www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Eastern Schism

Dear Joe,

You make a remarkable point that is not driven home as much as it really should be!

One could write a separate volume about the "culture of the specialist" or "expert."

They tend to write their works in a language, with specific words, that only they seem to understand. Plain English is beyond their capacity and they remind one of the Pharisees of old in a number of ways . . .

Our Cantors and liturgical experts can sometimes be uppity too - just because they can sing and I can't!

So I can take singing lessons - just don't want to, that's all!

My weight-lifting class is much more important to my health!

Cheers, sir!

Alex

I find I simply care less and less about the history, arguments, east vs. west, debate points, etc. I like the liturgical life and people in my parish. I believe the catholicity of my church is built on the sacraments and our bishop and extends out from there. I am friends with Catholics, Copts and Anglicans and can appreciate what is good in their traditions.

So even if your traditions are divided at the highest level, and even if they always remain this way, I can build unity up for myself in this way.

Dear AMM,

You really should get a Byzantine Forum award (if the Administrator ever gets around to establishing a system of awards!).

Like you, I love everyone and recently I've even added the Methodists of the Order of St Luke to my "Just Love Y'a!" list!

Good for you!

Alex

Dr. Alex,

When His Holiness John Paul II was in Ukraine, did he say the Filioque in the Creed?

As far as the soul entering the body on the 40th or 80th day: The reasoning was that the soul entered when it could be determined what the sex of the baby was. Male genitalia are formed about the 40th day and female genitalia are formed around the 80th day after conception. Now, through genetics we know that the sex is determined at conception in the chromosomes. Not a change in doctrine but in science.

Dr. Alex,

Another tidbit. The priest who presides over the Divine Liturgy at the UGCC that I go to is a Dominican! So I guess he is a Byzantine Thomist!

For those interested in reading a comparison of Eastern and Western doctrinal positions on theosis I recommend the article entitled, �Deification in Palamas and Aquinas,� by Joost Van Rossum (St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 47, nos. 3-4, 2003).

Here's how:


Leo XIII is not the only Pope to have praised Thomas. There are many others. John Paul II was once asked if he was a Thomist. He responded, and I paraphrase because I don't have the text in front of me--How can a Pope not be a Thomist?

When seeing Paris (for the first time I think), Thomas said he would give all of this for St. John Chrysostom's commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel. He loved the Fathers. And his Golden Chain is an example of this love.


I think one of the reasons that many in the East reject Thomas is that he is so darn systematic--and unless one has appropriate philosophical studies, that's a hard way to proceed. In the Summa he is taking a systematic approach to theology which is a pains taking tedious task and presumes much philosophical knowledge. Much of that philosophical wisdom has been destroyed by the modern philosophers (you can probably go as far back as William of Ockham) and skepticism which is rampant today. And hence, in one sense, we moderns live outside of the milieu of the Fathers who were quite at home with the notion that there were eternal truths. Think of Socrates who defined a philospher as one who practiced dying--and in fact himself sacrificed all for the Truth even though he was a pagan.

There have been Orthodox who have found great wisdom in Thomas, the Kydones brothers come to mind and they translated many of his works into Greek. (They may have converted to the Catholic faith--but I don't think they saw themselves as rejecting the Fathers) I actually know a living Orthodox patristic scholar who holds Thomas in great respect.

I don't see Benedict in his repsect for Thomas. I would refer you to his Regensburgh lecture, though I don't know if Thomas is mentioned there specifically--but reason is. Thomas himself, with assitance of Greek philosophy--the philosophy that Benedict sees so closely intertwined with the faith because the Logos became flesh--was a great defender of the faith against the attacks of the muslim philosophers. While the truths of the faith are above reason, they are not contrary to it--and hence one can believe with the mind of the Fathers and see that reason, philosophy, has its place as the handmaiden to theology.

The Fathers and Thomas are not mutually exclusive, but I will grant you that their methods (as if one could say that the Fathers had the same method) are different.

The East needs St. Thomas because the world's current problems are often not just a matter of men losing their faith, but often losing their minds first. He is a great (not perfect) Doctor who can help men be restored to sanity.

I have yet to see that Thomas contradicts the Fathers (though he may have disagreements with them on particular points), although he has great wisdom in interpreting them.

Dear lm,

Yes, when Aquinas rejected St John Damascene's contention that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, he was contradicting him, it would seem. It is possible to see that as "not a big deal" but it is.

It is very true that the Orthodox took much Aquinas' moral theology and some even honoured him as a saint - John Meyendorff quotes a private Orthodox prayer to Aquinas.

And Patriarch Joseph Slipyj had an icon of Aquinas written in his Cathedral of St Sophia in Rome.

And Aquinas knew the Eastern Fathers, to be sure!

That STILL doesn't make it possible for a Byzantine theologian to be true to his Eastern Christian heritage AND be a Thomist.

As Todd/Apotheoun shows in his link above as well . . .

Aquinas' equalization of the Latin "and from the Son" with the Eastern "Through the Son" is NOT acceptable in Eastern theology that sees "Through the Son" ONLY in terms of the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world.

So please try again!

Alex

Dear Zenovia,

In some RC countries, even without the Inquisition, one could not even be a Greek Catholic and have equal status to Roman Catholics - one had to change one's baptismal certificate to indicate "RC" as happened to many relatives and their friends in western Ukraine and elsewhere.

At least with the rack, one knew where one stood.

Alex

It is over with so please give it a REST!
Stephanos I
There will never be healing when people continually live in the past and not the the NOW created God time.
NOW is the day of salvation. Behold NOW is the aceptable time.
If TODAY you hear His voice harden not your hearts.

Dear Dr Eric,

OK, thank you.

I believe the Filioque was recited during the Liturgy at which Pope John Paul presided in Ukraine.

The Creed without the Filioque in the UGCC parishes in Ukraine can sometimes be seen to be an "Orthodoxization" i.e. "Russification" or something that represents their former oppressors, civil and religious.

Ukrainian Catholics there - and here - would keep the Filioque (and other Latin traditions) as a "badge of Catholicism" and to assert that "they are not (Russian) Orthodox."

Even the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox of various stripes (and let's remember that there are many Ukrainian Orthodox that do NOT identify with ANY of the several jurisdictions in Ukraine, canonical or not) will be seen changing the patronage of a Church from what is perceived as "Russian" to one that is "Ukrainian" (e.g. from "Our Lady of Kazan" to "The Holy Protection of the Mother of God" or from "St Alexander Nevsky" to "St Volodymyr").

And in Canada, I understand that when the UGCC synod here approved the Creed without the Filioque, it was only promulgated by the Western Eparchies, but not here. There is resistance to that here for the above reason.

A fascinating study in religious sociology.

Alex

Dear Fr. Stephanos,

If what you say is true, we'd have one Church by now.

Alex

To say that the Spirit proceeds from Father does not deny the procession from the Son. Are not the Father and Son one?

Furthermore, I don't think as a Byzantine Catholic one can deny the truth of the filioque even though one need not have it in the Creed. And see the Vatican's Clarification on this very difficult issue for some good reading.

Gotta go for now. But I'll check back later.

Dear lm,

Again, your first sentence is a Latin expression, not a Byzantine one.

The Latin Church does differentiate between the "Active Procession" of the Spirit from the Father and the "Passive Spiration" of the Spirit from the Son - despite the fact that the Father and the Son are One - the distinction is made (sorry to continue with this, Father Stephanos!).

Your second question relates to Eastern Catholicism. Eastern Catholics do not need to put the Filioque into the Creed, even though many parishes do.

Do they say the West is heretical for so doing - no because then they would be Eastern Orthodox. The Filioque can be understood in an heretical way, which is accepted by the RC Church, IF by that we mean the Spirit proceeds from TWO Origins in the Trinity. In that case, the Filioque does not appear to be a good theological expression to begin with.

But do Eastern Catholics need to affirm the Filioque or the Latin version of the "Through the Son" in order to differentiate the Son from the Spirit in the Trinity - I would say "no."

Both Churches agree that the Spirit's Procession from the Father is different from the Son's being Only Begotten and that this already differentiates the Son from the Spirit - in a way that we cannot know.

We Easterners are content to agree that "we cannot know."

The later Latin theologians, including Aquinas, with their systematic theology and their forays into Greek philosophy (which the Eastern Fathers did not, in fact, like to do) felt the need to add the "Filioque."

It is better and more humble to try and not affirm what we cannot in fact know.

Once again, I'm only trying to understand how one may, with legitimacy, be a "Byzantine Thomist."

So far, no good.

Alex