www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we an impediment to reunion?

DJS,

There is one area where our disagreement is theological rather than historical:
The Florentine decrees were made, at least on the part of the East, for political reasons, while their rejection at the Synod of Constantinople (A.D. 1484) merely involved the reassertion of the Eastern theology of procession (ekporeusis). Florence is irreconcilable with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers on the procession of the Spirit. Thus, Easterners, both Catholic and Orthodox, cannot accept its formulations without doing violence to their own theological tradition. I must say that I am overjoyed that Florence was repudiated by the Byzantine Churches, and I accept that repudiation as definitive, because the "filioque" cannot be accepted into the theological tradition of the East without destroying it.

Here is one of the many threads, which I'm sure you've already read before, on the "filioque" and the theological problems surrounding Florence and Lyons: The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error?

Blessings to you,
Todd

Well you may be right that just everything would have been ruined if the unity forged at Florence was surived czar and sultan.

I think it would be nice if threads such as the one you linked to could be written without jargon, in particular archaic jargon. It is clear form the thread that until such exposition can take place there is not really much point to the discussion, as there is no general agreement on what the words in spoken at Florence and the documents of reunion truly mean.

One thing I noticed in the thread was your repeated resort to the often-heard: "What is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases". But, as I've pointed out before, a feature common to the Father and Son is that they are not the Holy Spirit. I suppose that there is some technical meaning of "what is common" that solves this obvious fatal flaw. Other than that I don't think my argument with you is theological and it is certainly not historical.

You may not like the theological "jargon" of the Fathers, but it is a part of our tradition. The Protestant Reformers were often times happy to throw out the technical language used by the Church Fathers, but the Church didn't agree with them.

Since you think that Florence was only rejected because of the pressure of the Czar and the Sultan, explain to me how you can reconcile Florence to the Eastern tradition. But please, don't use the excuse that you don't like "jargon"; instead, try and do some theology.

Blessings to you,
Todd

DJS,

You'll make a great Westerner, because you have just reduced the triad of divine hypostases to oppositional relations.

Just to clarify matters for you:

Hypostatic properties are unique to each of the hypostases (persons); while what is common refers to the divine essence, and the failure to recognize this distinction leads to the heresy of Sabellianism.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Leave it out; I have reduced nothing. I simply pointed out that your central idea, in your very own words, had a fatal flaw. I had already suggested that the problem was your careless way of putting that idea. If you wish to rephrase, more carefully, go ahead.

As to jargon. Sorry I just don't have the background - that's your field not mine. But I would suggest to you that you might like to consider what a great service it would be to translate the Greek Fathers into contemporary ideas.

Please point out the flaw in my way of presenting it.

I do my best to explain the terms that I use, but I transliterate them because translation of them would involve leaving out portions of their rich meaning.

Hypostasis is often translated as "person" but this isn't fully accurate. Moreover, the word "person" now has modern psychological meanings that are not particularly relevant in triadological theology. Hypostasis can also be translated as "existence," "existent being," and "subsistence," to use just a few of the words in English that can carry portions of that theological terms meaning. The term "hypostasis" is a concrete word that sadly in Western thought is often reduced to a relational term or to a mode of thought rather than an existent being.

Thus, I am against translating many of the technical terms in triadological and christological theology into English, because it normally involves the loss of essential elements of meaning, especially when you are in a dialogue on a thorny ecumenical issue where precision is vitally important.

Blessings to you,
Todd

We have an estimated 200,000 words in the English language. So I think the tranlation could be done with precision. It would be an important work.

Sadly for you, it is far more common today to simply transliterate the terms. That is what I will continue to do in my posts, as I have done in all my papers at FUS.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Dear djs,

Actually, I'm not alone in complaining about Rome's handling of jurisdiction with respect to the UGCC and it isn't my personal view, if that's what the suggestion is (and it probably is not).

It's simply a matter of observation: Rome is appointing bishops for the UGCC outside of Ukraine and is saying that it is. The Synod of the UGCC in Ukraine has also appointed bishops for eparchies outside Ukraine (the "tug of war" we had at the consecration of Bishop Stephan here, for example).

How is this paying due respect for the Particularity of the UGCC, which is a Major Archbishopric, after all, and, by Rome's own admission, has the same rights as a Patriarchate?

In fact, Rome's insistence on the existence of a Patriarchate as the "condition" that allows a Synod to appoint its own bishops is an entirely "Latin" understanding of the role of patriarchates in the East as somehow being the "full expression" of Church autocephaly!

Nothing could be further from reality in the Orthodox East, however!

Not all autocephalous Orthodox Churches are "patriarchates" but this doesn't mean their Primates aren't autocephalous and can't appoint their own bishops etc.!

If Rome wants to show the world an "experiment" in church union with itself on the basis of how Rome respects the Particular Rights of Churches like the UGCC - then it is doing a really crappy job!

What Orthodox would want to be a part of that?

Yes, as you say, the Orthodox demand more control of the UGCC - but, really, this is coming from the ROC that fears the influence of the UGCC NOT ONLY as a religious "pull" factor, but also because of its strong national/cultural identity and attractiveness, as a result, to Ukrainians in Kyiv and Eastern Ukraine.

And the ROC does to Rome what Quebec does to Canada - if you don't do what we say, we'll have nothing to do with you!

Every time the UGCC comes close to a patriarchate, uniting everyone together etc., Rome gives us a "non possumus."

At least Pope John Paul the Great turned the other way whenever the UGCC flexed its particular administrative muscle . . .

Perhaps the UGCC just has to learn to pre-empt Rome when it comes to episcopal nominations and consecrations and present the Vatican bureaucrats with more "fait accomplit's."

Pardon me for saying so, but why are you, as an ECer, more "papal than the pope" here?



Alex

Dear Peter,

Sorry about responding to you so late!

I agree that the Western Rites of the Antiochian Orthodox Church should flourish as much as possible!

I would like to see a Lutheran rite thrown into the mix as well!

The situation is somewhat different with the UGCC.

The Antiochians use no force to convert Anglicans, RC's, Old Catholics and Lutherans to their Western Rites. I've been to one conference of theirs and their converts from RCism, for example, are quite eager, for numerous reasons, to join the Antiochian Orthodox Church!

The division among the Ukies into Byzantine and Latin Churches today stems from 1946 and certainly no one blames the Ukie Latins (and, no, I'm not talking about the Basilians ).

I'm just lamenting that it is unfortunate since there is no history of "Ukrainian Roman Catholicism" prior to the sad events of 1946.

There's more of a history of Lutheranism among Ukrainian Greek-Catholics.

This therefore involves more of a cultural/national issue than religious.

The Western Orthodox know where their religious roots lie and admire them for maintaining them even when they become Orthodox.

The same can't be said for the Ukie Latins.

Alex

Alex:

IIRC other Patriarchates have similar processes in the diaspora. What do you propose? A free-for-all. That's what the Orthdox have and they don't think it is right or good. ("Evil" is the word I've heard from EO priests.) As I said, I am delighted that there is just a smidgen of respect for the fact that e.g., Philadelphia is not territory of the UGCC, solely. We live here too ya' know! And that co-existence can be helped be some coordination.

Now according to the artcles I linked to, Rome announces the appointment, but the UGCC brings brings the names and discusses them with the Vatican Oriental whatever. So, as I said, if you don't want Basilians, have your synod stop nominating them.

Btw if this is all too Latin for you, well Rome has the primacy. But I would be equally delighted if this oversight were handled by the EP. And there is no doubt that the EPate has had considerable experience in "refereeing" affairs in other Patriarchates.

There is one other alterantive ISTM, and that is back to the one-bishop one city standard. Given the demographics here, I would say that that would be too Latin for my taste.

ps I must have missed the post about your new job. Congratulations.

DEar djs,

Thank you, Sir!

I don't wish to paint myself as being too "Anti-Latin" since, who am I kidding, I'm not. Just ask the Administrator who thinks I'm really an "Old Style Greek-Catholic." (And what's wrong with that?).

Our Patriarch and his Synod have quite the organization and are more than capable of handling the internal affairs of the UGCC, including nominating and consecrating new bishops, my friend!

I can see the issue of avoiding a "free for all" if we were like your Church (kidding, ), but we have a solid bureaucracy that would make even yourself proud!

And, frankly, when it comes to choosing bishops, I do believe the UGCC has a much better track record than Rome . . .

With apologies to anyone in the Vatican who may be lurking here . . .

Sometimes I think the Administrator has a direct line to the Vatican, like Batman to the chief of police of Gotham City . . .

Alex

I am unfamiliar with that type. Do you mean like Bls. Romzha, Gojdich, Hopko, ...?

Dear djs,

I can only pray to become one of those old-style GC's! (minus too much suffering, that is!)

May we all receive the benefit of their prayers!

And what's this about your purple hearts? You are a monarchist?

Alex