate two Causes of the Spirit within the Trinity). But it is entirely outside the parameters of the Eastern theological/Triadological tradition.

Ultimately, the Filioque has no place in any Creed intended to be a "universal" Creed to express the faith of both East and West. It can be in Western creeds, of course.

Since the Nicene Creed is just that, a universal creed, the position of the Orthodox Church, one which many EC's today would agree with (along with not a few RC theologians) is that the Filioque does not belong in that Creed

Alex

Andrew,

First, if the issue is already resolved it's apparently news to the Pope who specifically said in Principles of Catholic Theology that it is a barrier to reunion; though I will grant it may be a recent development. However, if Catholicism is now on board with divorce it seems strange that they are not offering it as an option to Catholics. Second this whole "look at you own sins" thing only goes so far. Yes, I am sinful and the church makes mistakes so what else is up for discussion? How about gay marriage or some other type of sanctioned union? What about pre-marital sex? A lot of people find abstaining from that difficult. Why can't we make allowances for human weakness in these areas? If Jesus bans divorce, and Jesus is the head of the Church, then it seems to me that it follows that the Church should ban divorce. Moral positions matter. The last thing we need is the Church coming up with elaborate justifications for sin; besides, the secular world already has that market cornered

Just my personal, unstudied thoughts.

I think a lot of this comes down to the relative prevalence of "theologians" in the West. Theology as a discipline in and of itself became so prominent in the West that everyone was weighing in. On top of that, there is not a single "Latin tradition", but rather a number of them. There are the Dominicans, famous for Thomistic theology, Carmelites famous for mysticism, Franciscans famous for practical theology, and Jesuits famous for approaching secular philosophy and sciences from a religious perspective. There are Marian theological frameworks, and Incarnational theological frameworks, and legalistic theological frameworks.

To put it bluntly, there is no "Western theology", but rather Western theologies that have existed in dialogue for over a thousand years. In a sense I think the Latin Church, theologically speaking, has been like a microcosm of the whole Catholic Communion, albeit distinct in itself, not "replacing" the other, non-Latin traditions. I think there are a ton of historical reasons for this, from the lack of central Empire, to the influx of Eastern and Oriental theological writings at the turn of the first millenium.

Basically, I think any attempt to reconcile Eastern and Western theologies is going to fail at a certain point, not because they contradict, but because they're built on very different principles and approaches to God. When trying to reconcile them in the sense of finding them to be complementary, I think we have to do a couple of things:

First, stick to the Councils and not to the theologians (though understanding St. Thomas Aquinas is very important for understanding Trent and Florence, just as understanding St. Gregory Palamas is critical to understand certain modern Byzantine expressions). Even if the Western Councils aren't regarded as Ecumenical (a debate for another time :p ), they should be viewed as definative of what is acceptable in the Latin Church at the very least. Councils trump theologians. The Eastern and Oriental Churches are in Communion with the Church of Trent, not the Church of Neo-Thomism

Second, we have to stick with what is specifically addressed, regardless of the theological language used, and not go too far in extrapolation based on that theological framework. The Immaculate Conception is a perfect example of this. Yes, the West (and even the Orientals) has a different idea of Original Sin than the Byzantines. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not dogmatization of Western concepts of Original Sin, but was the dogmatization of the fact that, within the Western view, certain things must be said about Mary. Is the dogma binding on all? Yes, but the theology behind it is not. This means that if a non-Latin Catholic is discussing Original Sin in a manner consistant with the Western approach, Mary should be regarded as the Dogma states. If they are sticking with the Eastern understanding, then the dogma becomes a non-issue because the notion of Death as the primary form of Original Sin doesn't even enter into the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. We have to understand what the Latins formula was trying to address and not go beyond that.

Finally, we can't force our different languages and approaches on to eachother. Familiarizing ourselves with the different approaches is very important for dialogue, but it doesn't have to mean full adoption of them. In a way this part is actually easier for non-Latins, because the exposure of Latin theologies is far greater than that of Byzantine and Oriental theologies among Catholics, sometimes (sadly) even among Byzantines and Orientals themselves. Again, this also involves knowing what people ARE saying, but more importantly what they're NOT saying. God is really, really, really "BIG"; there is literally more to be said and known about God then there are possible languages and theologies to say them, and in the end we will be experiencing God without language anyway. I think most of our problems stem from this point. There's a reason we were exhorted to not quarrel over words, IMO.

As for different theologies being more or less inviting, I really think that is a matter of personal taste. I tend to "think" (or perhaps "feel" is a better word) in terms of Byzantine simplicity of theology most of the time, but I find the dynamic, expansive language of Thomism to be more personally fulfilling. I like a theological system that can also help me understand socio-political developments and do my taxes better (and I'm sure that I could glean a better way to use a microwave from the Summa somewhere), and for me this doesn't take away from my worship of God. To me it's not about constraining God to a philosophical language, but about building up our philosophical approach to more perfectly conform with true Reality, God's Reality.

Byzantine theology is absolutely brilliant in explaining how God is experienced, but it trips me up a bit when dealing with the more broad theological and philosophical questions. This won't be the case for everyone, but it is for me. That is why Latin, and specifically St. Thomas' theology tempered with a healthy dose of Carmelite spirituality, is most inviting to me.

Talk about a ramble! Ask a simple question....

Peace and God bless!

I think this is a very important point. I was just recently reading Coptic Pope Shenouda's writing about why we should say Christ has "one nature", and I found myself nodding in agreement the whole time. He couldn't have expressed the Catholic position better :p

Thing is, it's very easy to get stuck on what we mean by "one nature", that we forget that the Orientals are simply using St. Cyril's own language, the language we Catholics judged the Tome of Leo by at the Council of Chalcedon! By understanding the Coptic meaning of the terms, the same advocated by St. Cyril against Nestorians, we realize that the Coptic language is actually a profound defense of the Incarnation, and the heart of that defense was fully incorporated into our Chalcedonian theology despite our using the terms in a non-Coptic fashion (and thereby a terrible and unnecessary rift of 1600 years developed).

We both went on merrily defending St. Cyril, the Copts with Cyril's language, and us Chalcedonians with our own, and we left a wound that was wholly unnecessary because of it.

This isn't to say that the matter of our division is so easily resolved today; a lot of water has gone under the bridge, and a lot that must be worked out. The matter that divided us initially, however, which loomed so large for centuries, disappeared almost over night when we actually stopped talking past eachother.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Thanks for the lengthy reply. I'm sympathetic to your opinions; of course, I'm also sympathetic to Todd's and you two seem to disagree so I guess that makes me fit for the asylum One problem I have with all these various "theologies" being valid expressions of the true faith is that it seems to make fools, at least to some extent, of our betters. If tradition is truly the "Democracy of the dead" (as Chesterton said) then shouldn't it mean something that the two great schisms have existed for roughly 1500 and 1000 years respectively? I mean do you think that the sides should just "make-up"? Should people just pick a church based on personal preference if each of the expressions are valid. How does that fit in with the one true Church business? There seem to be some pretty important ramifications either way.

Well that's a pity, because I don't see anyone moving on this. Not a total surprise though since it is my understanding that Eastern Catholics did have to accept the annulment system, so there is some history there (albeit not good in my opinion). They did, if my understanding is correct, use the Eastern practice up until at least the 18th century before being forced to change over.

It is also odd that I have read quotes elsewhere ( I think from the Pope), that the churches are so close that all that is lacking for communion is communion itself. I guess from both standpoints that is not the case.

Don't ask me to explain that. It seems though that communion, as I understand it, is offered to all Orthodox Christians. Presumably that would include Orthodox Christians who theoretically have met the criteria to have a second marriage recognized by the church. Please post if there is a stipulation that such people cannot commune. I would have to assume that if there is no stipulation, that the norms for Orthodoxy are accepted, which would lead me to question what the above quote that the Orthodox need to change their practice is all about.

Almost all of that part of your post is just a tangent. Anybody with even the vaguest understanding of the matter would know that this is not some sort of moral free-for-all in Orthodoxy. Personally, I am comfortable with the way the church handles the dispensation of ekonomia in regard to this matter. I trust that the hierarchs have considered the theological ramifications and I believe that the tradition of the church does not need to be altered. If this is a problem for some people, or if they think it is a barrier to communion with Orthodox Christians, well so be it.

Also, given the state of the annulment system in this country and the number dispensed annually, I would think the "examine yourself" argument actually goes rather far in this instance. That of course only if you wish to pursue some sort of argument that Orthodoxy has created some elaborate system to "justify sin" or has "caved in to the world" or something along those lines.

Andrew

Well, sometimes we just have to accept the fact that our ancestors screwed up, or just couldn't figure things out. This doesn't even have to do with personal fault. How often would a Coptic monk hiding in the desert from Arab persecutors have time to dally on over to the University of Paris for a friendly discussion about the Latin translations of St. Cyril's attack on Nestorianism? How likely was he to engage in theological chit-chat with a Byzantine soldier who was enforcing Imperial law and a Chalcedonian interpretation by decree of the Emperor?

For centuries people honestly thought that St. Athanasius had penned the Athanasian Creed, with no apparent duplicity on anyone's part. Stuff happens. This isn't unique to the West either. The Byzantines will cite what might be called Oriental Fathers for support of something that is practically unheard of, or at least developed in a very different way, in the Oriental Orthodox Churches (the case of St. Cyril and Chalcedon just being one example). There is simply no way to untangle it all and find the "one pure Apostolic stream" of theological thought. After all, how many Apostolic Christians today have a profound grasp of Ancient Judaic theology that so heavily colors the writings of the Temple-going Paul? Look at how often he had to clarify, repeat, and reformulate the same ideas in his letters. Through all of that they were still "one, true Church", and so are we today.

I don't believe any weight should be given to the "democracy of the dead" when it comes to Schism, because ultimately Schism is a painful reality, a wound in the Body of Christ, and not a viable "option". It may be a reality, and it may be so until the End of Days, but that doesn't mean it can't be mourned and worked on until the very end.

As for how different expressions can exist within one Church, or one Communion, it's just important to establish the boundaries and keep the dialogue open. This is something I think the Catholic Church has an advantage with, despite all its problems, because we actually do have all these different approaches "in house" so to speak. I can read my Summa and listen to an excellent Marian homily by a Dominican tonight (which I did, Holy Mary pray for your children!), and then I can read the works of St. Gregory Palamas and celebrate his Feast Day at my local Melkite parish.

I think God expects a certain amount of dynamic tension and growth in the Church; if He didn't, I don't think the Holy Spirit would have waited three hundred years for the First Council, the Bible Canon would have been sealed and set in stone when the ink was still wet on the Revelation of John, and there wouldn't be so much as a word of variation among even the ancient Greek texts of Scripture.

The Early Church had Latins, Copts, Greeks, and Syrians, and they all argued, and they differed over the best way to say things, but they also loved and respected one another and they shared in their Communion. The Catholic Church has the exact same dynamic today, even though certain details may look different here or there (and some developments could use a bit of pruning). The point is that we're here and we have it, and I think we should try to work with it; we are extremely fortunate to be able to share in this Communion, even while we continue to work out the kinks of our own making (Roman Curia, I'm looking at you here )

Just my thoughts!

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

As nice as your post is, it fails to address the main issue of disagreement between us. What is the justice received by man? The justice which Trent erroneously asserts, is "not that by which He [i.e., God] Himself is just." Clearly, Trent is asserting that the justice received is something other than God's own justice, so what is it? And in addition to straightforwardly answering this question, you need to address the fact that the East holds exactly what Trent says is not the case, that is, the East holds that by the gift of the uncreated divine energy of justice, man is just with the justice "by which He [i.e., God] Himself is just." So, is the justice received by man through grace (i.e., energy) an uncreated or a created reality?

Moreover, your answer up to this point, which focuses upon the concept of participation, is nonsensical and once again misses the point of disagreement between East and West, because the East holds that man is just by his participation as well, that is, by participation in God's own uncreated energy of justice. Thus, the fact that man is just by participation does not require what Trent teaches, that is, that the justice given by grace (i.e., divine energy) is not God's own justice. In addition, a fair reading of Trent, and -- I would add -- the traditional one made by Western theologians, is that Trent is asserting a justification of man through a "created" grace, that is, through a "created" justice that is not the justice by which God Himself is just, and you have not taken this fact of history into account in your posts.

That being said, I await an answer from you that actually addresses these differences for once, since you continue to avoid addressing the actual problems involved in the Tridentine teaching (and Western Catholic teaching in general).

God bless,
Todd

Alex,

I am sorry that I did not answer your question, but if you will be kind enough to indicate the page number of this thread on which it appears, I will try to answer when I have the time.

God bless,
Todd