www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic to Orthodox

Option A. Hold your index finger and middle finger of your right hand together to signify the two natures of Christ, and tuck your thumb slightly towards the palm of your hand. This is the most typical Western Catholic practice.

Originally posted by Augustini:
I'm sorry but Likoudis has no competency that I can see in Maximos the Confessor. His grasp of Palamism is also quite poor. Real distinction doesn't amount to separation unless you are thinking of it dialectically or as Plotinus put it "distinction is opposition." If someone wants to learn Maximos, I recommend sticking with experts that actually have done the work here like Joseph P. Farrell, Lars Thunberg, and von Balthasar. Even von Balthasar, in Cosmic Liturgy affirms that the divine logoi are not identical to the divine essence nor identical with each other and are Unconfused and Undivided God. Hmm...wonder where that came from?

It this Neo-Platonic simplicity and its dialectic as taught by Origen and then again later by St. Augustine and the Scholastics that makes everything identical that is wrong and wrongheaded. See my paper Synergy in Christ:

http://www.energeticprocession.com/...%20Saint%20Maximus%20the%20Confessor.pdf

Photios Jones

Apotheoun: Nevertheless, I think that you are in error about the Council of Florence condemning Palamism. I say this because, as Fr. Joseph Gill indicated in his study of that Western Council, the doctrine of uncreated divine energies was not discussed at the Council, and in fact when the question arose about whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit are the Spirit Himself as energy or whether they are "created" things, the Emperor -- and eventually the Pope himself -- intervened in order to redirect the discussion back to the question of the filioque (See Fr. Joseph Gill, "The Council of Florence," pages 205-206).

Jessup B.C. Deacon: I would refer you to Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). He indicates that Florence condemned the notion of making distinctions between the essence and attributes of God.

Apotheoun: As a Byzantine Catholic I accept the doctrine of uncreated energies as it was taught by both St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas (and others in the East).

Jessup B.C. Deacon: Likoudis, in one of his recent books on Eastern Orthodoxy, makes a crucial distinction in this area. It is his assertion that Maximos never made a hard distinction between Divine Essence and Divine attributes. He goes on to say that those in the Catholic world who defend Palamite teachings in this area would need to demonstrate that Palamas' distinctions are not, in fact, making such hard distinctions.

Apotheoun: I also subscribe to the teaching of the Palamite Councils of the fourteenth century, and to the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285) held under Patriarch St. Gregory II of Cyprus. That being said, it is clear that I reject the doctrine of the filioque as it was set forth in the Florentine decree of A.D. 1439.

Jessup B.C. Deacon: As a Catholic, Eastern or Western, I would not feel myself to be on solid ground rejecting the teachings of a Council which the Catholic Church holds to be "Ecumenical." I realize that the Eastern Orthodox don't see it this way. But, where Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism disagree, I am a Catholic.

Apotheoun: Thus, I maintain the distinction -- made by St. Maximos the Confessor -- between the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit from the Father alone (i.e., the fact that the Spirit receives His existence from the Father, and not from the Father and the Son as from a single principle, which tends toward a Sabellian view of the Trinity), and the manifestation (to proeinai) of the Spirit through the Son, both temporally and eternally, in the divine energy.

Jessup B.C. Deacon: That sounds somewhat like the formula I mentioned before (from the Father through the Son).

Apotheoun: Finally, as a Byzantine Christian I reject the Scholastic theology underlying late medieval and modern Roman theology, and I do this because it is not compatible with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers. The theology of the West, especially as it was influenced by the resurgence of pagan philosophy during the late middle ages, should not be confused with that of the East, nor should the two theological traditions be blended in order to create a hybrid tradition. Sadly, there is a tendency on the part of many Roman Catholics (and even some Byzantine Catholics) to confuse the Scholastic schools of theology with the tradition of the Church herself, which would of course require an absolute Latinization of all Christians, but I reject that notion. In place of that misguided form of ecclesiastical imperialism, I support fully the ongoing de-latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and I pray that they continue to recover not only their proper liturgical customs (where these have been lost), but that they also reaffirm and embrace the doctrinal tradition of the Orthodox East, including of course the distinction between essence and energy.

Jessup B.C. Deacon: I think that the most important thing to be aware of is that theology, whether Eastern or Western, is pursued in service to the Church. When an Ecumenical Council of the Church, with the blessing of the Pope of Rome, and the Divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, arrives at a definitive "De Fide" teaching, it should not matter whether the theology employed is from a Western or Eastern source. Because, at that point, it becomes a "received and accepted" teaching. One can see the beauty of this especially in the Church of the First Millennium.

Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
I must make a correction. In a posted response above, I stated that the Council of Florence condemned the notion of making a distinction between the Essence and attributes of God. I was relying on relatively short-term (3 years) memory (not a wise thing to do at age 55). I went back and consulted my source (Ludwig Ott-Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). In the section of the book on the attributes of God, he states not that Florence condemned the above notion, but that, in the "Decretum Pro Jacobitis" the Council AFFIRMED that "In God all is one, where an opposition of relation does not exist." Ott had mentioned, prior to this section, that in 1148, at the Synod of Rheims (a local gathering of Western bishops), with Pope Eugene II being present, there was a condemnation of making a hard distinction between the attributes and Essence of God, with Gilbert of Poitiers having been accused of having done so. Ott goes on to assert that there have been different degrees of distinction which have been made, by schools of theology, between God's attributes and Essence. While he says that Palamas made a definitive hard distinction, the Scotists in the West made only a "formal" (?)distinction, and that, in the mind of the Church, it is acceptable to make a "virtual" distinction, the latter not compromising the notion that God, in Essence, is "simple." Presumably, these are all relative degrees of distinction, and presumably, "virtual" is less "hard" than "formal." Oh well, hope this clarifies things.

Originally posted by Apotheoun:
As far as the fourteen general Councils of the West are concerned, I hold that they are only binding upon Westerners, and that they do not possess the same level of authority of the seven ecumenical councils of the first millennium. Now, in saying this I am not saying anything new or shocking, and in fact I am merely echoing the views of men like Francis Dvornik and Fr. Aidan Nichols (O.P.), and even the views of Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) who, in connection with the doctrine of the primacy, said that "Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium." [Cardinal Ratzinger, The Principles of Catholic Theology, page 199] Thus, in the final analysis, on this and on other issues, I am an Orthodox Catholic in communion with Rome.

The holy Synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church met in Rabweh, Lebanon, July 22-27, 1996 and, after studying the question of unity within the Patriarchate of Antioch, declared that communicatio in sacris = worship in common is possible today and that the ways and means of its application would be left to the joint decisions of the two Antiochian Church Synods - Melkite Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox. The Synod of thirty-four bishops and four general superiors under the presidency of Patriarch Maximos V (Hakim) deliberated extensively on the topic of church unity particularly within the Antiochian Patriarchate which has been divided since 1724, and issued a document titled, Reunification of the Antiochian Patriarchate. This document is part of the official minutes of the Synod and was made public on August 15, 1996 in the Middle East....

The Melkite Synod sees that the church of the first millennium could be the model for unity today. The Synod strongly affirms its full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome and that this communion would not be ruptured. The Fathers offered their thanks to the International Theological Commission as well as the Joint Synodal Commissions recently reestablished by Patriarch Maximos V and Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV.

They offer special thanks to Archbishop Elias Zoghby whose 1995 Profession of Faith was the major force for reopening dialogue with the Orthodox brothers. Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

In this regard, our Church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible. Our Church believes that the discussion of this unity with Rome is still in its primitive stage. The first step toward unity on the doctrinal level, is not to consider as ecumenical, the Western local councils which the Church of Rome, convened, separately, including the First Vatican Council.

And second the Melkite Catholics should not be obligated to accept such councils. Regarding inter-communion now, our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first.

Please be advised that, while we pray for unity among all Christians, we cannot and will not enter into communion with non-Orthodox until we first achieve the unity of faith. As long as this unity of faith is not realized, there cannot be intercommunion. We ask you to adhere to the instructions which you receive from our office and hierarchs.

Congregation for the Eastern Churches
Prot. No. 251/75
June 11, 1997

His Beatitude
Maximos V HAKIM
Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and of all the East,
of Alexandria and of Jerusalem.

Your Beatitude,

The news of the project for "rapprochement" between the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch has given rise to various echoes and comments in the public opinion.

The Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, and the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity have made an effort to study and closely examine the areas which fall within their competence in this domain; and the heads of these Dicasteries have been charged by the Holy Father to express some considerations to Your Beatitude.

The Holy See is greatly interested in and encourages initiatives which favor the road to a complete reconciliation of the Christian Churches. She appreciates the motivation behind the efforts undertaken for several decades by the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate, which is trying to hasten the coming of this full communion so greatly desired. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches recognizes the duty for every Christian (Can. 902), which becomes for the Eastern Catholic Churches a special duty (munus) (Can. 903), whose exercise will be governed "through special norms of particular law while the Roman Apostolic Church functions as the moderator for the universal church" (Can. 904).

This is all the more true for two communities which see themselves as being closely united because of the ties of common origin and common ecclesiastical tradition, as well as by a long experience of common initiatives which no doubt place them into a privileged situation of proximity.

The Church's desire is to find adequate ways and means to progress further along the road of brotherly understanding and, to encourage new structures which further such progress towards full communion.

Pursuing such goals, Your Patriarchate is motivated by a sensibility and a knowledge of the situation and an experience which are peculiarly its own. The Holy See desires to contribute to this process by expressing some considerations which she believes will eventually help the future progress of this initiative.

The Dicasteries involved appreciate very much that common pastoral initiatives are undertaken by Catholics and Orthodox, according to the instructions found in the Directory for the application of the principles and norms for Ecumenism, especially in the areas of Christian formation, of education, a common effort in charity, and for the sharing of prayer when this is possible.

As to experiences of a theological nature, it is necessary to labor patiently and prudently, without precipitation, in order to help both parties to travel along the same road.

The first level in this sharing concerns the language and the categories employed in the dialogue: one must be very careful that the use of the same word or the same concept is not used to express different points of view and interpretations of a historical and doctrinal nature, nor lends itself to some kind of oversimplification.

A second level of involvement necessitates that the sharing of the content of the dialogue not be limited only to the two direct participants: the Patriarchates of the Catholic Greek-Melkites and the Orthodox of Antioch, but that it involve the Confessions with whom the two Patriarchates are in full communion: the Catholic communion for the former and the Orthodox for the latter. Even the Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities of the Patriarchate of Antioch have brought forth a similar preoccupation. This global implication also will permit averting the risk that some initiatives, meant to promote the full communion at the local level, might give rise to a lack of understanding or suspicions beyond the generosity of the intentions.

Now we consider the elements contained in the profession of faith of his Excellency Kyr Elias Zoghby, Greek-Melkite Catholic Archbishop emeritus of Baalbek, signed in February 1995, and to which numerous hierarchs of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Synod have adhered.

It is clear that this Patriarchate is an integral part of the Christian East whose patrimony it shares. As to the Greek-Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties. Besides, a correct formulation of the faith necessitates a reference not only to a particular Church, but to the whole Church of Christ, which knows no frontiers, neither in space nor in time.

On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome, we know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church's faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day. One only has to think about what the first Vatican Council affirmed and what Vatican Council II declared, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Num. 22 and 23, and in the Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio Number 2.

As to the modalities for exercising the Petrine ministry in our time, a question which is distinct from the doctrinal aspect, it is true that the Holy Father has recently desired to remind us how "we may seek--together, of course--the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned" (Ut unum sint, 95); however, if it is legitimate to also deal with this on a local level, it is also a duty to do this always in harmony with a vision of the universal Church. Touching this matter, it is appropriate to be reminded that in any case, "The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is--in God's plan--an essential requisite of full and visible communion" (Ut unum sint, 97).

As to the various aspects of communicatio in sacris, it is necessary to maintain a constant dialogue in order to understand the meaning of the current regulation in force, in the light of underlying theological presuppositions; premature, unilateral initiatives are to be avoided, where the eventual results may not have been sufficiently considered, they could produce serious consequences for other Eastern Catholics, especially for those living in the same region.

In summary, the fraternal dialogue undertaken by the Greek-Melkite Catholic Partriarchate will be better able to serve the ecumenical dialogue to the degree that it strives to involve the entire Catholic Church to which it belongs in the maturing of new sensitivities. There is good reason to believe that the Orthodox in general so share the same worry, due also to the obligations of communion within their own body.

The Dicasteries involved are ready to collaborate in order to further the exchange of verifications and echoes; they express their satisfaction for these meetings which have been held on this subject with the representatives of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Church, and they hope and wish that these meetings continue and intensify in the future.

Not doubting at all that Your Beatitude would want to share these ideas, we beg you to accept the expression of our fraternal and cordial greetings.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Achille Card. Silvestrini, Edward Card. Cassidy