Memo has offered a very good explanation. It has always seemed to me that East / West issues regarding dogma and doctrine are sometimes problematic simply because of poor communication. For some Eastern Catholics accepting Catholic dogma means also accepting the (what I call the) �Latin language of doctrine� as either superior to the �Greek language of doctrine� or as the measuring stick for all Catholic theology. And, of course, the Catholic Church does not require this (and has, indeed, many times spoken to this). Eastern Catholics must accept the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. They must also accept that the Latin way of doing theology (the �Latin language of doctrine�) is valid. But there is no call or insistence that Eastern Catholics reject the �Greek language of doctrine� and replace it with the Latin formula. I will go so far as to say that the fact that we (as Eastern Catholics) have not really strived to find ways to study and digest the Latin formula and attempt to synthesize it with the �Greek language of doctrine� is an opportunity lost. Since the Vatican II Council we can see that Rome has been striving to speak to Catholic theology from the �Greek language of doctrine� as well as the �Latin language of doctrine�. The Melkites have taken some bold steps (and a few missteps) in trying to speak to some of the issues.

This is an issue that cuts right to the heart of the real problem of identity among Eastern Catholics. Some insist that we are Catholic first, and only then Eastern. But this is incorrect as it (among other things) leads to an identity crisis since many (but not all) of those who believe that the �Catholic first� approach means that the �Latin language of doctrine� is superior to the �Greek language of doctrine�. That is why I always firmly put forth as foundational that �Byzantine = Catholic� just as equally as �Latin = Catholic�.

hmmm...
What Eastern Catholics need to hold to be Catholic?
I would say:
1. believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. be in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

Herb

I would agree. This isuse of just what Eastern Catholics have to accept has never been spelled out. Not now, nor at the different times the various Particular Churches came in Union with Rome.

Ung
agreeing with Vladyka Elias Z

Memo has offered a very good explanation. It has always seemed to me that East / West issues regarding dogma and doctrine are sometimes problematic simply because of poor communication. For some Eastern Catholics accepting Catholic dogma means also accepting the (what I call the) �Latin language of doctrine� as either superior to the �Greek language of doctrine� or as the measuring stick for all Catholic theology. And, of course, the Catholic Church does not require this (and has, indeed, many times spoken to this). Eastern Catholics must accept the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. They must also accept that the Latin way of doing theology (the �Latin language of doctrine�) is valid. But there is no call or insistence that Eastern Catholics reject the �Greek language of doctrine� and replace it with the Latin formula. I will go so far as to say that the fact that we (as Eastern Catholics) have not really strived to find ways to study and digest the Latin formula and attempt to synthesize it with the �Greek language of doctrine� is an opportunity lost. Since the Vatican II Council we can see that Rome has been striving to speak to Catholic theology from the �Greek language of doctrine� as well as the �Latin language of doctrine�. The Melkites have taken some bold steps (and a few missteps) in trying to speak to some of the issues.

This is an issue that cuts right to the heart of the real problem of identity among Eastern Catholics. Some insist that we are Catholic first, and only then Eastern. But this is incorrect as it (among other things) leads to an identity crisis since many (but not all) of those who believe that the �Catholic first� approach means that the �Latin language of doctrine� is superior to the �Greek language of doctrine�. That is why I always firmly put forth as foundational that �Byzantine = Catholic� just as equally as �Latin = Catholic�.

The angels on the head of a pin thing was really just an intellectual exercise, and that is all it was intended to be originally.

In other words, given the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin," a student must first determine a few givens.

The first scholastic assumption was that angels do not have material bodies, but are pure intelligences.

Therefore there are 'present' wherever their attention is focused.

Therefore, the answer to the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is...

all of them.

I believe that the Orthodox understanding of angels is that they are not pure intelligences, but have material bodies, but not of a matter like men. This because only God is considered "Pure Spirit."

At least, that's what I heard...

Dear Father John:

Bless Father!

Aren't angels called "bodiless spirits" during our Holy Services?
Yet they can assume a human form as when the Angel appeared to Mary to announce the Annunciation. Could this alternate form be from another dimension or from a parallel universe?

Respectfully in Christ,
Elizabeth

The Immaculate Conception isn't a doctrine. It's a dogma.

It seems to me that the unfortunate reality is that this dogma, which must be believed by all Catholic Christians exactly how it is infallibly formulated, and it's formulated using Latin terminology and theology. And that would, to me, seemingly make the "Latin way" of looking at this particular dogma the infallible and really only orthodox way, since Latin theology is the theology used to express this dogma. That would seem to make the differing theological patrimonies, de facto, unequal, wouldn't it?

Alexis

Memo has offered a very good explanation. It has always seemed to me that East / West issues regarding dogma and doctrine are sometimes problematic simply because of poor communication. For some Eastern Catholics accepting Catholic dogma means also accepting the (what I call the) �Latin language of doctrine� as either superior to the �Greek language of doctrine� or as the measuring stick for all Catholic theology. And, of course, the Catholic Church does not require this (and has, indeed, many times spoken to this). Eastern Catholics must accept the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. They must also accept that the Latin way of doing theology (the �Latin language of doctrine�) is valid. But there is no call or insistence that Eastern Catholics reject the �Greek language of doctrine� and replace it with the Latin formula. I will go so far as to say that the fact that we (as Eastern Catholics) have not really strived to find ways to study and digest the Latin formula and attempt to synthesize it with the �Greek language of doctrine� is an opportunity lost. Since the Vatican II Council we can see that Rome has been striving to speak to Catholic theology from the �Greek language of doctrine� as well as the �Latin language of doctrine�. The Melkites have taken some bold steps (and a few missteps) in trying to speak to some of the issues.

This is an issue that cuts right to the heart of the real problem of identity among Eastern Catholics. Some insist that we are Catholic first, and only then Eastern. But this is incorrect as it (among other things) leads to an identity crisis since many (but not all) of those who believe that the �Catholic first� approach means that the �Latin language of doctrine� is superior to the �Greek language of doctrine�. That is why I always firmly put forth as foundational that �Byzantine = Catholic� just as equally as �Latin = Catholic�.

Killjoy! Why would you deprive the poor angels of the pleasure of dancing on the head of a pin?

The Immaculate Conception isn't a doctrine. It's a dogma.

It seems to me that the unfortunate reality is that this dogma, which must be believed by all Catholic Christians exactly how it is infallibly formulated, and it's formulated using Latin terminology and theology. And that would, to me, seemingly make the "Latin way" of looking at this particular dogma the infallible and really only orthodox way, since Latin theology is the theology used to express this dogma. That would seem to make the differing theological patrimonies, de facto, unequal, wouldn't it?

Alexis

I agree in principal with this approach, however, it isn't always easily applied. Take for instance the teaching of original sin - do we inherit the guilt of Adam? Trent said that we do.

One needs to examine the text of Trent carefully. In Latin �guilt� has more than one meaning. It can mean �doing the crime� as well as �paying the fine�. Such definition does not follow in the English use of the word. In Latin (for example) a husband can be guilty of �committing the crime� while his wife and kids would be guilty of �paying the fine� (i.e., living with the consequences of hard life since the husband is now in jail and they have nothing to eat and no roof over their head).

Saying (in Latin) that the wife is guilty of her husband�s crime does not mean she inherits the guilt of the actual crime. It means she inherits the guilt of paying the fine.

If you examine Trent in light of the two different definitions of �guilt� you can see that the guilt we inherit from Adam is not the guilt of committing the original sin but rather the guilt of living with the consequences of original sin.

This has been discussed before.

Hi,



I am not so sure about that. Could you provide a quote from the acts of the Council of Trent where the fathers teach that we inherit the GUILT of Adam's sin?

My understanding is that guilt is non-transferable. We are simply born into a human race which has a broken relationship with God as a consequence of Adam's sin. Guilt and consequences are not the same.

Shalom,
Memo

The Eastern Church has the teaching about the Ancestral Curse, which resulted from the sin of Adam. Is that not the same thing?

Memo,

Here is what I had in mind: If anyone asserts that the trangressio of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all me, in who all sinned. - From the fifth session of Trent #2.

As an Eastern Christian I do not use the word "guilt" when speaking about the effects of the original sin, but the Latins are free to do so if they wish.

Thus, as I see it, death and corruption (i.e., ontological corruption, but not moral corruption) are the effects of Adam's transgression; while the eternal Logos, by His incarnation, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension into glory, has conquered death by death, and has bestowed ever-being upon all mankind.

That is my understanding as well. Which is why I have a hard time reconciling it to Trent, especially the first anathema that I posted earlier, ".... has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema." That is why I thought the council used guilt in the Augustian sense, not in the sense of consequence. I am often reminded by my latin friends of this whenever this is discussed.

Blessings,

Bob

But let us hear what Gennadios, the patriarch, patriot, and anti-Latin zealot has to say in the preface to his summaries- of all things-the two Summae of St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The present book is a summary of two books, on of that against the Gentiles, or those heresies which oppose the truth, the other the first part of the Summa Theologiae of which there are three parts. We have taken up the labor of such a summary on account of our great love for these two books. We have put these things together which we had written out before our captivity, and later rediscovered in the diaspora. Since they are in no wise of an easily transportable size on account of the breadth and size of the chapters and questions, and of the fullness of the precise arguments contained in them, and since this our unfortunate life after our national disaster lavishes on us wanderings and distasteful goings and comings, and being unable to carry about so great a weight of books, of necessity and for no other ambition we have made a project of this summary so that it can suffice for us and for anyone else who is well versed in them, in place of the complete books. The author of these books is a Latin by birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church as an inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue. (But alas! All our labor was in vain, for we were about to suffer along with the fatherland which perished on account of our wickedness, the divine mercy being unable to hold out any longer against the divine justice.)In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours..) In those things wherein that church and he differ from us-they are few in number-namely on the procession of the Holy Spirit and the divine essence and energies, in these not only do we observe the dogma of our fatherland, but we have even fought for it in many books. Our zeal even to the shedding of blood for our dogmas is evident to all men, both friends and enemies, and the whole world is filled with the books we have produced against those who deny them. Glory be to God in all things!"[3]

In a later summary of the Prima secundae of the Summa Theologiae, completed while in retirement at Serres, Gennadios sums up his attitude to the Angelic Doctor: "Would O excellent Thomas that you had not been born in the West. Then you would not have needed to defend the deviations of the church there�you would have been as perfect in theology as you are in ethics."[4]

Gennadios' Thomism is not a sort of hapax in Orthodox thought, We are not dealing here with the idiosyncrasy of one thinker. He represents an already longstanding late Byzantine tradition of admiration and judicious use of Aquinas' works by theologians and apostles of the first rank. The emperor-monk John VI Joasaph Kantakuzenos, a fervent Palamite, in fact the imperial vindicator of the doctrine of Palamas, was a monk of the Charsianeites monastery where Gennadios was to enter almost a century later. As emperor he had sponsored the translation of Thomas' Summa contra gentiles by Demetrios Kydones, and he used this very translation to refute the latinizing doctrine of Demetrios' own brother Prochoros who was also a Thomist. Both the latinophron and the Palamite zealot appealed to the teaching of Aquinas. Gennadios' two teachers, also monks of the monastery of Charsianeites, Joseph Bryennios and Makarios Makres, whom the Orthodox venerate as blessed, used the writings of St. Thomas in their dialogue treatises against the Muslims, taking arguments verbatim, but without attribution, from the Contra gentiles in defense of the incarnation and of consecrated virginity.

For if there is a Byzantine outlook or a Latin one which determines dogma itself, if there is any human criterion which is the most formal explanation of the faith and practice of the Church , and not the fact of God revealing the faith "once for all delivered to the saints," and the human mind able to give its reasonable assent, then the faith is simply one stage in a dialectical progress which leaves it outmoded, and doctrinal differences are simply irreducible antitheses ready to be resolved into a higher synthesis which makes their truth or falsehood irrelevant.

Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply asserts being, "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.[8] Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.[9] A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.

The Patristic view did not reduce the idea of Original Sin to simply the inheritance of the death of the body. One also inherits a propensity to engage in sin (anyone who holds to another position has no children) and the absence or privation of filial grace originally intended for the offspring of Adam, had he chosen differently.

There is nothing in Trent which says that man inherits the actual, personal guilt of Adam. To say so is to misunderstand Trent.

Let Latins be Latin, and Byzantines be Byzantine.

the Local Churches do have distinct theologies, disciplines, liturgical and spiritual traditions.

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity,"

Liturgy defines the contours of all theology. In this regard, all doctrine must be in agreement with the Eucharist, to paraphrase Ignatius of Antioch.