www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholic theology and doctrine

LOL--very clever.

neither was I

Dear Friends,

Todd is more than capable of responding on his own behalf (and on behalf of several others for that matter, should we call upon him to rescue us in a tight theological spot), but this is my take on the Synodicon as being capable of receiving the consent of Eastern Catholics.

The Synodicon's points regarding what Eastern Catholics would consider to be "ritual" issues such as Communion in both Kinds is no problem. (Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff, at one time, wrote about how an agreed statement between Orthodox and Roman Catholics demonstrated that both sides believed there was no more bread and wine on the altar after the Consecration - so that laid to rest that point - according to him.)

Perhaps more germane is the way in which the Synodicon is to be interpreted when it comes to any defined sort of "hierarchy" of truths in this regard. For example, should the Armenians ever come into full communion with Orthodoxy, what would happen with the reference to them in the Synodicon? Would they have to give up the use of azymes in their celebration of the Divine Liturgy? And what about other pejorative references to the "Armenians" (which in Greek and Slavic circles was a name synonymous with "vile heretic")?

Does the simple fact that such references are in dogmatic and other pronouncements mean they are themselves "infallible" and incapable of amendment? This would affect other Oriental Orthodox traditions as well - in light of the ten year theological discussion with them, how would Orthodoxy amend the Synodicon, if at all, upon the resumption of full Communion?

To what extent does that section of the Synodicon address dogmatic issues versus ritual ones and are the two on the same footing from a theological perspective?

The Synodicon's reference to the Eastern Church - how does this reflect on the Western Orthodox today and their traditions? Are they any less "Orthodox" as a result? And what about how certain Orthodox Churches, such as the Kyivan Orthodox Church during the Baroque period, who allowed baptism by pouring and otherwise allowed traditions that were different from the Greek, but nonetheless valid and practiced by universally-recognized Orthodox Saints?

Without calling into question the correctness and Orthodoxy of the Synodicon's condemnation of, for example, anyone who says that the "Pope is the head of the Church" - to what extent may all Catholics in communion with Rome today be considered to fall under this condemnation given that they believe Christ Himself to be the Head of His own Mystical Body which is His Church and that the Pope is merely His Vicar and visible head of the Church in this world? To what extent is the Synodicon's condemnation one in which Catholics may also share as "partners?"

The same is true of the condemnation of Barlaam and Akindynos in the Palamite situation. Nominalism is also something the Catholic church condemns.

And however the Filioque is communicated on a popular level, it is clear that Catholic seminaries do teach along the lines of what Todd wrote above with respect to the Son's relationship to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps a fuller clarification from Rome in this respect would be warranted. The dropping of the Filioque altogether from the Creed intended to express the universal faith of the one, undivided Church would be optimal.

Alex

I would prefer that the Synodicon of the 7th Ecumenical council be just that.

Also, it would seem proper that the the Orthodox Synodicon (the above with later additions) say all and no more than it should as a statement of Orthodox belief.

Returning, however, to the initial point of contention, I said:

To refine my follow-up questions:

Is belief in the Energies of God Orthodox dogma?

Is the Energy of God celebrated/proclaimed liturgically in a form that is common to Byzantine-Catholics and the Orthodox?

Is the Energy of God celebrated/proclaimed liturgically by the Orthodox in a form that is not compatible with Catholic dogma?

Nobody at all has attempted to put the Divine Energies into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol!

Fr. Serge

Indeed, which goes to my point:


It could still be the case, however, that the doctrine of God's Energy is established dogma even though modifying the Creed to include it would never be a consideration.

To my point, the following:


And after my further inquiring as to how it is professed:


Hence, my previous post commenting on the discussion of the Synodicon and my follow-up questions which I reiterate:

Why, of all things, would a Catholic feel unhappy or grieved at the understanding of the Divine Energies, the Uncreated Light, and so forth? After the Holy See deliberately, with the inclusion of the feast of Saint Gregory Palamas in the Anthologion, has blessed this set of efforts to understand the profound Mystery of salvation, surely it is time to put the controversy behind us. Roma locuta est; causa finita est!

Fr. Serge

Without knowing more about who the unhappy, grieved Catholic is I really can't say. Speaking for myself I can only say that I ask questions not because I am unhappy or grieved but because I want to be further informed.

My questions are intended as (and I would think examples of) an effort to understand "this set of efforts to understand the profound Mystery of salvation." For Catholics, Sts. Augustine, Aquinas, Loyola and Bellarmine are right there along with Palamas. Must everything they said be accepted without question?

I bet I'll be quoting you quoting that one: (me imagining) As Fr. Serge always says "Roma locuta est; causa finita est!" but, being careful not to read more into someone's words than what's there, I'll have to drop the "always."

Not if you read Todd's version of the Synodikon!

Fr. Deacon Daniel, who recently relocated his papal license to sin....

This is making me curious about which version we recite in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I honestly don't remember reciting it (though I'm only in my second year of Orthodoxy). I think I'll ask my priest next time I see him.

Joe

Hadn't noticed that Aquinas, Loyola, and Bellarmine were suddenly added to the Anthologion.

In the context of my posting above, Roma locuta est, causa finita est indicates the irony of those who adhere to Rome as long as Rome says what they want to hear. The number of these is Legion.

Fr. Serge

Nor did I say they were. So please do not spend time looking for them in the Anthologion since they are Western saints who lived after the "schism." They are, of course, to be found in the analogous liturgical books of the Roman rite. But I see that you correctly did not include Augustine so, to restate my point in an even simpler way:

Augustine is right there along with Palamas. Must everything they said be accepted without question?


Thanks for the much needed explanation.

Consider this. Suppose, instead, my questions (mutatis mutandis) were:

Is belief in Original Sin Orthodox dogma?

Is Original Sin acknowledged liturgically in a form that is common to Byzantine-Catholics and the Orthodox?

Is Original Sin acknowledged liturgically by the Orthodox in a form that is not compatible with Catholic dogma?

Would I get the same response (as I'm sensing it): How dare you ask these questions you unhappy and grieved creature.

There's a lot in this thread, but I'll give a few opinions.


My belief is that the actual Synodicon recited varies between jurisdictions. i.e. what you might hear next Sunday of Orthodoxy in Moscow might not necessarily be what you hear in the Phanar (which for that matter might not be what you would have heard 400 years ago at either location).


1. see the proclamation of the 1351 Council of Blachernae, or the statement from Mt. Athos in the relevant section Philokalia. I would say that it's "dogma", in the sense that it's a verbal articulation of the authentic life of the Church (and not necessarily "dogma" in any other sense one might give it).

I know this is frequently hard to some Latin Catholics to swallow. I'd suggest one approach it on its own terms, especially in the terms Fr. John Meyendorff put it in in his smaller book on St. Gregory.

Also, remember this is NOT Byzantium versus the West; this is Gregory and orthodoxy versus Barlam and a specific line of thought that was common in the "Byzantine Church" of the time. Frankly, I can't see how anyone can side with Barlam and not be a nominalist. Reconciling the Essence and Energy doctrine with the Cathechism of the Catholic Church is a much different proposition. An even more difficult proposition would be reconciling St. Gregory Palamas with St. Augustine or with St. Thomas Aquinas. [the latter would require a truly herculean work of scholarship - impeccable knowledge of Greek, Latin, of the Scholastic and Byzantine theological traditions, and the ability to get around all the garbage that have been written about both men's theologies].

2. yes it is, in (among other places)the Vespers and Orthros texts for St. Gregory Palamas from the Menaion and Triodion. Otherwise, my jurisdiction and parish are "not Catholic".

3. No. The Triodion and Menaion which have the services - on the Second Sunday of Lent and on November 14th - for St. Gregory. For that matter, I believe based on the history I've read that the Antiocian Church went with Constantinople to accept the services for St. Gregory

Again, only my opinions.

Thanks for the answers. Can you clarify the response in "3". I'm pleased that you responded "No" there, even though as you earlier noted "Reconciling the Essence and Energy doctrine with the Cathechism of the Catholic Church is a much different proposition."

I say it's more difficult in relative terms. Approaching the question in terms of Orthodoxy versus nominalism, in the approach advocated by Father John, is easy because all the answers are there.

Reconciling essence and energy with the CCC is harder only because it hasn't been done before (to my knowledge) and it's not really an academic theology task that the average educated person can do. It's much more complicated because you must get to what each side is really saying, you must "translate" between their two philosophical worlds (and human languages), etc.

Nevertheless, it is possible. Otherwise, AFAIC, there'd be no basis for unity between the Latin and "Byzantine" Church.

ETA: I forgot a sentence I meant to put in the last paragraph. The Melkite Church only stopped commemorating St. Gregory Palamas on the Second Sunday of Lent during the 1800s - meaning there were at least 100 years when he was commemorated. This was as far as I've heard voluntary, and came down from the sitting patriarch of the time. The commemoration has returned in at least some places based on the permissions given to do so, spurred no doubt by the better understanding that we have of his place in the life of the Church which has emerged over the past 100 years or so (of which Fr. John Meyendorff again was among the leading figures).

Markos