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

We've been over this road before.Fr.Hopko wants the Catholic Church to discard the teachings of Ecumenical Councils (those held after the first seven Councils), which, in an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium, proclaimed as truths on the level of "De Fide", the dogmas pertaining to Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception, for example. As Greek Catholics, being in FULL communion with the Church of Rome, and the Pope of Rome, there is NO option but to affirm the truths of these teachings. Our "uniate" Churches signed on to this in the various "unions", such as Uzhorod and Brest-Litovsk.If we do not affirm teachings proclaimed dogmatically by the Ecumenical Councils and the Sovereign Pontiff of the Catholic Church, at such a high level of importance, we cannot be said to be in FULL communion with that Church. In Eastern Orthodoxy, they have this understanding of communion. Full communion means full acceptance of the teachings of their Church. That is why they do not share the Holy Eucharist with "non-Orthodox". 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". The latter is excellent, but it yields to the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church, when there is any conflict between the two, just as some of the teachings of Western Fathers, esp. St. Augustine, had to yield to the Extraordinary Magisterium (for example, Augustine's assertion that the souls of unbaptized babies went to a mild form of the hell of torments). Our area of disagreement is on the question of the Councils which followed the first seven. If I remember correctly,you hold that it is possible for an Eastern Catholic to accept as dogmatic only the first seven councils. I say that that is not possible. If I held that only the first seven councils were true Ecumenical Councils, then I would feel compelled to march down the block and register in the local OCA parish, or over to the next town and join the ROCOR parish. What I think you are not doing is making the necessary distinction between theological traditions (whether Western or Eastern) and the end product of those traditions-the teachings proclaimed to be received and accepted by the Magisterium.

In Christ,
Fr. Deacon Robert

Fr. Deacon Robert,

Thank you for your response.

Now the problem with your response as I see it, is that you are confusing the "definitions" issued by the Western Church, with the mystery revealed by God, as if the verbal definition exhausts the reality of the thing defined. Moreover, this "intellectual" and "definitional" framework is foreign to the Eastern tradition, because the Councils of the Church defined nothing; instead, they issued decrees (horoi) that established parameters for theological discourse. As I am sure you are aware, God is beyond definition, because He is beyond the categories of human thought and predication. The Western Scholastic mindset ultimately leads to a rejection of the insights of the Eastern Fathers, who never succumbed to the error of reducing theology to Aristotelian metaphysics. Theology -- in the proper sense of the term -- is experiential, not intellectual and definitional.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Of course Fr. Deacon you have a right to your own opinion about what you would do if you were to reject the local Councils of the Western Church, but I do not share that opinion, because I reject the ecumenical status of the fourteen Western Councils, and yet I do not intend to enter the OCA or ROCOR. I am an Eastern Catholic, and as an Eastern Catholic I am bound to the decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, all of which are commemorated within the divine liturgy, but I am not bound by the decisions of the Western Church which contradict the Byzantine tradition or which have no connection to it.

Sadly, like many Western Catholics, you seem to equate the doctrinal tradition of the Latin Church with the Apostolic Tradition, but I refuse to do that.

Apotheoun,

And yet, I seem to recall in the writings of Pius XII his opinion on the magisterial weight of liturgical tradition - that liturgy is in fact a principal organ of magisterial teaching. If that is indeed the case, would it not follow that since a clear majority of ritual traditions within the Catholic communion hold to her Dormition and Resurrection, that it is reflective of the whole Christian tradition and should be binding upon Western Christians as well? The lack of a positive and explicit affirmation from the Chair of Peter does not, IMHO, thereby make it an open question for Catholics. Other sources within the magisterial ministry (the liturgical Tradition in the East) very clearly affirm this teaching.

It is interesting to see examples where the belief about Mary's Assumption is portrayed iconographically in Western churches. There are very clear, visual and intentional parallels made with Christ's Ascension, surrounded by the Apostles. Does it not follow from such attempts at theological symmetry that her own holy death and resurrection are thereby affirmed?

For RC's, the difficulty in an explicit recognition of this teaching may be rooted in how one would reconcile it with the teaching on her Immaculate Conception. If Mary, as the typological fulfillment of the New Eve in the New Creation, was in fact not subject to sin and corruption...and, therefore, death through a singular act of grace from the first moment of her conception, how could one explain her "falling asleep" in the Lord which is a direct consequence of the Fall?

One explanation that I have seen indicates her desire to conform her life to the pattern of her Divine Son, even in his willingness to embrace death and convert it into the "third birth" as it is portrayed in the Syrian tradition. Perhaps it is also a part of the fulfillment of her vocation to be the embodiment of Israel redeemed, following her Son and leading the way along the path of her spiritual children through death to eternal life.

Does that not also in some way follow a Byzantine principle, considering the construction of our Festal cycle around her holy life and death? We begin with the first Great Feast of Her Nativity and end with her Holy Dormition. In that way Mary's life is a true "mirror" and "icon" of the life of her children that should be emulated (sort of a principle of Imitatio Mariae).

Gordo

The question about Mary's death does not concern the Eastern liturgical tradition, because it clearly holds that Mary "fell asleep" (i.e., died); instead, it concerns the Western liturgical tradition. What must be shown is that the Western liturgical texts (especially those prior to the Second Vatican Council) held that Mary died before being assumed bodily into heaven. Although I do not have my old Latin missal at hand, I do not believe -- working from memory -- that Mary is said to have died prior to her assumption in those texts.

Todd,

This has been an area of interest for me for some time since it has a direct bearing on the nature of our communion with Rome as Orthodox Christians of the East.

If we were to follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion, then on what basis should we expect the Copts and all other Oriental Orthodox to accept the authority of Chalcedon and its decrees/definitions? Could not the same argument be made from the perspective of definitions being made outside of their Monophysite theological constructs and their claim to properly interpret the teaching of St. Cyril? (Of course, the same could be said of the Nestorians and the Council of Ephesus as well...)

Gordo

I know that this is not a matter of question for the East - I am asserting that it should not remain an unresolved or disputed question for the West or be relegated to the level of theological opinion (whether or not it can be shown explicitly in pre-conciliar liturgical texts). If the church in principle accepts the magisterial authority of the liturgy, why shouldn't the Eastern liturgical tradition be considered as binding in this regard? It is, after all, our principal organ of magisterium and we are talking about one of the Twelve Great Feasts of our calendar.

I'll send an e-mail off to Pope Benedict right away to clear up the whole matter. I'll let you know when I receive his reply.

Gordo

The question about which councils are or are not ecumenical is a matter of faith, not logic, and so it cannot be determined by external criteria.

That being said, as a Byzantine Christian I know that those councils which are commemorated in the divine liturgy are ecumenical, that is, I know that they represent the faith once delivered to the saints, because the liturgy allows me to participate in the uncreated energy of God. But this experience of the living God must not be confused with an assent based upon reason or logic, because it is a metarational experience of the divine, and for the one who receives it, it provides a certitude that transcends any act of intellection.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Todd,

And yet, as we know, faith supercedes reason but does not contradict it. There is no question here of the need for grace to accept and receive the faith. The question rather has to do with your logic/rationale for rejecting the ecumenical authority of councils beyond the 7 commemorated in the Divine Liturgy (which I would argue certainly exercise a primacy of honor within our Byzantine tradition, the first four having supremacy).

If we follow your rationale/logic/thinking, then on what basis do we urge others who also claim the name of "Christian" and share in the same apostolic hierarchy, sacramental mysteries and divine life to accept the ecumenical authority of Ephesus and Chalcedon? As I understand your argument, your basis for rejecting the authority of the additional councils is the fact that many (not all) decisions/decrees/definitions of these councils were made within the framework of the Western scholastic theological tradition. My point is: Could not the Nestorians and Monophysites make the same argument - that the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon were made from within a certain theological framework outside of the normative reference for schools of thought within Antioch and Alexandria and should therefore be rejected?

Brought to its furthest conclusion, I think it risks giving far too much weight to various theological schools of thought at the risk of depreciating or completely undermining conciliar authority.

To me, the acceptance of the essence of a definition or parameter or decree of any council in the West (or the East for that matter) does not imply the need to accept whole and entire all of its antecedents or corollaries within the theological framework of Western schools of thought. The Eastern churches have their own complementary theological frameworks and trajectories.

So for instance the acceptance of the dogma surrounding papal infallability and universal jurisdiction can be received and interpreted by the Christian East according to its own principles of primacy and collegiality without any rejection of its essence. Anything which would contravene the essence of a defined dogma, though, would have to be, as Father Deacon Jessup explained, corrected and accepted de fide - the same basis for your acceptance of earlier conciliar decisions.

Gordo

From the Orthodox perspective, any sort of ecclesial union with the Roman church would entail acceptance of the post schism western councils as authoritative and binding. Mixed in that among other things would be the issues of the Eighth Ecumenical Council and the Orthodox condemnation of the "Council of Florence" in 1472.

What you're saying is the Pope would have in many ways would have to renounce the past of his church, and the same goes for Orthodoxy. Somebody is going to have to blink I guess, or we should all get used to the schism as a permanent fixture of our ecclesial landscape.

Regarding the ecumenicity of the post schism councils in relation to Eastern Catholics. Melkite Bishop John Elya says this here [melkite.org] :

In other words to be a Catholic (no matter which Rite), one must accept all councils proclaimed as being ecumenical as being so.

Andrew

These are not smart aleck questions... Who said that the First Seven Ecumenical Councils were Ecumenical and/or Infallible? Who said which Councils in the Catholic Church were Ecumenical/Infallible after Nicaea II?

I heard that Sts. Carles Borromeo and Robert Bellarmino were the ones who started calling certain Post-Nicaea II councils Ecumenical.

I was going to formulate a reply on all of the above, but it seems that "ebed melech" and "Rilian" have stolen my thunder.
The difficulty of reconciliation between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism is being highlighted in these posts. When I was in formation for Diaconate (at a Latin-Rite seminary, since my Eparchy did not have it's own program at the time), I remember speaking to a young Latin-Rite seminarian on the question of Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. He thought that re-union with the Orthodox patriarchates would be a "slam-dunk", when compared with the difficulties vis-a-vis Catholicism and Protestantism. He typifies many Roman Catholics, who tend to be somewhat naive and overly optimistic regarding Ecumenism with Eastern Orthodoxy. It is mind-boggling when you consider that these two Christian churches have less disagreement between them than that which exists between themselves and other Christian churches and "ecclesial communities". Humanly speaking, it can lead to a sense of despair. But, that is where the Holy Spirit comes in. Restoration of Christian unity will occur in God's good time, and according to his plan. It's what we should be praying for. Perhaps all of the theological consultation between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism will lead to the convening of an Ecumenical Council recognized by all, with the Holy Spirit will taking over! God will that it happens.

Fr. Dn. Robert

I have a missal (Imprimatur 1957) which has the following note before the Mass of the Assumption:
Mary was cared for by St John for twelve years after our Lord's Resurrection. Her life was spent in helping the Apostles and in praying for the conversion of the world. On the third day after Mary's death, when the Apostles gathered around her tomb, they found it empty. The sacred body had been carried up to the celestial paradise. Jesus Himself came to conduct her thither; the whole court of heaven came to welcome with songs of triumph the Mother of the Divine Word.
None of the prayers or antiphons for Mass or Vespers actually mentions "after her death" but then there may not have seemed to be any need when the liturgy was composed.
I hope this helps.

Dear Father Deacon,
Actually it's not particularly surprising that despite the slender dogmatic differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy reconciliation seems so impossible. The problem here is that because of the slender dogmatic differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy reconciliation seems to be a serious threat! Alas, this is not a joke - a family quarrel which has been going for nearly a thousand years requires more than a theological underpinning. The fact is that the Orthodox do not trust the Catholics, and the Catholics are all too often disinclined to take the Orthodox seriously.

Incognitus

You might be interested in this. Which Councils are Ecumenical [orthodoxchristianity.net] . It's written by Francis Dvornik (a Roman Catholic I believe).

Andrew