www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox in Union With Rome

First of all, let me state that this is a sincere question arising from a desire to know other people's perspectives. It is not meant as an attack of any kind.

That being said, I would like to ask those who believe Byzantine Catholics to be "Orthodox in union/communion with Rome" how they reconcile the theological differences between the two Churches?
I feel that the real theological differences between the two have NOT been resolved, and are rather impossible to reconcile. I don't think the dialogue between the churches has really done anything to adress these issues.

What do you fine people think about this?

Michael

What differences?

Daniil

I agree with Daniil: what are the differences?

Please add another post with the differences you believe/know to exist. This will help a lot. We can address them one at a time.

Glory to the Risen Lord,
Vladimir

There are no Theological differences, but rather there are different theological PERSPECTIVE.

No perspective is wrong. Theology IS, after all, a STUDY of God. No one on earth can even claim to know God 100%. The only person who can do so is Jesus Christ, who knows His Father who sent Him.

Although the theological perspectives are different between the eastern and western Churches and we MUST and ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO respect each other's perspective, when we do have RESPECT, then the healing can begin to take place.

There are conflicts simply because there are NO respect for each other at all!

Also another reason: PRIDE! "Oh I'm right, you're wrong." "Ohh no, you're wrong I'm right." OH WHATEVER! Both of us can be wrong for all we know!

Just another one of these two cents of mine here.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Oh, BTW, the differences of perspective, in my opinion, are not conflicting but much rather it compliments each other. Like sweet and sour, except, I'd like to think the Eastern theology is simply SWEET. Heh heh.

Dear Michael,

You've raised an important issue and tons can be, and have been, written about it!

Let's review some major differences between the RC and EO Churches and see where things stand today:

1) Filioque or that the Spirit proceeds also "From the Son."

This was a much later interpolation in the creed by Rome and it has never been defined as an article of faith "ex cathedra."

As we saw at the Council of Florence, both sides agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "through the Son." Both sides agree that the Spirit is SENT into the world by both the Father AND the Son.

RC theologians today also agree that the Filioque has no place in a creed designed to express the univeral faith of the Church, East and West. The RC Church of Greece does not employ the Filioque in its recitation of the Nicene Creed. The Pope has no problem with the removal of the Filioque (I know because I asked him when I met him in July of this year!). Dominus Iesus has set the groundwork here especially.

As for Eucharistic theological differences, there are none any longer - the Roman Church has adopted the "Epiclesis" and this has satisfied the East on this score.

As for Mariology, both sides agree that the Mother of God was sanctified from her conception by the Holy Spirit, that she never had the slightest "stain" of any kind of sin and that, following her repose, she was taken body and soul to heaven. Both sides venerate her highly, but the East needed no additional doctrines to confirm what it has always believed and celebrated (lex orandi, lex credendi) in its liturgical tradition.

The Immaculate Conception has to do with the West's Augustinian a priori concerning Original Sin.

Augustinianism was NEVER defined as normative by the RC Church - EVER.

Today, the CCC officially agrees with the Fathers and the Eastern Church concerning Original Sin. There is no longer any problem.

As for Purgatory etc., both East and West believe fervently in the need for prayer for the reposed, and that this prayer of the Church helps bring souls closer to God.

The RC Church has never defined the "fires of Purgatory" and so did not require the Greeks at Florence to subscribe to it.

Both Churches have their own developed traditions about the afterlife, both amount to the same thing, both should be left alone as legitimate expressions of the Particular Churches of East and West.

As for the Papacy, the East has always affirmed a positive role for the Roman Patriarch as a "court of final appeal" and as "first among equals" at Ecumenical Councils.

Papal jurisdiction within the Roman Patriarchate is no problem. The Pope could ideally intervene in the life of another Particular Church if that Church invited him to do so, or in cases of extreme necessity when the faith or order of the Church is being threatened locally somewhere.

As for infallibility, as one theologian said, one could say the Pope acts in an infallible way when he is the last Patriarch to sign the decrees of an Ecumenical Council.

These things are not insurmountable - but don't take my word for it.

Please do feel free to study these issues for yourself.

You would be surprised at the level of convergence!

Alex

I am not sure about which 2 churches you are referring to.

As between the Orthodox Churches and the Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome, the position of the Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome is that there are NO theological differences. (agreeing with previous posters)

Our theology is the theology of the Orthodox Churches, it just so happens [kind of] that we are on one hand happily "in Communion" with the rest of the Catholic Communion, and on the other hand, Very Unhappily not in Communion with our Orthodox mother churches ( Yet ! ).

As between the Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome and the Latin Church, there are indeed theological differences. Our theology is Orthodox. Their's is Latin. How do we reconcile the differences?

Well, since it is not only by God's grace and mercy that we were gifted with Orthodoxy theology, but in addition [if one may say so] we are Orthodox by the support and encouragement of the Latin Patriarchate itself.

and

Perhaps it is more for the Latin Church to explain how it reconciles the differences.

Finally it occurs that the greater onus to explain might fall on those Christians who are not in Communion than on those who despite the differences maintain Communion?

These are excellent answers. I hope that Sarum will, as encouraged by Vladimir, express his concerns in more detail.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Herbigny,
dear friend,

How do you explain from the theoretical and not the historical point of view the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches whose "theology is the theology of the Orthodox Churches" are "in Communion with Rome" (whose theology is Latin as you have said) and not with their " Orthodox mother churches". You say that Eastern Catholic Churches "are happily in Communion with the rest of the Catholic Communion". What does the term "Catholic Communion"? Is only our communion with the Holy Roman See of the Apostle Peter what make us Catholic? Does the word "Catholic" mean "in communion with Rome"? There is no "catholicity" outside the communion with the Roman See? Taking into account that most Catholic theologians consider our Orthodox brothers not heretics nor schismatics but members in voto althought not perfectly of the Catholic Church how can we say that only Eastern Catholic Churches are members of the Catholic communion? Are not our Orthodox brothers members of the Catholic Church? Are not our Orthodox brothers "orthodox"? Are not they "catholic"? Is the communion with the Holy Roman See and the Western Church (whose theology is so different from the Eastern one that is considered heretical in some points by our Orthodox brothers) more important than the communion with "our Orthodox mother Churches"?

Some of you said that "there are no theological differences, but rather there are different theological perspective". Well I consider that there are several theological differences between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church that probably are not so big or so important, the problem is that there is something in the Church (both in the Western and the Eastern) called "Orthodoxy", that tells us that in theology there is something called “truth” and something called “error”, those who believe and teach the truth are “Orthodox” and those who believe and teach the error are heretical or hererodox. The Church always felt the need to teach and clarify the Orthodox faith and fight against the error. Probably most of the heretics were not so bad Christians after all (most of the heresies of the past would be considered by many contemporany theologicans "different theological aproachs" or "different theological perspectives"), but the fact is that the Church from the times of the Apostles felt that she should fight against them to protect the treasure of the faith. In theology we can speak different theological languages (Latin theology, Greek theology, Slavic theology, Oxford movement theology, Libaracion theology, oh sorry, did i say Libaracion theology?, sorry I forgot that they were communists) and use different theological concepts but the truth is only one, something and its contrary can not be true at the same time. To say that the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” is not the same than saying that “proceeds from the Father and the Son”, there is a substantial difference. The Church must clarify who is right and who is wrong (I think she did so in the II Ecumenical Council) but both statements can not be true. This theological attitude (indiferentism, we believe in the same things after all, do not we, the point is to be good and charitable people, dogmas are not so important) is not proper of the Catholic or the Orthodox Church. We also can not tell other people what they really believe (I am talking about the faith of the Orthodox Church now), they are those who must tell us what do they really believe, to clarify what they believe its their right and their obligation.

Yours in Christ

Fransisco,

"We also can not tell other people what they really believe (I am talking about the faith of the Orthodox Church now), they are those who must tell us what do they really believe, to clarify what they believe its their right and their obligation."

I'm trying to understand your point here and may have it, not sure. Could you clarify what exactly we are trying to "tell" the Orthodox? What are we trying to make them believe? Or is your point that we are patiently (impatiently) waiting for the Orthodox outside of commuion with Rome to clarify what they believe?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

What I mean is that for us Catholics is very easy to fall in the temptation of thinking that our Orthodox brothers believe just what we Catholics believe. I will give you an example you will understand perfectly well it was Saint Symeon or Saint Efstathios of Thessaloniki (sorry i do not remember) who said "Do not loose your time arguing with the Latins about the primacy of the bishop of Rome, we always have accepted the primacy of the bishop of Rome, now the bishop of Rome must prove us that the faith of the pope is just the faith of Peter". Saint Symeon ( an Orthodox saints and theologian) seems to accept the primacy of the pope of Rome but it is the Orthodox Church which taking into account the testimony of Saint Symeon and other Fathers and Orthodox theologians will decide if they accept or not the primacy of the bishop of Rome. We would like that their faith would be the faith of saint Symeon but that is their work to decide if it is or not. Another example the Catholic Church does believe in the Inmaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary but many Fathers of the Latin Church
did refuse the teaching of the Inmaculate Conception before it was proclaimed a dogma. I suppose that our Orthodox brother would like us to believe what Saint Thomas Aquinas says about Inmaculate Conception but the fact is that Saint Thomas of Aquinas does not express the contemporany Catholic faith about the Inmaculate Conception but the dogna isued by Pope Pius IX. I hope I had made me clear.
Yours in Christ

Dear Francisco,

An excellent point!

Martin Luther himself venerated the Virgin Mary and said his rosary throughout his life, as did the early Lutherans who are often portrayed holding the rosary!

When I discuss this matter with contemporary Lutherans - they really don't care what Martin Luther did and it would have little bearing on their devotional life in this respect anyway.

(There are European Lutherans who do say the Rosary and otherwise venerate saints etc.)

Thomas Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception, but he would have been perfectly at home with the Orthodox understanding of Original Sin as he did not subscribe to Augustine's notion of inherited guilt.

Aquinas also prayed to the Mother of God as "All Immaculate."

In short, Aquinas' view on the matter was identical to that of the Orthodox Church.

This is one of the reasons why Orthodox theologians who studied Aquinas, as Meyendorff writes, thought of him as "Orthodox but born in the wrong Church."

Aquinas' moral theology was widely accepted among Orthodox and there were Orthodox who venerated him privately - again as Meyendorff notes.

Patriarch Josef Slipyj even included a Byzantine icon of Aquinas in his Cathedral of St. Sophia in Rome.

Alex

One of our seminarians is a Swedish-American Lutheran and he prays the rosary...in the chapel of our Reformed Church seminary...when it is essentially unoccupied, of course.

In Jesus,

Abdur

Dear Abdur,

Salaam Alekum!

The Swedish Lutheran Church, along with the Finnish, is, of course, quite "High Church" and is unique in the Lutheran and Protestant world.

They even have their own monasteries, St Augustine House in the US is a Swedish Lutheran Benedictine establishment that has the Horologion et al.

One of their number is even, I've read, an expert on Padre Pio!

Oecolampadius, the Protestant Reformer, included the then Hail Mary at the beginning of his liturgy:

Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee, Blessed art Thou among women and Blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ, Amen.

This is the Hail Mary that Martin Luther prayed daily, as did the early Lutherans.

Martin Luther was also portrayed with a halo above his head and this picture was often distributed among Lutherans who, truth be told, kissed it as they made the Sign of the Cross.

Lutherans know their spirituality owes much to the Benedictine and Augustinian monastic Rules.

According to one view, Martin Luther was received back into the Roman Catholic Church by the Bishop of Salzburg toward the end of his life.

This was told to me by a United Church Protestant minister who had studied the matter in seminary for a paper.

There was a movement in the seventies among Catholics to have Martin Luther reinstated and canonized a saint.

There is an independent Orthodox group following the Lutheran traditions - they want to hook up with Antioch eventually - who commemorate Martin Luther twice a year and some of their priests actually do invoke him as a saint.

Alex

Dear Friend Paco:

Thank you for your response.

With respect to your question:
I believe what I said was:

Thus the "it just so happens [kind of]" explains [kind of] the historical situation wherein the "Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome" find themselves/ourselves. The explanation is historical because that is how it happened. As the Latin Patriarch, his all holiness Pope John Paul said:

As for a "theoretical" analysis, well, the situation is clearly anomalous.

But then the reverse situation [being reintegrated with our Orthodox Mother Churches but Breaking with the Catholic Communion] for us would also be anomalous.

The only really acceptable and satisfactory situation would be that which we [the "Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome" at least and hopefully others] are praying for and working for and yearning for and by the grace of God witnessing to with even our very lives - the reintegration of ourselves back with our Orthodox Mother Churches WITHOUT breaking Communion with the Catholic Communion.

By "Catholic Communion" I merely mean those Churches and Christians in Communion [i.e. actually and ordinarily have Eucharistic Inter Communion with] with such Churches as [here I shall endeavour to use their legal names]...e.g. the Melkite Greco-Catholic Church or Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church or the Latin Catholic Church. I mean nothing more than that. [compare with the such terms of reference as e.g. "the Anglican 'Communion' "]

I am not trying to slur anyone.

I am not e.g. implying that the Melkite Church of Antioch, Alexandrian, Jerusalem and all the East is not Orthodox. It has clearly and publically stated that it's faith is Orthodox.

I am making no comment on the "catholicity" of any of the Eastern Orthodox or for that matter the Oriental Orthodox Churches. They claim to be catholic. I believe I have in the previous posting always CAPITALIZED the term of reference "Catholic".

Is being In Communion with the Apostolic Roman See of the Apostle Peter the only thing that makes one a member of the Catholic Communion [is this what you are asking?]? I would say, no. One could enter the Catholic Communion by being in Communion with the Apostolic Antiochean See of the Apostle Peter as well, or the Apostolic Ernakulam See of the Apostle Thomas or the Apostolic and Papal Alexandrian See of the Apostle Peter per Mark, etc., etc.
I have even heard that it is possible to enter such a Communion through the Apostolic Kyivan See of the Apostle Andrew!

I have never stated that only the Eastern Catholic Churches are members of the Catholic Communion. I would say, for the record, that the Latin Catholic Church is also a member of the Catholic Communion. The Orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Communion according to this term of reference, since there does not YET exist this interCommunion between the 2 Communions ("Catholic" and "Orthodox") for which we so much long and pray.

My point was not to define "catholic" or identity which church was "orthodox", but merely to reply to Sarum-Michael's quaere whether e.g. as between the Orthodox and the "Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome" [for want of a better term] there are significant theological differences.

herb

WELL PUT!