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

Marduk,

Even Cardinal Ratzinger disagrees with you on this issue (See "Principles of Catholic Theology," pages 198-199), so it would be better for you if you avoided taking anachronistic positions on the primacy.

God bless,
Todd

Dear brother Todd

If you cannot accept filioque, that is fine. The call to humility does not rest in that. Rather the call to humility rests in accepting the possibility that your own position is not as solid as you may think. I had asked you more than once in our past discussions to offer proof that the Spirit can be dichotomized WITHIN the Godhead, and while you offered no patristic proof, I gave you much to demonstrate the patristic teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son. In truth, as someone once commented to me, you have expressed a very extreme position by rejecting even the statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son.

You have responded that "through the Son" refers only to the economic Procession, not the hypostatic Procession. In truth, this response is nothing more that an INTERPRETATION, and fails miserably in providing the prooftexts for which I asked. You have imposed an interpretation on the texts, not allowed them to speak for themselves.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd
I'm afraid I don't have that book available anywhere near me, nor do I foresee ever having the opportunity to get that book anytime in the future. Could you refer me to an online text so I can read it? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

The pertinent sections of the book been transcribed and can be read at the website linked below:

The Ratzinger Quotation Dispute [lane.elcore.net]

You can also go back to page two of this very thread, where I highlight Cardinal Ratzinger's candid admission that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same ancient faith, that is, that they have the same form, that they had in the first millennium; while the West has mutated over the course of the second millennium into a new form.

May God bless you,
Todd

My rejection of the filioque is not a "personal opinion"; instead, it is a position founded upon the rejection of the filioque, as formulated at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence, by the Byzantine Church at the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285) and the Synod of Constantinople (A.D. 1484). In other words, I reject the filioque because -- as that "doctrine" is formulated at Florence and Lyons II -- it is irreconcilable with the doctrinal tradition of the Byzantine Church.

God bless,
Todd

One of the difficulties I have in dealing with Westerners, and even Easterners who have been heavily Latinized, is that they have a concept of theology that is Scholastic, that is, a concept of theology that is a form of "rationalism," but the Holy Trinity is utterly beyond human reason. Now because the Holy Trinity is beyond human reason, it follows that there can be no "rational" proofs for the doctrine; instead, the Holy Trinity, and the Holy Spirit as energy as well, are matters of faith understood through religious experience.

The only proofs for any of these doctrines come from the Tradition of the Church, and I have provided you with quotations from the Fathers in our many discussions, quotations spanning from the time of St. Irenaeus to St. Gregory Palamas, and yet you continue to reject those proofs, wishing to rely instead on human reason and philosophy. But I cannot follow you there, because to do so would be to become a Barlaamite, and I refuse to do that.

God bless,
Todd

Marduk,

Sadly, neither you nor Ghosty pay close attention to what I write in my posts, because I have insisted, both in my posts at the Catholic Answers Forum and my posts here, that the manifestation (proienai) of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son as divine energy is an eternal, and not merely an economic (i.e., temporal), reality. Thus, what I refuse to do, is to confuse the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit as person, which comes only from the Father, with His eternal manifestation (proienai) as energy, which comes from the Father through the Son.

God bless,
Todd

To everyone here at the Byzantine Forum I want to say that: I hope that this thread does not degenerate into a three way thread between me, Ghosty, and Mardukm, as the threads at the Catholic Answers Forum tend to do, because that is quite boring -- at least to me it is.

I started this thread in order to respond to Ebed Melech's question (in a closed thread), while I also hoped that it would allow a large number of people at this forum to discuss the difficult theological issues that separate East and West.

God bless,
Todd

Dear brother Todd,

Luckily, Cardinal Ratzinger was not writing ex cathedra, and he was certainly being merely diplomatic. For I do not see how it is that the East has maintained the form of the first millenium (for this portion of our discussion, regarding ecclesiology) when a lot of what has canonized in the ecumenical Councils regarding the prerogatives of Patriarchs and Metropolitans is wholly missing in modern Eastern Orthodoxy. When I have time, I will find a post I made in another website, regarding the differences between modern EO ecclesiology and the ancient Church's ecclesiology.

For now, one point stands out in my mind - the rejection of the term "head bishop" among the modern EO. This phrase is enshrined in the Apostolic Canon, yet modern EO vehemently deny that a "head bishop" exists - it is stated "only Christ is the head of the Church." There are several other points that make Catholic (and Oriental) ecclesiology MUCH closer to the patristic standard than modern EO ecclesiology. But I'll take it up again after I find the post in question.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. When Cardinal Ratziner wrote that the Orthodox have retained their ecclesiastical form, he must have mean the Oriental Churches

That is such a Western statement, and I must admit it is a terribly frustrating one, because if I were an Eastern Orthodox Christian I would never take a Catholic theologian at his word.

God bless,
Todd

For a clarification of what he meant (i.e., whether he also intended to include the Oriental Churches), you will need to talk to him.

God bless,
Todd

My apologies to anyone who has had to read through the last few pages of posts, which merely rehash what has already been said earlier in this thread.

God bless,
Todd

Wow, no one can accuse this forum of being dull, that's for sure.

Todd,
Just to get this straight, do you think that the West teaches Grace is itself created (thereby turned into a creature)? It seems that the West denies this, but you think that Trent already did so, therefore you are unconvinced by any modern "spin" on the issue. Is that essentially your position?

Ghosty, Mardukm,
When you get a chance could either of you address my previous post? I'm inclined to agree with you that the West holds that Grace is uncreated, however, I'm still not sure how to make that "work" without the essence/energies distinction because it would seem to indicate that God is knowable in his essence when I thought we all agreed that he isn't. Also, I'm inclined to agree with Todd that the Holy Spirit only has an eternal energetic procession through the Son. Do you believe that articulation is compatable with Latin Theology? I don't feel comfortable saying He proceeds hypostatically from the Son in any way.

Todd,

I'm absolutely sure that he meant no offense, but his label was offensive nonetheless.

Your recent tendency to label churches who are in communion with Rome as "in submission to Rome" is also wearing thin with me personally. Were I as a parent to label my children as "human beings in submission to me" or (gasp!) decided to engage in a little exegesis on Ephesians 5 and label my wife as "the woman subject to me" I think I would rapidly drain my family's emotional bank account to a negative balance! Would I be speaking the truth? Well, yes - but only as a qualified "yes" understanding these mysteries as the Church herself does, through the Christological lens of the primacy of kenotic love.

Churches in communion "with and under" the Bishop of Rome certainly need to respect the authority of the Successor of St. Peter who resides in Rome (roma) and who "presides in love (amor)" in the midst of the college of bishops. "With and Under" exists on something of a continuum throughout history and in particular cases. The picture you paint here is certainly not the complete one conveyed by the council documents of Vatican II, as you are well aware.

"Submission" to rightful authority in matters of faith and morals requires first and foremost the gift of faith in the Word of God which is transmitted principally through the hierarchy, governed as it were by the visible principle of apostolic continuity in succession as an historical witnesses to the Word's revelation and commission 2000 years ago. That these apostolic successors should gather together in council with Peter's successor, inspired and guarded infallibly by the Holy Spirit, was a principle of church life since apostolic times. Orthodoxy, while maintaining this principle along with submission to rightful authority, continues tragically to have no means of speaking authoritatively with "one voice" to modern issues and challenges. (This has been the case for centuries.) this is not a matter for gloating, but is rather a matter for sadness. The fact of this tragedy is especially acute since the West learned this magisterial principle from the East, and not the other way around. That the West has at times expressed itself in a maximalist way concerning the primacy of her patriarch, usually in answer to a threat from the West, or the plentiful historical examples of the misuse of the primacy, is not an argument against the principle of Petrine primacy or supremacy residing in the Bishop of Rome. Nature abhors a vacuum. Primacy without supremacy leads to disunity, and this is why the West has traditionally seen the two as inseperable in her Patriarch. It was the exercise of supremacy that gave Pope St. Clement to right to intervene in Corinth. The notion that a Church can speak and act as one without any final court of appeal or power (yes - there's that dirty word) of ordinary and universal jurisdiction is perplexing. Such a principle of supremacy exists analogously within any human enterprise, as it rightfully should. Its exercise for the good of the organization should be used sparingly, as it was in the first 1000 years of Church life. One critical difference is that the one who exercises primacy with supremacy in any human enterprise is not gifted with the divine protection of the Holy Spirit, nor is he or she bound to uphold the Tradition that was passed on to him or her.

We can argue the point about created grace all day long, and I for one admit that, just based on an initial read (I promise to be more diligent later on) some of the nuances are lost on me. I am content to remain faithfully a "catechist" at heart, and cannot claim to be any great theologian. But what has been proposed to me as a Catholic, and to which I will adhere, is that it is not for me to sit in judgement upon the Church, upon the Pope or her councils. I may say that the Church could have said something in a better way or at a different time, but that is quite a different issue from questioning her authority to define altogether or to say that the Church can teach error officially. I continue to hold to the faith that I received, as both an Eastern Christian and a Greek Catholic. I see no contradiction between the two principles, since I do not recognize the authority of the father bishops outside of our communion to teach anything that is universally binding. That is not to say that they are not wise, or truly spiritual even saintly men full of the Holy Spirit, or that I should never entrust my formation to them in any way shape or form, or that somehow their sacramental reality as legitimate churches is invalid. To the contrary, I often have more respect for certain members of the Orthodox hierarchy than some who exist incommunion with the bishop of Rome. But personal feelings aside, that does not change the matter of infallible magisterial authority, and as a Catholic I believe that can only come from bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome.

But where differences exist, I try first to understand where it may only exist in appearance and not in substance. I look for complimentarity first, rather than assume contradiction. Perhaps this makes me naive, but I do believe in the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox churches, so for me it is always a matter of hope that that same Spirit is leading us into all truth.

Ultimately, I yield my own will and intellect in the matter to Catholic teaching (East and West). This is not a matter of any argument that would convince anyone, only a perspective of a humble (and at times not so humble) servant who would by God's grace gladly give up his life for the Gospel, but who wants only to live it out first.

I wish the same for you as well.

In Christ,

Gordo

If you read the writings of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange (who happened to be one of Pope John Paul II's professors when he was in schoool) and Charles Cardinal Journet, you will see that the West teaches that sanctifying grace is a created habitus, which then serves as a bridge of sorts, for conveying the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity to man. The Eastern Fathers deny the need for such a created reality, because the uncreated divine energies come into direct contact with man, and bestow the gift of theosis upon him without the need of a created habitus or created relationship.

As I have said several times: grace is God, so there can be no such thing as "created" grace.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I believe that Gordo gave a link to Cardinal Journet's book on grace earlier in this thread, but for a more detailed treatment of the Western doctrine of grace, I recommend Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's book entitled, "Grace," which was published by B. Herder Book Company in 1957.