www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A (Orthodox) Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism

Pope Paul VI did not deny that what the later 14 “General Councils in the West” spoke valid theology (even though we have examples of one council overturning teachings from earlier councils). He merely acknowledged that these later councils were called by the West and mainly affect the West. As Greek Catholics we can look at these councils as legitimate (although some of the teachings were overturned by later councils) but there is no need for us to change our theological ‘recipes’ to incorporate their teaching. Indeed, we have not, for our Liturgy is unchanged (forgetting for the moment the Ruthenian RDL). The problem here (and Serge / Young Fogey gets this part right), is that many (maybe most) Greek Catholics are conditioned to use a Latin measuring stick to determine whether our theology is correct (his point in my words).

Be careful. There are plenty of references in the Church’s theology (i.e., Roman Catholic, since that is your measuring stick) that treat the Seven Councils as the pillar upon which all other Catholic theology is built. Placing the definitions taught by the later Councils into a category of Latin theology (i.e., Latin ‘recipies’) does not automatically reduce them to tehologumena. It merely means that we in the East don’t adopt them and keep our liturgy and theological ‘recipes’ unchanged.

And this is where I disagree with you the most. It is easy to be Roman Catholic or Orthodox and point to one’s own theology as perfect and the other’s as flawed (most on either side don't do this but many do). But we Greek Catholics live with the tension of being Orthodox who are trying to respect Latin theology. Or, more plainly, while claiming that the Eastern or Western sources have “different angles” you are insisting on using the Latin measuring stick to measure the Catholicity of our Orthodox theology. That just does not work and never will work. And that is what will destroy the Greek Catholic Church.

Actually, I think Father Deacon makes our point fairly well. There is theologia prima, and there is theologia seconda, or as the Greeks have it, theologia and theoria. When Deacon Robert says one must distinguish between mere theology and "Dogmatic Truth", he espouses the supremacy of theologia over theoria.

What the Deacon does not realize, however, is the acts of even Ecumenical Councils are not theologia, but theoria. Theologia is found first and foremost in the Liturgy of the Church, which, as the Second Vatican Council Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says, is the most perfect expression of the Church's belief. Therefore, liturgy is, as Jaroslav Pelikan put it, the source and the touchstone of theology. When one wants to know what the Church believes about anything, look first to its liturgical texts. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I also uphold the principle of non-contradiction.

"As the successor of the divine Peter, enriched with his presidency and primacy, Leo published his divinely inspired definition". The latter definition refers to Leo's letter to the Council of Chalcedon condemning Monophysitism. There are many other similar texts in the official prayer of Eastern Orthodoxy on the Feasts of Popes who are commemorated as Saints. Lex orandi, Lex Credendi.

Boy, did you ever choose the wrong Church.


It's pretty clear from the way in which you use this citation that you do not understand the history of the Church (in particular, the Council of Chalcedon), or the meaning and exercise of presidency and primacy in the Patristic era. Instead, you anachronistically impose a late medieval and unilateral Latin understanding of those terms in a polemical manner in order to score a point. That is not exemplary ecumenical scholarship by any means. It's not even good liturgical theology.

It is only a matter of time, I suppose, that you will cite the Fathers of Chalcedon acclaiming "Peter has spoken with the mouth of Leo" as proof of fifth century papal supremacy?

To make people like you happy, I imagine that we are supposed to yield and say "the Pope is a heretic, and the white-robed anti-Christ", and that "the Church of Rome is wrong when it says there were more than Seven Ecumenincal Councils, because we, although we are in possession of great Christian humility and docility, know better".

it's pretty clear: we cannot be fully Catholic unless we are fully Orthodox.

Firstly, I think, one must put away the Latin measuring stick.

I am not clear how you are defining that, in light of the question of dogma.


You can't keep dismissing authentic Catholic Byzantine theology as "the Pope is a heretic, and the white-robed anti-Christ".

I admit that, in this case, there was an emotional reaction. I was originally reacting to the polemical anti-Catholic, anti-uniate thread originally posted, and, instead of getting some support, I am attacked by those who seem to have less of a problem having the Church to which they belong referred to as "heretical", and its sacraments being referred to as graceless, than with my posting statements by the Eastern Fathers which would appear to refute their triumphalistic claims.

In the long term what will form Greek Catholics into Orthodoxy is Liturgy. Authentic Liturgy. Which is why, of course, some fear authentic Liturgy.

We are on the same page here.

Dn. Robert