www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque?

Dear Todd,

Amen! Amen! Amen!

(If everyone else can have an "Amen Corner" why can't you?)

Alex

"Now clearly, any man who embraces the positions condemned in the document would come under its anathemas, but if he does not embrace the theological errors condemned in the text, it follows that he has not placed himself under the censure of anathema."

Todd,
So basically, according to your read, ECs are in communion with many people -- more or less the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church -- who's position(s) has been declared anathema by the Orthodox Church, and hence the byzantine tradition (which ECs are supposed to subscribe to). Do I have that right? I am not trying to be offensive/confrontational/annoying/etc. I just want to get this straight.

Now normally, it seems to me at least, that one would not be in communion with people or churches who's views had been declared anathema. Am I right about that? And yet we obviously are so where does that leave us?

I apologize for my (most likely) dumb questions, but as a soon-to-be Melkite I do have an interest in knowing what I'm doing so I beg your patience

Does anyone else see my issue here or am I the only person too thick-headed to figure this out? Feel free to let me know if it's the latter

If a man were to deny the distinction between essence and energy in God, that would place him under one of the anathemas in the Synodikon. But how many Western Catholics have actually rejected the distinction between essence and energy?

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Sadly, as a Byzantine Catholic, I am not in communion with my Orthodox brothers, but not because of anything stated in the Synodikon. What separates me from the Eastern Orthodox is my acceptance of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which I accept as it has been set forth in the Zoghby Initiative of the Melkite Catholic Church.

You're continuing to use essence equivocally, as if Palamas and Aquinas mean by it the same thing. They don't.

It would probably also be worthwhile to understand what Aquinas means by saying that God is pure act, or rather "esse ipsum subsistens." To say that God is pure act is not to limit God, or to deny distinctions within God (obviously, since Aquinas teaches the Trinity), but simply to say that there is no unactualized potency in God. In other words, God is supreme. There is nothing that could add anything to God. That's what pure act means. It doesn't rule out making distinctions, such as between that which is able to be participated in, and that which isn't.

Here is a very short article which may shed some light on this subject:

Aquinas and Palamas on Created and Uncreated Grace, by Fr. Louis Bouyer:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060224204652/praiseofglory.com/aquinaspalamasgrace.htm

In one sense I agree with Todd that Palamas and Aquinas may not be reconciliable--although I do see them, in some way, as addressing the same difficulty.

The greatest difficulty I have with Palamas is that I simply don't see that there can be something that is "not God," ie, his Energies, which are truly "uncreated", but not Him. (As a side note, Augustine in the Confessions has a sort of converse of Palamas' Energies--a creature which existed eternally with God--and I don't see how that can be either).

It seems strange that final theosis would mean a union with something which is not Him. After all the Incarnation united God and man--it seems, therefore, that theosis should, in some real way, unite man and God [not just his Energies which aren't Him].

That being said, I am willing to let Todd and any other others hold whatever positions they please, so long as they don't maintain that the positions of the West are wrong--and that I can't do because I am a Byzantine Catholic--and hence must be willing to see how the West and East might both be speaking about the same reality.

What I note about Aquinas, however, is that he is also a philosopher. But not in the modern sense. He does not think there are philosophical "systems". He thinks that there are real things which man can understand not through philosophical systems, but because man really can know, and by nature desires to know. I think the Fathers lived in an age where that position was generally, though not always, accepted.

Hence for example, they accepted a real difference between animate and inanimate objects. Animate objects had souls--life giving principles. Some souls were "material," they ceased to exist with the death of the thing. Others were immaterial and immortal and, once created, existed forever. Aquinas was very good at following such common sense distinctions to their logical consequences and I think they have some bearing on how he explains the beatific vision--how man is joined to God--theosis. Matter and form (in particular), come to mind.

lm

So, are you saying that when Aquinas speaks of the divine essence he is not talking about that which is common to the three divine persons?

The Eastern Fathers never defined what "essence" (ousia) means, beyond saying that it is common to the three divine persons.

P.S. - God is not pure act because He has power (dynamis).

Dear Todd,

Would it be correct to say that there are views held by Aquinas that have been condemned by Orthodoxy but that since the Roman Church has never declared to be "ex cathedra" and binding on all Catholics as dogma, then the Synodikon can be subscribed to by EC's?

What say you?

There are positions traced to Augustine that the East would never hold and not a few EC's either, especially on Original Sin (I have been to a UGCC Church that has an icon of Augustine who is referred to in that icon as "Blessed" and not "Saint" as obtains in the Orthodox East).

So an EC can hold to all of Orthodoxy, save for being in communion with Rome, and not be concerned with the theologies of Western saints whose perspectives have nothing to say to us.

?

Alex

Alex,

I suppose there could be (clearly many of his teachings are problematic), but -- of course -- Aquinas' theology is not Catholic dogma.

To be honest, I haven't given it that much thought.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I love St. Augustine's ecclesiology as he expressed it in his commentary on the Psalms (the Enarrationes in Psalmos).

Alex,

I believe it is possible, at least if you embrace the Zoghby Initiative. Archbishop Zoghby has publicly rejected the ecumenical and infallible status of Vatican I, and he is still in communion with the Pope (and the Melkite Patriarch too).

God bless,
Todd

Matt,

This link might be useful to you. These are questions and answers by Bishop John Elya. I think it is a measured view of the Eastern Catholic Churches' relationships to Rome. In it the Bishop deals with the Zohgby Initiated which has been mentioned. Perhaps you are already familiar with this.

http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

One answer in particular seems relevant to this disscussion. The question was


The Bishop answers:

Dear Todd,

I've come across RC theologs who reject this and that about defined Catholic dogma . . .

Zoghby is a pussy-cat by comparison!

Alex

Dear lm,

I think this Bishop, wonderful though he and all other of our bishops are, has been reading too much Aquinas for his own good!

Truth is above culture - but how else can it be expressed except in our particular ecclesiological/cultural terms? How can the two ever be separated?

Yes, I as an EC see the same Christian truth as others. But without my particular spiritual/cultural perspective, the truth would be unintelligible to me.

I think the Bishop suffers from a lack of background in social sciences - have often commented on this to seminary professors, you know. This is why our Lord told the Apostles to "teach all nations, baptizing them etc." This was about the inculturation of the Gospel and without that, we just can't relate to it.

Bishop John is wrong.

Alex

I intend no offense to Bishop Elya in saying this, but he is hardly representative of the position of the Melkite Holy Synod. In fact, he was one of the only bishops to vote against the Zoghby Initiative, which passed with 24 out of 26 votes.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I agree with Archbishop Zoghby who wrote: "Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections, Eastern Christian Publication, 1998]

Alex,

Was your judgment of Bishop John a supra-cultural statement, or just an EC position?

This sort of thing reminds me of those who say that Allan Keyes or Justice Thomas aren't African Americans because they don't think the "right" way.

It looks like I have found an EC Bishop who apparently thinks its OK for me to be in the EC Church! And hey, I've also got a whole history of EC's from my mother's side. I delcare that we who are both ECs are in union! We'll call it the lm/OC intitiative!

As I see it, Byzantine Catholics should be faithful to their own spiritual, doctrinal, and liturgical tradition. In other words, being Catholic is not identical with being Latin.

God bless,
Todd