www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic to Orthodox

Yes, Apotheoun is contradictory, because, the way I see it, he is not simply a catholic of eastern RITE, but a fully orthodox christian and as such he cannot be in full accordance, although he tries a lot, with what Uniate way offers as a reconciliation between two halves of Christendom (I try my best and I wish I would be right to consider both churches as two halves of the same Body).

In this sense, what I see contradictory or at least not explained satisfactorily, is that, while he accepts that "Now, as a Byzantine Catholic I do not believe that a virtual or formal distinction is sufficient to safeguard the truth about God and the reality of salvation as it is revealed in scripture and tradition", on the other hand he says that, "Nevertheless, in spite of these different approaches, East and West were in communion with each other for more than 600 years while simultaneously holding these divergent positions, so there is no reason why they cannot continue to hold different views on this theological topic, and on many other doctrines as well, and still be in communion with each other."


This is not how the Church works out Union.

Dear Jones,

I thank you so very much for this most necessary observation.

From time to time I read these discussions on St. Gregory Palamas and am puzzled by the dualism that is attributed to him by the very people who would defend the dogmatically distinct concepts of the divine Person and the human nature and divine nature of the Incarnation and woe to the one who calls that dualism.

Eli Toft
who is also a Jones

Eli Toft,

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate that.

Todd,

Your fidelity to the teaching of Orthodoxy is impeccable, and superior to many who are Eastern Orthodox themselves. I pray that you will continue in that line and I am sure that you will bring forth much good fruit to many students when you obtain teaching jobs university or high school. I'm sure that many students will be blessed to learn from you.

A couple of problems I have with your analysis though:

1) As far as the communion line for 600 years in the first millenium is concerned and that it can be analogous for today's communion, this assumes that the Augustinian Triadology had taken root in the Pre-Photian Church (I say Photios since that is where the break really starts to manifest itself openly), and based on that fact, the East did not break communion with the West despite this. However, if Maximos is representative in articulating the Western perspective of the Western Church in his day, then St. Martin I's Triadology is not the same as Augustine's, Toledo's, or the Carolingian Theologians. Your view would also assume that other Western Theologians like Ambrose and Hilary anticipated the doctrine of the filioque, which is very questionable.

2)I don't see how it can be maintained that the West and Florence teach an erroneous view of the Trinity and then maintain that this is only something that the West is bound to. If this is true, all this would do is make the West bound to an erroneous view of God. In the end, it would be admitted that the East and West really don't have the same faith. How can there be true unity if it is admitted that the East maintained the tradition and the West adopted a Hellenized form?

Photios

Gordo,

It will be interesting to see how Pope Benedict XVI (formerly known as Cardinal Ratzinger) will act now that he is Pope. It is one thing to be the second highest official in the Church, and quite another thing to be the Pope.

Now certainly as the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith he had to serve the man who appointed him to that position, because he was not the one to set the direction of the Church, but was instead required to implement the views of the man above him.

Perhaps that is why I was not terribly concerned when Pope Benedict appointed Cardinal Levada as head of the CDF, because even though I have some experience in connection with the new Cardinal Prefects theological failings as Archbishop of San Francisco, I at the same time know that he is not simply free to do whatever he wants, but that he must instead serve the Pope who appointed him.

Blessing to you,
Todd

I know it may not be very popular to say this, but I am arguing for a certain degree of dogmatic relativity. Clearly, God cannot be contained or limited by human language -- which is of course a diastemic reality -- and so the dogmatic formulations of the Church must be seen as apophatic decrees that set certain parameters for human discourse about the mysteries revealed in Christ.

That being said, there is a further difficulty at the present time, and that difficulty is centered upon the different metaphysical presuppositions underlying the Eastern and Western theological traditions -- differences that have existed for more than a millennium -- and because these differences have existed for so long, and even during times when the two sides were in communion with each other, I do not believe that they necessitate ecclesial division. For example, anyone who has read the writings of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe knows that he was an extreme Augustinian on the question of original sin, and yet, he is a saint of the Church. Now, do I agree with his view that unbaptized babies go to hell? No, I do not, nor do I believe that I have to agree with him on that issue.

Another area where I believe dogmatic relativity is possible is in connection with the doctrine of divine simplicity. Now certainly the West (and the East) have dogmatized the truth that God is simple, but what has not been dogmatized is how divine simplicity is to be understood. The Scholastics have a certain philosophical take on simplicity, but their views have never been adopted (no matter what Ludwig Ott believes) as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith; while the Cappadocians, on the other hand, have a different view of the nature of simplicity, for as St. Gregory Nazianzus said, "The divine nature then is boundless and hard to understand; and all that we can comprehend of Him is His boundlessness; even though one may conceive that because He is of a simple nature He is therefore either wholly incomprehensible, or perfectly comprehensible. For let us further enquire what is implied by 'is of a simple nature.' For it is quite certain that this simplicity is not itself its nature, just as composition is not by itself the essence of compound beings." [St. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 38, no. 7] Now as a Catholic I feel completely free to adopt the Cappadocian understanding of simplicity, which cannot be reduced to a mere definitional or philosophical simplicity as it is in the Scholastics. In other words, I hold that God is simple, but simplicity itself is not His nature, because He transcends both simplicity and composition; and as a consequence, the real distinctions present within the Godhead in no way involve a rejection of simplicity properly understood.

Now with that said, I do not see how my position on these issues in any way prevents me from being in communion with Rome.

I cannot argue with your points, I can only suggest that there is an certain assumed 'mutuality' to communion.

Communion can be like a kiss, there is the mutually shared kiss and there is that one-sided peck. It may be that only you can determine this, but if you choose to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Rome must also be willing to be 'in communion' with you.

I also had to make such a determination once.

+T+
Michael

Apotheoun writes,
"Although I am sure that Mr. Likoudis is well intentioned, as an Eastern Catholic I do not agree with him on various Triadological issues (e.g., the filioque..."

Apotheoun, I thought that Eastern Catholics have to agree with the pope on issues of doctrine, but are allowed to retain separate liturgical styles since they left the Orthodox in the 1500's. Wondering how many changes had been made, I visited the local Ukrainian Catholic church, and by luck, the sermon was on how because of Original sin, Mary had to have been conceived without sin herself and needed the immaculate conception (neither of which is accepted by Orthodoxy).

Perhaps your parish or your family then kept some of the Orthodox traditions? As you might know, when many of the Rusyn bishops changed to Catholicism in the 1500's, there are documented cases of many peasants not knowing that a change had been made for decades later.

Could you please give some references, or elaborate on the documentation for these "documented cases"?

DJS,

I read about the villages going over to the Uniates without the peasants' knowledge on the "Carpathian Connection Website."

I myself am interested in knowing more about his phenomenon.

-Hal

----------------------------------------------

At the same time, this region has always managed to produce some very new things - to unite or connect the seemingly impossible: eastern and western Christians. The Greek Catholic religion came out of this intersection. To put it very simply, Greek Catholics are orthodox Christians who began to acknowledge the Pope. That happened in this region.

The people didn't have a problem placing a different structure onto something that hadn't changed for a very long time. There are historical documents about the fact that some villages went over to Greek Catholicism and people realised it only several decades later. Because, on the bottom layer, nothing had changed. Slovak was used in the same churches, and they used the same icons. For the regular person, the nuances were not visible. This happened in the 16th century.

"The People From the Borderlands"
By Andrea Chalupa in "The Slovak Spectator"
http://www.tccweb.org/rusynback.htm

When the Slovak author wrote "16th century," she meant 1600's, by the way.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apotheoun:
[QB] [QUOTE] As far as the fourteen general Councils of the West are concerned, I hold that they are only binding upon Westerners, and that they do not possess the same level of authority of the seven ecumenical councils of the first millennium. Now, in saying this I am not saying anything new or shocking, and in fact I am merely echoing the views of men like Francis Dvornik and Fr. Aidan Nichols (O.P.), and even the views of Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) who, in connection with the doctrine of the primacy, said that "Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium." [Cardinal Ratzinger, The Principles of Catholic Theology, page 199] Thus, in the final analysis, on this and on other issues, I am an Orthodox Catholic in communion with Rome.

The rejection of solemnly defined teachings of what the Universal Church holds to be Ecumenical Councils, namely the first seven Councils, and those which ocurred after the first seven, is simply not an option for anybody who is in full communion with the Pope of Rome. Both Catholics and Orthodox understand full communion to imply full agreement on those matters of Faith and Morals which are essential. This is why most Orthodox priests will not give Holy Communion to Catholics who approach (I think that their position is defendable). For Catholics, this involves those things taught by the Extraordinary Magisterium (that includes the solemnly defined teachings on Faith and Morals of all the Councils held by the Catholic Church to be Ecumenical),which, I notice is referenced on your personal website, and those things taught by the Ordinary Magisterium (also referenced on your website) which are held to be infallible.

"Now certainly the West (and the East) have dogmatized the truth that God is simple, but what has not been dogmatized is how divine simplicity is to be understood."

"Now certainly the West (and the East) have dogmatized the truth that God is simple, but what has not been dogmatized is how divine simplicity is to be understood."

Friends, I believe the whole account was dealt with initially in St. Athanasius' distinction between acts of nature (generation and procession) and acts of will (creation). It was the Neo-Platonic definitional account of simplicity that produced Arianism and Eunomianism. It is not possible--by my lights--to hold to Rome's account of absolute simplicity and be consistent with the Nicene and Pro-Nicene's doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore, filioquism has the same ordo theologiae (essence, attributes, persons) as these heresies too. Coincidence? No, it is a product of the dialectical account of simplicity as a starting point in theology.

Photios

We will have to agree to disagree about the binding nature of the fourteen "general" councils of the West.

We will have to agree to disagree about the binding nature of the fourteen "general" councils of the West. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I suppose we will. I intend to do even more reading on the topic, and provide whatever additional clarifications which are necessary or helpful.