www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Fr. Hopko presentation

Fr. Deacon Robert,

How can one be desribed as a heretic who holds to the teachings of the Seven Great Councils as so many saints did?

The problem with the later Western Councils is they hold the Latin position to be the only acceptable position and then proclaim it the Apostolic position. All this without the participation and/or acceptance of these councils by the East, token representation by Eastern Catholics not withstanding.

Many of the Western Councils dealt with disciplinary matter pertaining only to the West or to theological controversy again only pertaining to the West. It would be like
the Orthodox Church proclaiming their own particular councils after the Great Seven to be Ecumencical and binding on all other Churches. (And some extremists do!)

As Catholics we may have to agree that the later Councils were not heresy, but I do not feel we have to give them the same weight or honor we do the Great Seven. Indeed, we do not liturgically celebrate any but the Great Seven, which says quite a lot.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear friends,
We had nearly 100 people in attendance for Father Hopko's presentation last evening.
I'm going to present a summary of his remarks.
The topic was what the Orthodox would have to do to be in sacramental communion with the Latin Church and the Pope of Rome.
Father stressed that his remarks were his opinions; he wasn't speaking for all Orthodox.
In theological terms it must be determined what belongs essentially to Christianity and what is secondary. This has to be put in place--only thing that could divide us is essentials. As St. Augustine of Hippo is given credit for saying: In things essential-unity; in things doubtful-freedom; but in all things-charity. But before you get to this point you must have:
1. The real desire for unity. We should suffer and weep over division. We need to prove that desire not only by prayer, but by actions, works, ready to make any possible sacrifice that doesn't violate the essence of the faith. The Orthodox aren't ready to give up nonessentials. The Orthodox don't want unity even among themselves. Why? Power, Preeminence, Prominence, Property, Possessions, Prestige, Pleasure--because of Pride, Passion, and Prejudice. And so he's very pessimistic. To have unity in evangelization, mission, prayer, etc., hardly ever happens. We have to desire this with all our heart as an obligation from God in what is really essential. Orthodox aren't ready to do this. There's another agenda going on that is of this world among Orthodox.
2. Be totally ready to admit our own sins. Unilaterally. Forgive the sins of otheres whether they admit them or not. Put past behin us. What can we do NOW? Forgiveness is by definition unity.
3. Never say or do anything to offend others. Be ready to go extra mile to do that which will build unity. Because God wants unity in Him.
4. Have to be ready to practice "economia" (what to do when we can't apply canon law strictly because you'd put people's souls in danger) on various issues. Even on some issues which the Orthodox think are bad to toldrate them at least for a while. Examples: filioque, baptism methods, celibacy, communion in one kind, etc. As long as it's clear what these mean. "Economia" has been going on in the past. There are issues which fall between essential and secondary and Orthodox need to be willing to work on them together for the sake of unity to come about by God's grace.
I hope I've fairly summarized Father's remarks, Vito

In Christ,
Father Deacon Robert

This doesn't sound like the rather strident Thomas Hopko portrayed in a prior post. Actually, it sounds a lot like what I'm hearing from local OCA clerics!

Dn. Robert

"Who ever said that that was the case?"

You did:

"In fact, if we knowingly, and in bad faith, reject "De Fide" teachings, we can be said to be heretics. This is no criticism of the "Eastern Doctrinal Tradition"."

If this is accepted then the entire Melkite Synod and many others are heretics for signing the Zoghby Initiative. This is how exactly the SSPX and the like declare Orthodox to be heretics.

"The problem with your statement is that the magisterium of the universal church does not consider the later councils to be merely "Western Councils"."

Pope Paul VI called them Western Councils. Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the East cannot be asked to accept anything beyond what was held in common up till the seperation. I do not see it beyond the realm of possibilty that the current or a future Pope would renounce the later councils as Ecumenical and declare them non-binding on Easterners.

"Nonsense. The view of Catholicism is that theological teachings of Ecumenical Councils pertain to the Universal Church."

Which is exactly the point. What of the later councils dealt with things of import to the Universal Church? They dealt almost exclusively with Western phenomena. The Seven Great Councils can be distinguished by the fact they dealt with Trinitarian and Christological controversy with consequences for the entire Church. The same cannot be said of the later Western councils. And the point also remains that for a Council to be Ecumenical it must be, well, ecumenical, if not in representation, then in acceptance. The Orthodox Churches are true Churches and their input and acceptance is necessary.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dn. Robert

"I do know that the "Zoghby Initiaitive" was not accepted by Rome, and if memory serves well, Constantinople reacted negatively. The response by both parties was a sort of "thanks, but no thanks"."

It matters not that Rome and Antioch did not accept it. What matters is that the Melkites hold to it and were not declared heretics or excommunicated by Rome.

"But I do not reject the others, and as a Greek catholic, I do not have the option to do so."

I do not saying we must reject them. I am saying that an Eastern Catholic need not hold them in the same light as the Great Seven. I know some will disgaree with that, but there you have it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Dogmas of the Universal Church are for the Universal Church. Teachings on Faith and Morals of All the Councils are to be held with the same level of belief & acceptance. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Dn. Robert

Rome also has not formally excommunicated the likes of Hans Kung, Charles Curran, or Matthew Fox. That doesn't mean that they are orthodox.

I think you might be wrong there on the account of Fr Matthew Fox not being excommunicated, I think he was, especially by the fact that he left the Church and then joined up with the Episcopal Fellowship and was even too much for them believe it or not!
Stephanos I

Glory to God! Hope you are right.

Dn. Robert

But they were all formally censured, the Melkite Synod was not.

Fr. Deacon Lance

But then what are we to say of the council that dealt with the issue of iconoclasm which, up until the time of the Protestant Reformation, left the West virtually untouched? Again, the idea of whether the content of a council touches on matters pertaining to the whole church or to issues specific to local churches or even a whole segment of Christendom is immaterial to the question of conciliar authority. This notion of the East-West divide as an ecclesial principle seems to contradict the nature of the church as described in Sacred Scripture.

And by whose authority is an ecumenical council called? If it is the Emperor, then we have little hope of a council ever being convened until the Parousia.

I think the Orthodox argument is on stronger ground from the perspective of the tradition of "reception" by local churches, not with re: to how "ecumenical" the content of the dogmatic decrees may be (how would that even be decided and by whom?). But even then, the idea of reception cannot be absolutized as a principle, since it brings back the question of the reception of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Ultimately the question of the Petrine primacy of Rome in such matters must come into play. It cannot be avoided, nor should it be swept under the rug.

How should a Byzantine Catholic then regard the ecumenical councils of the West?

Take for instance the Western council of Trent, which was very clearly a council called to address Western concerns. Would I be bound as a Byzantine Catholic to its teaching on justification? As a Catholic I could not hold views which contradict the essence of the decrees. But does that mean that I would therefore need to actively teach the dogmas/decrees of the council to remain in communion? No - I would teach the positions of the Byzantine tradition on the topic of salvation. Does that make the teachings of the council of Trent "less true" for me than it is for Latin Catholics? No - it just means that I would approach the same mystery in a complimentary fashion. The same would hold true for purgatory, indulgences, original sin, papal infallability and universal jurisdiction, etc etc. Just as we effectively "ignore" the Latin addition of "filioque" to the Creed within our own liturgical and theological practice, we can say that the teaching on "filioque" is not heretical and then go on to positively assert the Eastern view - particularly the Cappadocian view and the teachings of St. Maximos the Confessor. Where - if ever - one may find specific teachings within particular schools of thought within the Byzantine tradition (and to say that there is always ONE single Eastern perspective on everything is absurd) that absolutely contradict the teaching of one of the Catholic ecumenical councils, I believe that we must defer to "Elder Rome" in that regard. We should not, however, have to always yield to the specific language or form of its presentation, but rather to its essence.

Otherwise, why stay in communion?

Gordo

Fair enough. But, my point is that inaction by Rome, or any proper authority, doesn't necessarily guarantee anything. Pope Honorius was dug up, after death, and anathematized, for his inaction against, I believe, Arians. Pope Liberius has always been held in low esteem for not coming to the defense of St. Athanasius in his fight against the Arians (Of course, there were other Popes who staunchly came to the defense of those Eastern Fathers who were persecuted by emperors for their defense of Orthodoxy-I don't want to create an overly negative picture regarding past Popes).

Fr. Deacon Robert

I could not have said it better, myself. Good post, Gordo.

Fr. Deacon Robert