www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Byzantine Catholics identifying themselves as Orthodox?

Father,

The Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod have not rescinded their declaration.

God bless,
Todd

Ah, yes, lex orandi, lex credendi. But isnt that a Latin principle, Todd?

Go Irish!
Beat Duke!

0-0 with 6:32 to go in the 1st Q.

God Bless you, Todd.

Fr. J.

And Rome has not rescinded her universal jurisdiction. Though she perhaps ought to and likely will in a future reunified Church.

Again, Todd, I have nothing against you personally, for sure. And I certainly have no problem with you expressing your opinion. It is just that honesty requires full disclosure on your assertions. Something like:

"There is a disagreement between Rome and the Melkite Church on the extent of Roman jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches. I agree with the Melkite position that Rome's authority does not extend to the East."

That is a much more nuanced and an accurate statement than something like this.

"Rome has no jurisdiction in the East."

I am simply asking for the sake of truth in advertising, Todd, that you present all the relevant facts and not just your opinion as a fact. And, yes, this is a matter of honesty, Todd.

Fr. J.

I am truly concerned by the fact that Western Catholics have, in varying degrees, replaced Tradition with the Magisterium' and I spoke of this several months ago in another post, because sadly -- at least according to some Roman Catholics -- the truth is proved by Magisterial documents, but in point of fact the truth is its own proof, and so no document of the Magisterium can prove anything. For example: God is a Trinity of persons, not because the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea said that He is, but because God is in Himself tri-hypostatic, and He revealed Himself in this way. In other words, Nicaea did not "prove" that God is a Trinity, because God's existence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not founded upon the creed issued by that council; rather, the horoi of that council is simply an expression of the "faith once for all delivered to the saints." The Church has always believed that God is a Trinity of persons.

That said, nothing in the life of the Church during the first millennium accords to the bishop or Rome universal jurisdiction; and, in fact, when Rome claimed authority beyond its own patriarchate, it was -- more often than not -- ignored.

Father,

What you have failed to grasp is that the term "jurisdiction" is a part of the problem.

God bless,
Todd

Todd,

You make an interesting point. I really like what you have to say when you get beyond the slogans.

It seems to me that the Magisterium in relation to early tradition is like positive law is to common law. In Catholic theology the Magisterium is only legitimate as an elucidation on Sacred Tradition. Furthermore, Magisterial Teaching becomes part of the Tradition. But you make an interesting distinction between Magisterial teaching and Tradition.

Where would you draw the line between Magisterium and the Tradition? Did the Tradition end with the Apostles? The Patristic writers? How are we to know the precise contents of the Tradition as distinct from the Magisterium?

Fr. J.

Oh, no, Todd, I do grasp that. I just dont agree with you and neither does Rome. That is my point. You cant just assert one side of a dispute as the Truth without representing that it is a matter of dispute.

I AM interested in your thoughts on the boundary between Tradition and Magisterium.

I also have some thoughts on the use of the Magisterium at Franciscan, which I think is highly problematic. Though in conversations like this, I think it is valuable to refer to the the Magisterium, there is also an important distinction to be made between the Magisterium and Theology, which is apparently lost at Steuby.

God Bless,
Fr. J.

Adding to my last comment, Todd.

It may serve us to discuss these topics between East and West as matters of Theology, and not as matters of teaching, which are very different things. This would eliminate at least half of the tension between us.

Fr. J.

First, with St. Hilary, I would say that dogmatic decrees (horoi) should only be issued occasionally, because the faith is actually beyond any kind of reduction to intellectual concepts. The faith is an experience, not a science.

Tradition, as to content, ceased to increase with the death of the last Apostle; in other words, I -- as an Eastern Christian -- reject the modern Western concept of "doctrinal development." Instead, doctrines are immutable experiential realities, and so they cannot develop over time, but what can develop is the linguistic expression used in order to speak of the divine gift of grace. That said, from an Eastern perspective Tradition is the life of the Spirit within the Church, and as such it cannot be reduced to abstract concepts. The error of the modern West is that it wants to define everything down to the smallest detail, and this "definitional" mentality is simply foreign to the Fathers, who always remained reticent to issue decrees (decrees) on dogmatic issues.

Sadly it is common for the Latin Church to do precisely that, becuase it makes the pope the sole voice of authority in disputes.

The pope is simply a patriarch, and the other patriarchs are his equals. In other words, Westerners must stop confusing primacy with supremacy.

God bless,
Todd

Ok, I get it. Apophatic or negative theology is more Eastern. But that is only one side of the truth. It is an important disclaimer on positive or Kataphatic theology. But even the East has gone into minute detail theologically or there could not be a filioque dispute, except to assert that one cannot know. Positive and negative theology are emphases in the West and East, not absolute positions.

Kataphatic theology applies only to the uncreated energies of God, and not to His essence, and that is why the East rejects the Scholastic analogia entis (cf. St. Gregory Palamas, Capita Physica, no. 78).

But, Todd, these ARE disputes. It doesnt take a pope to have a dispute. Look at the ROC in Ravenna. It is just honest to say something is disputed if it is. That is not Eastern or Western, that is responsible dialogue.

If the Latin Church were constituted differently, there could still be disputes and it would still be a requirement of honest discussion to not assert ones position as undisputed fact.

Father,

who brought about the Filioque dispute, East or West?

Why did the East have to get into the minute details?

Monomakh

Disputes will come and go, even in the Church (as history shows), but there is no single infallible bishop who alone can force a decision upon everyone, and thus end the dispute.