www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West How Catholic? How Orthodox?

All,

Someone once told me that being Byzantine Catholic means living with a certain amount of "ambiguity." That said, I'm going to risk trying to disambiguate a few things by asking a question that I'm sure has been asked here before: just how Catholic and how Orthodox are we/must we be?

Basically, I'm wondering where the "limits" are, so to speak. Recent discussion and research has led me to ask this question, and I think the best way to frame it is to perhaps give a few examples and ask you all whether someone in the following situations remains legitimately a Byzantine Catholic, in full communion with Rome, and so on. I don't mean any offense by asking this and I hope none is taken. So, here we go:

(A) The first example is the well-known example of Archbishop Elias Zoghby, a person whom some seem to deeply respect and others seem to question (and whose name I mention only because his example is well-known and most of you will be familiar with him). Archbishop Zoghby, as most of you are likely to know, declared that he (1) believes everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches, and (2) is "in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millenium, before the separation." He also wrote in one of his books (I think it was, "We Are All Schismatics") the following (emphasis has been added):

"The general councils of the West [i.e., Lyons, Florence, Trent, etc.], particularly Vatican I, are only obligatory for the Latins . . . [T]he Roman Church has held councils called 'general', in which Orthodoxy did not participate, because it was not in communion with Rome. These councils, including Vatican I and II, as well as the Marian definitions declared ex cathedra by the Bishop of Rome, cannot form part of this common deposit of faith of the universal Church. Neither are they essential for ecclesial communion . . . [T]hey do not concern the Eastern Churches since they did not participate in their elaboration."

Does anyone know if Rome ever addressed questions/issues like this, or ever addressed Archbishop Zoghby himself? I'm not aware of anything like that, but it would certainly be helpful. In other words, I'm trying to determine how "legitimate" the above views are in Byzantine Catholicism and in Catholicism as a whole. For example, I'd be curious to know if any Roman Catholic might have balked at Archbishop Zoghby's claims or even refused to allow that he was Catholic and in communion with Rome.

In fairness, I should point out that Archbishop Zoghby does go on to imply that non-acceptance of the above councils as dogma does not necessarily imply a disagreement over the actual truth of the doctrine professed. So that leads me to my next hypothetical...

(B) Suppose someone agrees with Archbishop Zoghby above but also states that he does actually disagree with the doctrine professed at the Western Councils, and may even believe them to be false. Taking the filioque as an example, for instance, suppose this person believes that the filioque is theologically erroneous and might even be, or come close, to heresy. Suppose he maintains communion with Rome because he believes that communion with the church of Rome, if possible, is an important mark of the Church, but suppose that he also believes that this intercommunion still allows him to be as absolutely Orthodox as possible and does not demand that he follow any of the post-schism conciliar decrees. Suppose that he thinks that the fact that Rome communes with the Byzantine Catholics while encouraging them to return to their traditions is a sign that Rome is open to the idea that their councils may have been in error, and that Orthodox theology could correct their mistakes. Hypothetically, he may believe that the acceptance of the filioque could be eventually overturned, that the declaration of papal infallibility doesn't really bind him, and so on. Is this person, who basically sees the Latin Catholics as by and large mistaken but possibly open to correction, and maintains communion but insists on all of the beliefs of Orthodoxy while not accepting some of the Western post-schism decrees, legitimately Catholic? (I don't mean to ask for judgmentalism here or to make offense, so we ought not (I hope) take this personally.)

Or, as a last alternative, is the only option something like:

(C) A person who accepts Orthodox theology and liturgical tradition to the extent that it agrees with the dogma of the Western Church, including what has been defined at the later "Western Councils," and who believes that Rome has defined a number of unrevisable and infallible doctrines since the schism. This person would, for example, accept the filioque in theory as (at least) a true theological opinion, even if refusing to recite it in his own church's creed, and he'll accept papal infallibility and the ex cathedra teachings that go along with it. I think it's clear that he unquestionably maintains communion.

So, my question to you all is: are all of these hypotheticals legitimate, or only some? If only some, which ones? Why? And do you know if there have been any supposedly authoritative directions -- particularly from the West -- regarding the above considerations and what we "must" believe?

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

P.S. Please forgive the length of this post.

Dear Jason,
Such a question! We must be fully Catholic and fully Orthodox.
Archbishop Elias is an excellent and careful theologian; his books are worth (and require) careful reading. His thought is quite powerful.
The distinction he makes between the Seven Councils and the later councils in the West is also made by Pope Paul VI.

Incognitus

Incognitus,

Granting the distinction between councils, does this also admit that they might have been mistaken (as per the hypothetical person B I mention in my original post)? I guess I'm trying to figure out what denying "ecumenical" status to the Western Councils might potentially entail.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Jason

Ecce Jason,

Yes, Rome did respond.

Our Holy Father, Benedict XVI, when he was then-Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation of Eastern Churches did issue a response to the Melkite Initiative . You can read it at: http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm

I hope you find it helpful.

God bless you,
griego catolico

Griego Catolico,

Thanks very much for that link. It was indeed helpful and was exactly what I was looking for. What I gather from it is that communion with Rome, even for Byzantine Catholics, requires and entails "full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith," to the extent that they must even affirm the primacy of the Pope "in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day." In other words, Archbishop Zoghby's position -- as far as I can tell -- was more or less refused as a legitimate option. What this seems to imply is that we've got to accept the Western councils in their fullness, even if we don't explicitly give them the title "ecumenical." This implies that something like my option (C) above, or some nearby variant of it, is the only viable option.

That's what I get from it, anyway. Does anyone get anything different from it? Does anyone else want to respond?

Thanks to everyone so far!

Best,
Jason

Dear Jason - it might depend on just what one thinks the Western Council or Councils to have been mistaken about.

As for Cardinal Ratzinger - now, of course, Pope Benedict XVI (God grant him many years), it is well to read some other writings of his on related topics.

Incognitus

Isn't it funny how high-ranking ecclesiastical officials can write letters and suggestions about the future of the Church without saying the name "Jesus", and only using the words "Christ" and "God" once, and then only while describing the church.

*sigh*

I'm not questioning the sincerity and Christ-centeredness of the authors. I just wish ecclesiastics of all sorts could talk about Jesus a little more when writing such documents.

Dave

Dear Chtec,

And without taking Our Lord's Name in vain at that!

Alex

Option (C) is openly contradictory, because it is not possible to accept the definition of the "filioque" as it is put forward at Florence, while simultaneously holding to the Byzantine understanding of the Monarchy of the Father as the sole cause in the Godhead. As a Byzantine I cannot accept any formulation of the "filioque" that makes the Son a cause (either independently or dependently with the Father) of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. To apply the Western formulation of the "filioque" in Eastern theology results in either modalism, in that it confuses the hypostases of the Father and the Son, or polytheism, in that it posits two causes (even if called a single principle) within the Godhead.

Dear Apotheoun,

In actual fact, RC theology does not allow for the Son to be a "Cause" for the Holy Spirit as the Father is the Cause.

The phrase, "From the Father through the Son" is as perfect a phrase as we will get in this life - and the nice thing is that both East and West ALREADY agree to it, no questions asked.

Alex

Although the West often says this, the two sides do not agree. The West holds, as Florence defines that ". . . the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father."

Now even though Florence holds that "through" and "from" are equivalent, they have not shown this to be the case, and moreover the statement that the Holy Spirit receives His "subsistent being" from the Father and the Son cannot be reconciled with the Council of Blachernae, which officially rejected the Council of Lyons in 1285. The two expressions are not identical.

God bless,
Todd

Dear Todd,

Well, granted the word "Cause" is a concern, but, as I've recently read in an RC seminary manual here (all this talk here about seminaries got me rather inspired to go visit one . . .) the Spirit is said to spirate only "passively" from the Son but "actively" from the Father.

IF that is the extent of the RC view of "Cause," and I believe it is, then there should be no problem.

Everything the Father has, the Son has, as the Scriptures say. The only thing the Son does not have is being like the Father in having no other Origin. But because the Son's Origin is the Father then this changes, qualitatively, does it not, the manner of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son - from the Son "passively" only or better, "Through the Son."

I think the Latins were trying to establish the same Origin from the Father AND the Son to avoid what St John Damascene himself cites in his "De Fide Orthodoxa" concerning misunderstandings of what "through the Son" implies about the Divinity of the Son in relation to the Father.

Ultimately, there really is no problem today, but a matter of emphasis historically that related to historical theological issues that no longer swirl around now.

Alex

Would another Latin term need to be created to support this change? (remove Filioque and insert new term) is there even a Latin word for 'Through' that does not imply eternal procession ?

it would be best if Rome removed the Filioque altogheter.

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas


Brad

The Eastern Churches rejected the Latin distinction of active and passive causes in the Trinity. There is only one cause in the Trinity, i.e., the Father, and that is why there is only one God. To hold that there can be more than one cause, active or passive, is to believe in two Gods. There is no way to conform the teaching of the Cappadocians, Maximos, Damascene, or Palamas to this viewpoint. The Son is not a cause of the Spirit's hypostasis, not even passively.

Dear All,

I think we have to take languages into account. As for me when contemplating on the Holy Spirit, my personal conclusion was that the Holy Spirit was the 'Word' coming through Christ, and that the comprehension of that 'Word' had to come from the Father. In that sense the Holy Spirit proceeds in one way directly from the Father, and in another through the son.

Now to state the beliefs and theology of Saint Gregoy Palamas in the excellent interpretations of the book 'Saint Gregory as an Hagiorite" by the Greek Metropolitan Nafpaktos Hierotheos, and the excellent translation by Esther Williams, (not the movie star), when fighting the heresy of Barlaam:

"The Calabrian philosopher Barlaam maintained that we could not know just what the Holy Spirit is, especially His procession and His being sent by the Son. In the face of the danger of agnosticism St. Gregory taught that the actual procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is a different thing from His being sent by the Son. Thus while we do not know the essence of the Holy Spirit, we do know His energy.

All spiritual life is a result and fruit of the energy of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the saint taught, we cannot participate in God's essence, but we can know and participate in His energies."

In another section of the books the interpreter states that:

In the fourteenth century there was a great discussion between St. Gregory Palamas and the philosopher barlaam about the nature of the Light of the Transifiguration. At first Barlaam maintained that we do not know exactly who the Holy -Spirit is, since we cannot know what God is. He said this in discussing the subject of the 'filioque'.

Then St. Gregory Palamas, recognising that this position would end in agnosticism, maintained that there is essence and energy in God, and that we do not know what the essence of God is, but we know and experience His energies. It is impossible for us to participate in the knowledge of God's esence, but we can know and acquire experience of His energies.

Likewise the Holy Spirit as essence proceeds from the Father alone, but as energy He is sent by the Son and also from the Son. The existence of the Holy Spirit, His manner of being, is one thing, and His disclosure is another.

Zenovia