www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque?

Oh yes. And I hope we all remember this rule of relative importance when referencing Bishop Mark of Ephesus.

mary

Dear Mary,

I don't see the comparison - ST Gregory of Nyssa is accepted by both East and West. St Mark of Ephesus is an Orthodox saint only (although he is privately venerated even by some Roman Catholic clergy I know).

A Catholic need not quote Mark of Ephesus at all, whereas the orthodoxy of a mutually accepted Church Father is, and has been, open to discussion, especially in the case of Gregory of Nyssa.

Cheers,

Alex

That's ok. I don't get your point at all either.

Mary

Dear Mary,

We would have made a great couple, you know!

All that about opposites attracting!

My point is that Mark of Ephesus isn't on the same footing as Gregory of Nyssa in this discussion since the former is recognized by the Orthodox only.

That is not so with Gregory of Nyssa and there are Orthodox who see Gregory as less than a full patristic authority. So to quote Gregory of Nyssa at will in this discussion may not be acceptable (or convincing) to all Eastern participants.

In the same way, the views of Blessed Augustine of Hippo will be taken differently by Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics than by Roman Catholics who see him as a Doctor of the Church. But both do venerate him and accept him as worthy of liturgical honours.

Alex

Opposites attract. Likeness sustains!

A point, not your point, concerning St. Gregory, as only one voice, might carry more weight in this particular context, IF there were no other evidences that the Fathers and even contemporary authors tend to speak of God's energies in relationship to creation, and speak of the eternal Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit in terms of communion. That has been documented here and we can continue to present substantiating texts for as long as necessary. There is certainly no derth of texts to this point.

The point that Todd is pressing so hard, in terms of energies "flowing out" through eternity, cannot really be sustained in ancient or in contemporary terms.

That texts that have been used to indicate what actually is taught have been essentially ignored. That is to be expected.

I think that your effort to minimize the import of St. Gregory's work in Orthodox Tradition would not hold for very long either, if there was someone here whose authority you could not discount. Unfortunately I am not that authority.

It is interesting though that the moment a Father does not agree with some bit of speculative Orthodox theology, the Father all of sudden is directed to the dust bin of history.

That is not the case with St. Augustine and the west. St. Augustine did his own theological pruning before he died and the Church makes very clear what parts of St. Augustine are of greatest benefit to defining doctrinal truths, and what parts may be set aside as speculative.

Unfortunately there is no central authority by which Orthodoxy can make those general distinctions, so we are beset by an unending multitude of individual interpretations and no way of offering an authoritative refutation to speculation that is not still highly localized.

That is not a terrible thing in the long run, so it seems, but it does play havoc, with speculations on the loose, in the short run.

Mary

Dear Mary,

Speaking of sustaining, why do you insist on sustaining the charge that Orthodoxy is engaging in a speculative enterprise here?

And you also seem to be saying that Orthodoxy is at a great disadvantage because it has no central authority - i.e. the Papacy to pontificate on these matters, so it makes it up as it goes along and then rejects Patristic citations that appear to contradict it?

Is that ecumenical? Is that in keeping with the spirit of this Forum? Just wondering if something has changed here recently!

Aside from that, we are all, in fact, laity here and so we do not - indeed cannot - speak authoritatively for either Church tradition.

Todd's representation here is entirely in keeping with the Orthodox mainstream which is supported by worldwide Orthodoxy and Orthodox theologians.

These theologians engage in legitimate conversations with RC theologians. If there were an official RC theologian who engages in such conversations with the Orthodox who disagrees with Orthodoxy on Energies et alia, it would certainly have made the religious headlines before now.

Frankly, when it comes to Orthodox theology, we Catholics must always tread lightly and respectfully.

Just as you always say, quite legitimately, that when there is an aspect of Catholicism that we Catholics don't understand, rather than reject it, we should struggle to get advice etc. on it, so too with Orthodox theology as it is a perfectly valid perspective that we Catholics, and I in particular, often find that my Catholic "a priori's" often get in the way of doing it justice, as it deserves.

So far, though, I see only Catholic Thomists, RC and EC, trying to go after Orthodox theology on their Thomistic terms, and Todd in particular.

That is unfair and unecumenical toward Orthodox theology and Orthodoxy as a whole.

Alex

You've attributed so much additional meaning to what I actually did say and did mean that I won't be replying to this contrived little mud-ball you've thrown my way, except to say that Todd's efforts are speculative.

That does not mean that they are unworthy, but there are points that he makes in the process of developing his thesis that are not sustained by Orthodox texts. So I am not suggesting that we throw out all that he says. I and others here have simply pointed to particular elements of his argument and offered texts that indicate that his position is not fully supported either in the Fathers or in contemporary Orthodox theological texts.

Remember I am not offering texts or critiques outside of the Orthodox tradition in this discussion.

Mary

Dear Mary,

Your approach is a deeply scholarly one, to be sure!

My only concern is that discussing with particular Orthodox texts is always problematic, but you give it your best shot, as always!

Alex

Christ is Risen Xpuctoc Bockpec!
Dear Alex,
I think you have clearly stated the problem we Eastern orthodox on this forum have with Mary's posts on this topic.
Here is the most important point:
"These theologians engage in legitimate conversations with RC theologians. If there were an official RC theologian who engages in such conversations with the Orthodox who disagrees with Orthodoxy on Energies et alia, it would certainly have made the religious headlines before now."
Thanks.

If it were the case that there was a time when God was without "his energies," then God has undergone change. I cannot imagine that St. Gregory of Nyssa, or any other Eastern Father of the Church would teach that. Was there ever a time when God did not posses his love? Was there ever a time when God did not posses his truth? Was there ever a time when God did not posses his might? Was there ever a time when God did not posses his peace? Was there ever a time when God did not posses his mercy? No. Yet, in the Eastern Christian understanding, none of these things is God's essence, but they are indeed eternal, therefore they are God. They are (among many others) the uncreated energies of God. While this may not be a teaching universally accepted among Eastern Christians, its teaching is very ancient and very widely accepted. I really don't understand why it is that there are those here who have tried to suggest otherwise.
Ryan

Dear Orest,

Working in politics as I do, headlines are important to me!

Mary is a very dedicated person who has a deep spiritual and intellectual commitment to theology and praxis, as we know, and her writing brings all sorts of new perspectives here.

I think that ultimately we need to let Orthodox be who they are and people like me only try their best to understand what we can.

Cheers,

Alex

Dear Orest,

It is a source of interest to me that the fall back position here has been, for some time, that those in disagreement with Todd are arguing against the Palamite distinction between essence and energies.

That is, even to the untrained eye, not what I am doing. It is not what Luke is doing and not what Ghosty or Gordo is doing either.

Why then do you suppose that you and Alex continue to accuse us of that even when we have all said, multiple times, that is not our purpose here?

So one more time for the record here, some of us are disputing presumptions and speculations in Todd Kaster's work that are not upheld, as Todd has asserted them, by contemporary Orthodox writers and which are also not supported in the writings of some of the Fathers. We are doing that using Orthodox texts. I think that is very fair.

It is also legitimate for those of us with training in the scholarship of Thomism to indicate those errors that are found in Todd's expression of St. Thomas and also in Todd's secondary and tertiary sources. There is no rule against that in any kind of scholarly discussion.

So I would be, and I am sure the others I mentioned here would be most grateful, if you and Alex would stop reading into our words that which is not there. Dissembling and misrepresentation is not really a very useful way of arguing, and it is deeply disrespectful and insulting.

Thank your for your kind consideration of this point.

Mary

I think we should realize that there isn't one monolith "Orthodox" theological view.
The Byzantine strain of theology speaks differently than the Antiochene, and both differ slightly with the Alexandrian school. Neither the Antiochene nor Alexandrian speak of these energies and essences in such detail as the Byzantine Schools.

Of course this is not to say that one is better or more accurate than the other, just that each school has it's own terms and definition of terms that the other may not quite understand.

That is quite true but at this point I am using Orthodox texts that come out of the Byzantine tradition and it is clear in those texts that the energies of God are expressed in relationship to creation, while the eternal Trinity is expressed in the language of communion. I think these are important distinctions that have been made for a reason.

These are very simple points to demonstrate.

Mary

Dear Mary,

I don't believe I'm accusing anyone of anything here. My concern is with methodology only.

And the method of taking texts from Orthodox sources to show one's point is not the best one.

If Orthodox or Protestants did that with Catholic teaching to show "their" understanding of Catholicism, Catholics would protest to say that such a method has produced a parody of the faith they understand.

With respect to methodology as well, no matter how qualified we are to comment on this or that theology, we are not Orthodox theologians and we cannot say definitively that this or that text shows what Orthodoxy "really believes and it is the same as . . ." or assumptions to that effect.

We are just not qualified to make such statements. That is not accusing anyone of anything except bad methodology and unjustified presumption with respect to Orthodoxy.


Alex