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

And you know this to be a certainty, how?

Eli

Apotheoun,

Could you answer my question from a couple of pages ago? I'm still waiting on an answer or explanation.

Logos Teen

There are some very excellent Thomists teaching at Holy Apostle Seminary in the northeast. It is a seminary for late vocations and I have taken courses with them from time to time. If you are bent on doing anything but present the current received "wisdom" of one party line or another, then perhaps you ought to do a serious course of study with Thomists. They are very good at helping one with meaning and the ability to think a thing "all the way through."

It is very unwise to proof-text Aquinas or to presume that you know his meanings outside of the context of his whole corpus. What you've proofed here really does not comport directly with a comparison of Aquinas's "power" and Palamas's "energies."

With reference to your snippet above Aquinas actually said the following which does not allow for the overly simplistic redaction you offer which does a severe injustice to the fullness of his meaning below:

Eli

And you are saying that these texts and authors fully and consistantly support your assertions herein?

Perhaps the first two might corroborate the argument that you are presenting in some of its parts, but Lossky is not known for his philosophical acumen at any rate, and has rarely, if ever, said anything accurate about Aquinas.

I am reasonably assured that to fully support your position it would be necessary to assert that Palamas believed that in divinization, man looses his creaturelyness to become divine and that is simply not true. That is the eventual logical conclusion to all the versions of the argument that you are presenting here. And that assertion is clearly not held by all, including St. Gregory himself, although some come very close to insisting that it is.

Eli

I know this will probably fall on deaf ears, but as I have pointed out numerous times before, I personally favor the writngs and teachings of the Eastern Fathers over those of the West. BUT, as a Byzantine Catholic cleric, I subscribe to the Magisterial teachings of the Universal Church. This is not a question of being a "Thomist".When I was tonsured, and again before I was ordained, I made a profession of Faith which included upholding and supporting ALL of the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, not just those which I happen to choose to like. When the teachings of any particular theologian or spiritual writer come into conflict with the Magisterium, especially the Extraordinary Magisterium, then one is obliged, with a well-formed conscience, to accept what the Magisterium proposes, even if it is the findings of a dreaded Westerner which are accepted by the Church. You must also be made aware of the fact than when my particular Church entered into re-union with the Catholic Church at the Union of Uzhorod, it was understood that that Church (and this is also true of the Galician Church at the Union of Brest-Litovsk)accepted the teachings of all of the Councils considered to be Ecumenical by the Catholic Church, and not just the first seven. In light of our recent discussions, I have re-confirmed this fact with some of the senior clergy of my Eparchy. One cannot claim to be a communion with a Church, and, at the same time, reject any of her official dogmatic teachings.

I think I've said all that I want to say on this topic.

Dn. Robert

Thanks very much Fr. Deacon,


to come back to my question, it is clear from what you say above that there will be a conflict if someone wanted to be FULLY Byzantine Orthodox (as Apotheoun strives to do and how he actually is) and at the same time in Union with the Roman Church in the way this Union has worked till now.

Would a Uniate byzantine catholic give up dogmas such as papal infallibility and immaculate conception, based on the principles of eastern fathers theology?

Elitoft,

For the distinction between dynamis and energeia, try these books:

Michel Rene Barnes, Dynamis: The Power of God in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology

David Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom

Not to be rude, but I am finding that those who think that Aquinas and Palamas are compatible have a somewhat superficial understanding of the metaphysics involved.

For Aquinas God is subsistent being, and there is no potentia in Him, because the oppositional divide is between substance and accidents, and since God has no accidents He is pure activity. Power for Thomas just is the essence of God. Thomas collapses the One into the Nous (following Augustine in De Trinitate) and identifies Being at that level. In Neo-Platonic thinking, there are no distinctions in the One, and there is one distinction between the Nous and the One. The One as Beyond Being is discarded for Thomas and the Nous as having a distinction is discarded as well, yet what is maintained about the One is it having no distinctions (absolutely simple), and what is maintained about the Nous is Being. In other words, God for Thomas is on the level of Nous, but like the One admits of no [real] distinctions: and presto we have an absolutely simple Nous. Therefore, distinctions among the Hypostases ends up being relational ones. This is why Todd glosses it as modalism and St. Photios glossed it as semi-sabellianism.

For Palamas, Power is something that is predicated of the three Hypostases based on their common activity, and is REALLY distinct from the ousia. None of the Divine Names for Palamas extend into the adiastemic boundary of God's essence. The Divine Names are true of what we say about God, but only on the level of energeiai and dynameis, and not ousia. For Thomas, the divine names say something true about the divine essence, but the mode of employment is faulty, in which simplicity corrects this understanding: The many converge into the one. It has been noted by many scholars in the study of St. Dionysius that Aquinas misinterprets hyperousios ousia on Dionysius' Mystical Theology and Divine Names.

Todd, I have a couple articles by Dr. John Jones former chair at Marquette that traces out the Byzantine, Scholastic, and Neo-Platonic as well as an analysis of Thomas' (mis)reading of the Divine Names in Dionysius. Email me at photius@sbcglobal.net and I'll send them to you later on tonight if you wish.

Photios

Dear Arbanon,

I don't see how that can happen. However, what I think must happen, though, is an honest attempt to re-unify Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, with a view toward the Papacy and the Patriarchates governing the Church along the same lines as happened during the first milennium. The present Pope appears to be open toward this. Much work is being done in Orthodox-Catholic theological discussion to reach agreement on the theological issues which have been divisive. God willing,once a high level of reconciliation is achieved, it would then probably the right time to convene an Ecumenical Council in order to bring about reunion. One thing which I am hearing from local Orthodox clergy is that there is a positive attitude toward the present Pope by Orthodox bishops. His reputation is one of being Patristically-oriented, and a good theologian. He does send pro-Eastern signals, such as wearing a "pallium" which looks more like an omophor. Have a good Holy Week, and a blessed Pascha.

Fr. Deacon Robert

Deacon Robert, if Photios and like minded thinkers are correct then I don't see how this is possible because it would seem that Catholicism would have to repudiate a good deal of the theology contained in the later 14 councils to get there. Moreover, it seems clear to me that Rome would never do that, so where does that leave us? Perpetual schism anyone? Photios, do you think there is any way for the two to reconcile without Rome abandoning Florence, Vatican I, etc.?

Dear Friends,

To the question of whether an Eastern Catholic give up the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - I'm an Eastern Catholic and the IC doctrine has NOTHING to say to me!

Why? This is because the Eastern Churches have always affirmed, by the lex orandi, lex credendi, principle that the Mother of God was conceived in holiness. Moreover, the "Original Sin" that the RC Immaculate Conception doctrine prevents the Mother of God from "contracting" is, in and of itself, the view of St Augustine - whose view in this regard was never allowed in the East.

As for Papal jurisdiction, if anyone who has spent any time on this forum thinks that EC's are all for ecclesial subjugation to Rome et al. - do you read English properly?

To me it is clear that whatever Rome says about the role of the Pope - we EC's have our own ideas and are becoming less and less reticent about implementing them.

The point here is that Rome, through the principle of "development of doctrine," can reshape the statements of its later 14 Councils.

Rome is very adept at this, when Orthodoxy is not.

The Orthodox commenting here seem not to understand the above principle at all and are applying their own Orthodox "rigidity" I'll call it to the situation.

I would ask our Orthodox friends to pay closer attention to Catholic history and doctrinal development principles.

Don't judge everything by your own standards.

Thank you for your attention to this . . .

A good Holy Thursday to you!

Alex

"Photios, do you think there is any way for the two to reconcile without Rome abandoning Florence, Vatican I, etc.?"

Speaking for myself, mind you, no I do not believe they can reconcile based on the dogmatic decrees of the Lyons, Florence, Vat. I, etc. That is my studied opinion. It's going to take an over-haul in their whole way of doing theology, which involves a real articulation of the doctrine of recapitulation both theologically and historically in which to understand why they are where they are today as well as in understanding the theological roots of the schism that goes beyond just politics. In other words, they need to go back to what Tertullian and what St. Hippolytus said "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?" This means a rejection of the "system" of "Augustinism" where Augustine married his religious principle with his philosophical first principle. Like the Apologists, St. Augustine sought the common ground between philosophy and Christianity (Portalie, Eugene, S.J. A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine, p. 97), and like them, he believed that he had found it in Platonism, and more particularly, in the Neoplatonic definition of the simplicity of the One. (Ibid., pp. 99-100)

Augustine had in fact made his �philosophical first principle one� with his religious first principle�(Etienne Gilson, God and Philosophy, p. 41)

�All the ancient creeds, even those in vogue at the time of Augustine and used by him at Milan and in Africa, are drawn up according to the old idea beginning with faith in One God who is the Father. But the Quicumque Creed, based upon Augustinian inspiration, opens by professing faith in the Godhead common to the three persons.�(Portalie, op. cit., p. 131)

The West must go back to understand the ordo theologiae of the Fathers (which is the same method east AND west) of first with Persons: Answering the Question: Who are they doing the Act?; Energies or Operations: Answering the Question: What are they doing?; and THEN Essence, What are they that they can do such acts?

If you look at all the major Heresies they start with an ordo theologiae (order of theology) of Essence or Being, attributes, and then Persons, in which they usually collapse these all together. This is why St. John of Damascus in his long retrospective identified what he saw as the root paradigm of all heresy: "But this is what leads the heretics astray, viz., that they look upon nature and person as the same thing." (An Exact Expostion of the Orthodox Faith III.3)

Now this doesn't mean that Philosophy has absolutely no use in Theology. It is useful for tracing out logical arguments. What I'm aiming at here with respect to philosophy is seeking common ground in which to substantitate Theology (i.e. the idea that philosophical systems are the hand-maiden of theology) and the use of dialectic to discover the reality of God. This method described here in Ennead I:3:4 by Plotinus:

�[Dialectic] is the science which can speak about everything in a reasoned and orderly way, and say what it is and how it differs from other things and what it has in common with them; in what class each thing is and where it stands in that class, and if it really is what it is, and how many really existing things there are, and again how many non-existing things, different from real beings. It discusses good and not good, and the things that are classed under good and its opposite, and what is eternal and not eternal, with certain knowledge about everything and not mere opinion.�

must be rejected as a sure way of doing theology. This was also the heart of the dispute between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam. Theology and natrual theology in particular for Orthodoxy is through experience and is existential (think Moses' encounter with the Burning Bush, or our encounter with God in creation or in the Liturgy). An experience with God, is always an encounter with the Triune God and not a "God in general" (Absolute Being or Simplicity).

Notice the commonality in these men. These are pointers to how they discover God:

Plotinus, �Distinction is Opposition.�

Pyrrhus of Constantinople, �It is impossible for two wills to exist in one person without opposition.� (Monotheletism)

Aquinas, �So as in God there is a real relation, there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction.� (Filioquism)

Ockham, �Contradiction is the most effective way for proving the distinction of things.� (Nominalism)

And the Catholic Encyclopedia on Calvinism:
�As the Arian said, �How can the Eternal be begotten?� and straightway denied the generation of the Word, in like manner Calvin, �How can the contingent affect the First Cause on which it utterly depends?� In the old dilemma, �either God is not omnipotent or man is not self determined,� the �Institutes� accept the conclusion adverse to liberty.� (Predestinarianism)

Here's the question, what does this "Dialectical method" do to the reality of the Incarnation of Christ in which the natures are distinct and unconfused and undivided? I would argue that it destroys and ruins it. It is this method that produced the filioque doctrine, the predestinarianism, the opposition between "nature" and "grace", etc.

Here's the kicker, the East was on a long track of Hellenization of the Gospel with Origen and Origenism in which they had an equally looonnnnnnngggg divorce that culminated with Maximus the Confessor and the Monothelite Controversey. This is why you had all the major heresies in the East. It was the West which was the first movement away from Hellenization (against the Gnostics) in the thinking of Tertullian and Hippolytus (though Tertullian was never really consistent with his own axiom). In the Patritic Period, there are two movements toward and away from Hellenization at exactly different times. While the East was moving toward Origenism in the 3rd Century, the West earlier was moving away from Hellenization (in their repudiation of Gnosticism), but later through the long rejetion of the East of Origenism that culminates with the 5th and 6th Councils, you have a very slowly developing movement in the West with Augustinianism which becomes the accepted and canonical standard in the medieval period, first with the Carolingians and the later Scholastics.

As I would argue, the West must use the tool of the doctrine of Recapitulation which is the only tool that ever destroyed heresy to undue this "Augustinism." This doesn't mean we reject the PERSON of Augustine or all his teachings (his sermons and exegetical works are very good in many places), but those things where he has "synthesized" Christianity with Neo-Platonic thinking, which starts right at the top with the doctrine of God.

I recognize the unpleasantry that could acompany such a task.

Photios

Genuine ignorance is never rude. It may however be culpable. What you are presenting is genuine but I don't know about culpable.

When I want to learn something new about Aquinas, I will go to those who have given their lives to teaching and learning the Angelic Doctor and who are well trained in the tradition to offer such teachings.

These sources you offer only perpetuate the false readings of Aquinas that have appeared to have gained ascendency as a means to subvert the real message of the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is fine. Not even the gates of hell...

Eli

I did not answer your question, because I did not think that I could add anything to the answer given by Deacon Lance. As far as I can see his answer reflects the tradition of the Byzantine Church.

[/QUOTE]Deacon Robert, if Photios and like minded thinkers are correct then I don't see how this is possible because it would seem that Catholicism would have to repudiate a good deal of the theology contained in the later 14 councils to get there. Moreover, it seems clear to me that Rome would never do that, so where does that leave us? Perpetual schism anyone? Photios, do you think there is any way for the two to reconcile without Rome abandoning Florence, Vatican I, etc.? [/QB][/QUOTE]

I think that you are correct. If I felt I had to reject the later 14 Councils, I would feel compelled to march down the block, and join the local OCA parish (or even go to the next town over, and join the ROCOR parish). However, I do not see perpetual schism. Not if the Holy Spirit has anything to do with the life of the Church. For example, in another post, I tried to clarify the understanding of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Many have misconceptions about it. All it says is that the Holy Spirit protects the Church against a Pope teaching error when he teaches "ex cathedra". It is a negative protection. It doesn't say that the Pope will always "get it right" whenever he opens his mouth. Properly understood, I don't see the difficulty in accepting this teaching. Perhaps, understanding will be reached on this in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. As to the Immaculate Conception, the Byzantine Liturgy refers to the Theotokos as "More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare, more glorious than the Seraphim". No other saint receives such praise in the official prayer of the Church. This does point to the Blessed Mother's state of original holiness. We pray what we believe. We believe what we pray. The deeper problem here comes with the understanding of "original sin", or "ancestral sin", as Orthodox theologians refer to it, which we Catholics say that the Theotokos was conceived without. Many Orthodox theologians accuse the Catholic Church of possessing an Augustinian view of the Fall. Actually, Augustine's rather dark view is not the official view of the Catholic Church. Augustine saw the wound from the Fall as being so bad that babies who died without Baptism would experience some light degree of torment in Hell. The Church rejects this teaching. Most Orthodox theologians assert that, with the Fall, we inherit the effects of Original Sin, but not the "guilt". Therefore, there would be no such thing as Baptism "washing away original sin", nor would it be necessary to affirm that the Theotokos was conceived without this state of "sin".In rejecting the Catholic teaching that, with the Fall, we inherit the "guilt" of Original Sin, most of them seem to understand this "guilt" in an Augustinian sense. In reading the "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott, one gets the impression that this "guilt" is something a lot less dark. Rather than possessing the positive guilt for a serious sin which we ourselves commit, which would be punished by torments in Hell, it is more of a case of having been stripped of the privilege of Heaven, without there necessarily being any implication of torments. I'm going with a clouded memory, but I would advise reading Ott on this point. But, I think this is another area where the Orthodox-Catholic theological discussions, in overcoming semantic difficulties, can produce good fruit, and, hopefully, come to a greater level of concurrence.

Elitoft,

The first book is not a "reading" of Aquinas, but of Gregory of Nyssa and is written by a CATHOLIC scholar that is now at Marquette who teaches patristics. In fact, it doesn't even mention Aquinas. I gave that to you not for an understanding of Aquinas but of what Todd stated that there is a distinction between energeia and dynamis from AN EASTERN perspective that a WESTERNER gets correct.

The second book traces the historical metaphysics of energeia, and DOES interact with Aquinas. Please refrain from making ad hominem comments to me until you have done the work on the books provided. Otherwise, you are using that type of argumentation (ad hominem) as a psychological escape goat to do the work.

Photios