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

A slight clarification: The Holy Spirit is eternally manifested, but does not proceed (ekporeusis), from the Father through the Son in the divine energy. Now, the reason that the East rejects the filioque is because it involves a confusion of the Spirit's hypostatic procession (i.e., the Spirit's procession of origin as person) from the Father alone, with His eternal manifestation, not as person, but as energy, from the Father through the Son.

Alex,

My answer may not please some people, but here it is: Byzantine theology and Roman theology are clearly different, sometimes in a complementary fashion, and sometimes not.

On the question of the filioque the Council of Florence is quite simply, wrong! It has confused the Spirit's hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin, with His eternal manifestation (proienai) from the Father through the Son as energy. That is why St. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign the Florentine decree, because Florence was confusing two very different realities, and was simultaneously (in the speeches given by John Montenero) reducing the uncreated charismata of the Spirit (i.e., the Spirit as energy) to created graces.

I think the fact that I remain in a Church that is in submission to Rome, but which will hopefully someday be in communion with Rome instead, shows that I believe it is possible to reject Roman doctrines and be a member of the Ruthenian Church. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that this is the case, but only time will tell.

I hope that this sufficiently answers your questions, but if it does not, either post again, or private message me, and I will try to expand on my answer in this thread.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Alex, part of the problem with the West is that it constantly tries to dogmatize various theologoumenon, and -- of course -- if it would stop doing that, it would create less obstacles on the road to reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

P.P.S. - Finally, I would simply add that ecumenism is a necessary task, even when there are substantive differences between the two sides, and so both Catholics and Orthodox must continue to talk to each other about what divides them, and what unites them.

I did address this. We are not talking about the energy of justice, but the process of justification (related to what was called Original Justice by St. Thomas Aquinas, the original state of Adam and Eve, because it was according to God's distributive justice that Adam and Eve were made in a state of Grace, and because our nature was balanced), which is the indwelling of the Trinity and sharing of Faith, Hope, and Charity with human persons. Justification, then, is a restoring of order lost with the sin of Adam, a rebalancing so to speak, and that order is the possession of Grace by humanity, and we are said to be "justified" or "just" or to "have justice" in this sense when dealing with Baptism. This manner of speaking is common to both the Latin and Oriental (at least Coptic) traditions.

The energy of Justice, as indwelling in humans, would be a matter of the Cardinal Virtue of Justice in Latin parlance, which is not touched on in the session of Trent dealing with justification (and to my knowledge has never been dealt with in any Western Councils). It is a totally seperate issue, though it is because God is Just that He "justifies" us, in the meaning of the previous paragraph.

In the case of the former, we are "justified" whereas God is not, because God is in no need of rebalance, so we can say that our right-ordering is fundamentally different from God's right-ordering. We can also say it's different because God possesses right-ordering inately, and we possess it by participation. In the second case, that of justice as energy, it's not even addressed by Trent, though the same distinction between possession by nature, and possession by participation would be made.

Peace and God bless!

This post is in answer to a question put forward by Gordo and MarkosC.

The technical terms, ennoia and epinoia (i.e., epinoetic conception), are used in the epistemology of the Cappadocian Fathers in order to explain how it is that a man comes to "know" things about God. Now, these two terms are intimately bound together in the Cappadocian doctrinal system, because the word ennoia concerns a man's perception of the divine energies, and it is from these perceptions that he -- after reflection -- forms a epinoia (i.e., a conception) of God's being.

Now, bearing in mind the meaning of these terms, it is important to remember that in the Cappadocian epistemological system the process of conception formation necessarily involves stages of distanciation: (1) the distanciation between the event of encounter and the perception of the event, (2) the distanciation between the perception of the experience and the conception of it, (3) the distanciation between the mental conception of the event and the linguistic formulation and communication of the event to others. It is also important to note that the Cappadocian Fathers hold that there is an unbridgeable gap -- an ontological diastema -- between man and the divine essence; and so, the divine essence is, and always will be, utterly incomprehensible and incommunicable, and as a consequence of this, man's theosis (divinization) involves a real participation in the uncreated divine energies, but not in the divine essence.

Ghosty,

This is nonsense, because the reception of the uncreated divine energy is the process of justification. Man is called upon to grow in the divine energy by enacting his own will, and this is the process of theosis.

Clearly, at least if you are correct in your reading of Western doctrine, East and West are teaching positions that are openly opposed to each other.

Ghosty, is the justice received by man created or uncreated? Because if it is uncreated, it is of necessity the very justice by which God Himself is just.

God bless,
Todd

Don't want to disrupt this fantastic thread...

However...

I know that it is oftentimes stated that communion is offered to all Orthodox Christians in the papal Catholic Church. That is more PR than anything...I have not met an Orthodox Christian yet who would receive in a papal Catholic Church...why??? the Reception of Eucharist for an Orthodox Christian at a papal Church, in essence excommunicates...I probably shouldn't use that word...essentially cuts them off from receiving Eucharist back at their Orthodox Church until they confess their sin and receive absolution...the person would essentially be "breaking communion with their Orthodox Church" by their reception outside The Church.

Sorry for inturupting this fantastic thread...

I did swing by after reading Job's post to say one thing.

I have never heard - nor, please, do I ever desire to see again - our church referred to as a "papal Catholic Church". Such a label is ridiculous and offensive. Each Catholic Church exists in communion with her local bishop who is in communion with the patriarch or metropolitan archbishop of that jurisduction - who is in communion with the Pope of Rome. "Universal and immediate jurisdiction" despite protests to the contrary does not make each bishop or local church an extension of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, but is rather, in the language of Vatican II, "with and under". Such a point has been clarified by Rome, time and again. Bishops do, often to the chagrin of their flock as you experienced firsthand, act with great autonomy as is their "right" by virtue of their role as spiritual father and shepherd to their flock. This is not a right conceded to them or delegated to them by Rome, but rather one that flows from their membership within the apostoli hierarchy. In certain defined matters of faith and morals, however they should not stray from what has been defined by the Church's magisterium in which they participate. Your label of "papal", which is as absurd as James Likoudis' insistence upon the label "dissident Orthodox churches", is offensive and should be retracted.

Secondly, the "sin" you mention is not of "schism" but of disobedience, IMHO, to one's local ordinary. Rome has said consistently that Orthodox Christians should respect the regulations of their hierarchy as it pertains to reciving holy communion in a Catholic Church. And in some instances, intercommunion has been and continues to be permitted.

Gordon

Ok, I stole this from Pontifications (the other site where I hang out.)

Maybe Fr. Addison Hart�s article on created grace will help.

�� The Eastern Church, whether speaking of the original creation or the work of regeneration and deification in Christ, uses the time-honored language of �essence� and �energies� to make the necessary distinction between God in himself and God in his operations in the created order. Western, Latin-language theology has used the term gratia creata in its own attempt to make the same necessary distinction. The word �created� refers not to the substance of grace (which is God himself), but to that same grace as it is infused and at work in our created natures accidentally. The Thomist scholar, Timothy McDermott, is therefore surely correct in rendering, if a bit loosely, the words of the Angelic Doctor on this matter in the following way: �Strictly speaking, a supervening quality is not so much in existence itself, as a way in which something else exists; and so grace is not created, but men are created in it, established in a new existence out of nothing, without earning it.�

Far from this constituting some great divergence of West from East, I think it is safe to say that here we have�potentially, at least�a real point of doctrinal convergence, despite our differing terminologies��

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-047-f

This makes more sense because obviously Grace has to be God or else it has no power to justify. Therefore, everyone agrees that all Grace is uncreated. In fact, it seems to me that saying otherwise is completely ridiculous. Ok, so where does that leave us? Is it just that there is no consensus on interpreting Trent (surprise, surprise)? I will also say that I do not like the term "Created Grace" even if it is not technically "wrong"; basically, I think it's misleading because it sounds like the West is turning Grace into a creature -- even if it isn't.

The other potential problem I see here, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that if all Grace is uncreated for the West and God is absolutely simple (via absolute divine simplicity) then aren't we experiencing God in his Essence through uncreated Grace? But everyone agrees that God is unknowable in his Essence so that can't be possible. This whole situation is crying out for the Essence/Energies distinction.

Therefore, I hearby proclaim Essence/Energies to be Dogma for the Western Church! Well, I'm glad we solved that problem

As one who recently translated to the Catholic Church, I do not see anything about Western doctrine that needs to be rejected. One simply needs to understand it from the Western perspective.

As regards filioque:

Brother Apotheoun, we have discussed this in another forum elsewhere and nothing you have said there or here can allow me to agree that the dicotomies IN the Godhead that Eastern Triadology currently makes is permissible according to the Tradition of East and West. All the Fathers you have ever mentioned in support of the Eastern position have NEVER made such a distinction of Essence and energies in the Godhead; though certainly, they have made the distinction SIMPLY as regards the relation of God to His creation. But for the East to extrapolate such a distinction to the inner life of the Godhead is clearly beyond what the Fathers allow. You say Florence was in error. I say rightly understood it was not. I will not say that the East is in error in dichotomizing the Spirit within the Godhead (you know how we Orientals are about preserving the divine unity); I say that only because it is not a dogmatized teaching, but a mere theologoumenon as far as I'm concerned, a second millenium development in the East that is foreign to the Church of the first millenium. You accuse the West of innovation regarding filioque; I as an Oriental Christian can accuse the East of innovation as well. The better course is to understand each other and refrain from condemning.

Furthermore, the Western filioque DOES NOT involve a confusion of the Spirit's hypostatic procession, as was exlained to you elsewhere. Many here understand what you seem to refuse to understand - that the West does NOT teach that the Son is the ACTUAL origin of the Spirit, but merely the Channel (analogically speaking) through Whom His Person flows. Rather, it seems to me the EO theology is the one that confuses the distinction of Essence and Energy of the Godhead merely in relation to His creation, and unjustifiably applies that distinction to the relations of the Persons with each Other within the Godhead. But, as mentioned, it is better to understand than to condemn.

The issue of created/uncreated grace is all semantics, IMHO. The West uses "created" only to indicate its connection to a created being, not to indicate any change in grace itself. At best it is a linguistic convenience. As I mentioned elsewhere, your arguments against the Western terminology (I stress that because you are really arguing against that, and not the theology, as brother Ghosty has amply demonstrated) comes dangerously close to the docetist arguments against the Incarnation.

Also, please don't accuse the West of dogmatizing theologoumenon without recognizing that the East has done the same thing. I can say to you, "if the East would only practice what it preaches, it would create less obstacles on the road to reunion." What dogmas has the East imposed that are creating obstacles? Some of them we are talking about right here in this very thread. The fact is, brother Todd, everytime the East condemns the West on some theological front, she is guilty of just as much dogmatizing as she accuses the West of doing. But the East would be doubly guilty of hypocrisy --- I don't see Western apologists accusing the East of dogmatizing too much, yet Eastern apologists constantly complain about that, while doing it themselves.

Brother Todd, I assure you that as an Oriental Christian, I can accuse the East of departing from Tradition on several points. Further, Orientals share certain viewpoints with the West that are found in the Church of the first millenium that are no longer present among the Eastern Orthodox (the Eastern Catholic Church may have reacquired them upon closer contact with the Western portion of the Church - granted I am not an expert on the East).

However else we may resolve these differences, one thing is for sure - EVERYONE needs to have a whole lot of humility for things to go forward.

Blessings,
Marduk

Your point is well taken, although I do not think that Job meant any offense in calling the Roman Church, and all of those Churches in submission to Rome, "Papal."

Now, as far as the dispute about the Western concept of Papal "universal and ordinary jurisdiction" is concerned, I think that concept itself is what gives rise to the perception by many who are outside of the Roman Catholic Church (and all the Churches that presently submit to Roman authority) that the Catholic Church is "Papal," because as Archimandrite Victor Pospishil made clear in the quotation I posted at the beginning of this thread, the Eastern Catholic Churches have "submitted" to Rome, and that act of submission no doubt adds to the fears of Eastern Orthodox Christians about the Roman concept of the primacy as a type of papal power over others.

Nevertheless, I agree with your point, because the various Churches involved in ecumenical dialogue should be called by names that avoid giving offense to the members of those Churches.

May God bless you on this feast day of the Transfer of the Icon of Christ called "Not made with hands,"

Todd

Regarding marriage/annulments.

1) The idea that the validity of a Sacrament can be annulled due to certain conditions ("impediments" in Latinspeak) is an idea that pervades the practice of the early Church, enshrined in many of her canons. Can someone please explain to me how the Latin Church's practice of annulment in the Sacrament of marriage is... Scratch that. More to the point is - how did the notion of annulment disappear from the Eastern tradition?

2) I have asked this question of a Russian Orthodox priest more than once with no response. Where are the early Church canons that permit divorce and remarriage? P.S. I am fully aware of St. Basil's canons, but none of them permit as much as the EO permit TODAY. Are there any other canons aside from the Basilian Canons?

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

Yes, you and I disagree entirely on the filioque, and sadly I cannot see us ever agreeing on that issue. Nevertheless, I do agree with you on the importance of the virtue of humility, but to stand up for the truth by rejecting the filioque does not show a lack of humility; instead, it shows concern for the salvation of one's soul.

God bless,
Todd

Dear brother Todd,

The concept of "universal and ordinary jurisdiction" was already hammered out at Vatican I. No orthodox Catholic commentary during and after Vatican I would ever allow that the Vatican I decrees permit or would permit the kind of exagerrated tyranny non-Catholic polemicists imagine the papacy to be. In my journey to the Catholic Church, I read these commentaries and realized I had nothing to fear. Since these official interpretations of papal prerogatives exist to be read, either 1) the Orthodox who still paint horrid caricatures of the papacy have not read them, or 2) They have read them, and something else is really bothering them. Then again, it could just be my Oriental Orthodox background which makes such explanations acceptable to my ears, whereas to an Eastern Orthodox, it would still smack of some kind of tyranny. IMO, option #1 seems more likely the case.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

I disagree with you, because grace is God, and therefore must be uncreated. To promote the false idea, which only arose in the West during the Scholastic period after Peter Lombard, that grace is "created" is to reduce grace to a creature, and no creature can deify a man.

God bless,
Todd

The Cappadocians and St. Athanasios make the distinction between essence and energy (and in particular the divine will). Thus, you are in error my friend. Moreover, these distinctions -- without a separation -- are fundamental to the Christian faith. As St. Gregory Palamas, and many other Eastern Fathers liked to say, God is indivisibly divided among His many energies.

God bless,
Todd