www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox in Communion with Rome

I'd like to ask how the Latin Church has "developed" beyond certain expressions of doctrine. More fine tuning of terminology and, as a result, clearer expressions may have come along, but the ones that were "developed beyond," as you say, are always valid and free to be used.

Anyway, my bigger question is: you say that Latins are not bound to accept Tridentine doctrines because the Latin Church has "developed" beyond these, and in your mind because the Latin Church doesn't consider itself bound to them (I think it does, but anyway...)....so, before this "development beyond," you seems to be saying that Latins were required to accept them; in other words, for a time Latins were bound to accept, as faithful members of the Church, certain expressions of doctrine that non-Latin Catholics were not. Is this correct?

Alexis

As someone who has repeatedly attacked "Praestantia ritus latini" including in the blog that I contribute to, your characterization is totally unfair. Enough said.

"Spiritually Latin"? I've been repeatedly attacked on this forum for daring to criticize liturgical and devotional latinizations. "Doctrinally Latin"? Only insofar as I personally uphold the complete compatibility of what you consider to be purely Latin innovations with the traditional Eastern expression of the Catholic faith. You don't have to agree with me to at least not distort my thinking.

The problem, I think, is that you do not seem to want to distinguish between those who fully respect the Eastern tradition and who oppose any dilution of the Eastern spiritual and liturgical tradition but not to the extent of calling Latin doctrines "innovations" that are foreign to the East, and those who want to thoroughly Latinize the spiritual and liturgical lives of Eastern Catholics.

Byzantine theology - both Greek Catholic and Orthodox - is unchanged since 1054. Orthodox reject some of the developments in the Latin Church since then (but even here we can look to Pope John Paul the Great called the degree of communion 'profound' and stated that the only thing needed for full communion is full communion, and he was well aware of the unresolved issues). Greek Catholics accept these later Latin developments as valid but oftentimes useless to us or even poorly stated. Vatican II (as I've quoted before) said that our Orthodox spirituality and liturgy, discipline and theology is fully Catholic. Why do you reject this? You claim to accept Vatican II? It seems that you are trying to set standards of what it means to be Catholic that are far more strenuous and different than does the Church itself. You're coming off as a super-Latin here to judge our Catholicism.

Pope Benedict may surprise us all and come up with a form of primacy that saves face for Rome and that the Orthodox can accept but again I don't see how. Then again I haven't been a professor of theology since 1958 like him.

Sure my approach to ecumenism has changed a bit over the years but my ecumenism rightly understood is still there so I'm still here.

'Orthodox on the outside, Latin doctrine on the inside' is how Rome envisages Greek Catholics (and the reconciled Orthodoxy it wants). Given church infallibility it can say nothing else with integrity. Stuart sees that as an Oreo approach.

(There used to be a bumper sticker that said something like 'Byzantine Catholic: Orthodox in worship, Catholic in doctrine'.)

Again Stuart's and other OicwRs' theology (again an online convert phenom) reminds me a lot of Anglo-Catholicism: orthodox (yes, small-o), and in the OicwRs' case claiming to be Orthodox, but on whose authority? His own church's view isn't good enough for him ('Oreo') and 'the Orthodox are meanies' (a lot of them are but that's beside the point). You're left with... like Newman pre-1845, a fantasy church, a paper church, a theological invention in Stuart's head based on his opinions (got from many years of study but still opinions), as removed from the reality of most Slavic Greek Catholics (who are fine with calling them anything but Russian or Orthodox) as Newman's high-flying theology was from the Protestant and Erastian Church of England of his day and ours. In which he can dissent from his church just like the liberals and claim to be in good standing. Sure, you can live in a parish for a lifetime like that but intellectually it doesn't work.

Simply logical really and nothing to do with online Orthodox (likewise a convert phenom, largely not a Greek, Russian or Arab one) foaming at the mouth against ecumenism and putting down Greek Catholics, which I still don't like any more than you do.

Tous schismatiques = branch theory = no true church = doesn't fly with Rome or the Orthodox.

If it is on a shirt it must be true.

http://www.cafepress.com/byzcath/6555741

If I believed that, I would be gone in a flash. This is certainly not what Rome professes in its ecumenical outreach to the Orthodox Church, and is certainly not what Joseph Ratzinger has written (see, e.g., his Graz Lecture of 1977). As I said elsewhere, if what you say is true, then Rome is disingenuous at best and cynically manipulative at worst. Why would anyone associate with such a Church?


Obviously applies mainly to Ruthenians. But Melkites and even Ukrainians are a very different kettle of fish.


So, I'll ask you what someone else did: Is Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch an "online convert"? What about the rest of the Melkite Synod? How about Patriarch Lyubomir of Kyiv, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Synod? Also online converts? Or are you implying that our hierarchs are leading us astray?


So, what size hammer does this problem require?

Administrator

With all due respect, did you read what I actually wrote?

I was reacting to an exchange between Stuart (Greek Catholic) and Serge the young fogey (Orthodox). My response to the exchange has NOTHING to do with the relationship between Latin and Eastern theology! So I don't see why you are suddenly lecturing me on the relationship between the two.

I am sorry to see that you severely misunderstood my super-simple reaction. At least, Stuart's response to my post ("Some people don't like to share") evidently got it.

I completely agree. Show me where I've denied these points.

I have never denied that the Eastern Churches must continue to speak "Eastern". What I do not accept is that doctrines such as papal infallibility are not part of the properly "Eastern" expression of faith. This does not make me a Latinizer anymore than it makes any defender of the essential orthodoxy of papal infallibility among Eastern Catholics a Latinizer, and if I uphold it, it is NOT because it is a "Latin thing"



I completely agree, with the important distinction that I am not convinced that Latin theology is full of innovations that are contrary to the teachings of the Fathers -- which seems to be the point made by some commentators here.

This can hardly be true, considering that the hesychast revival took place in the thirteenth century, and the Byzantine Liturgy did not reach its final form until the fourteenth century monastic synthesis.

Yes. I read what you wrote. It is clear you don't understand the Christian East! Sorry if that is offensive to you.

The "assertions" within my questions are not my own; instead, they are the assertions of the Latin bishops assembled in council, or do you deny that Trent taught that the formal cause of man's justification ". . . is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He makes us just."

Now, what is the "justice" that is not God's own justice?

If it is not the uncreated justice of God Himself . . . is it some kind of "created" justice? And if it is a "created" justice, how can it truly make a man just?

Moreover, do I as an Eastern Catholic have to believe in this justice that is not God's own justice?

Theosis is after all a real participation in all of God's energies (i.e., His own uncreated justice, His uncreated glory, His eternal and uncreated love, etc.), and not in some kind of created similitude, which simply mirrors His life and glory.

I would appreciate an answer to the question, because I want to know whether you believe that Eastern Catholics must accept theological theories that have no foundation in our own tradition.

My other questions, like the one above, are based on the theories proposed at Trent, and several other local synods of the Latin Church, but if you do not believe me on this issue, you can look up the texts for yourself. Trent speaks of the "guilt" of original sin in its decree on "Original Sin" during its fifth session, or do you deny that it speaks in this way?

As far as the Tridentine teaching on icons and relics not containing divinity within them, that is found in the decree "On the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics, of Saints, and On Sacred Images," during the twenty-fifth session of the council. The denial that there is any divinity or virtue in relics and icons comes in the second paragraph, or do you deny that Trent actually said what it is purported to have said, and what is contained in the written texts issued by that synod?

Finally, as far as the filioque is concerned, I wrote a paper on that topic and so you might want to read it to see why it is that I reject the Western understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Click the link below to peruse that paper:

The Filioque Controversy [sites.google.com]

I would truly appreciate it if you would provide a thoughtful response to the questions that I have posted, rather than simply brushing them off as unfounded assertions.

God bless,
Todd

When I have time I will re-post my question on the exaggerated claims of the West in reference to the primacy.

Todd,

Thank you. I will read this when I have time later this evening.

By assertions, I meant not the teachings of the Councils per se, but your own criticisms of the teachings. I was hoping that you would present evidence for the points you were making.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Fr. Deacon Daniel,

I guess you will never respond to my questions. Such is life.

Nevertheless . . .

I believe that man is made just by the justice whereby God Himself is just.

I believe that the original sin made man mortal (both spiritually and physically), but that no one is born guilty.

I believe that icons and relics contain divine energy, and that is precisely why they can be venerated.

And as far as the filioque is concerned, I reject any theory that would make the Son a cause of the Spirit's ekporeusis, for the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and this belief conforms perfectly to the teaching contained in St. Maximos the Confessor's letter to Marinus.

God bless,
Todd

No need to act childishly, Todd. I have to take my daughter to the pool. That I do not have time to respond to you immediately is not a sign that I will never respond.

Thank you for the clarification. I await your response.

God bless,
Todd