Accepted doctrines and dogma (papal infallibility, et al)

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, you are right.

As EC’s become more Eastern, we use Latin theological terminology less until finally we are talking past one another.

Latin Catholics dogmatize. We in the East just declare a liturgical feast day!

There, can’t we all get along together nicely?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

So if it is true then that Honorius’ letter was orthodox why was there any need to have it destroyed without a trace? I actually think that the popes letter may in fact be orthodox, but why then have it destroyed?

As it stands, St Maximus the Confessor is understood differently depending on who is reading/writing about him.

I think it is true to say St Maximus understood the Filioque in the same sense that some Greek Fathers discussed the “Through the Son.”

And St Maximus could have been wrong on that score - the jury is still out, even though Latin theologians did use St Maximus extensively in the later union councils to tell the Greeks they all believed the same things.

But since the Filioque deals with an issue relating to the internal Life of the Most Holy Trinity and the “Through the Son” of the East refers to the “Economic Trinity” - the two are not about the same thing.

Even when Aquinas dealt with the Eastern “Through the Son,” he was basing his argument on his assumption that it extended to the internal relations of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Alex

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…As for whether Honorius was implicated in the heresy itself - that is a matter of discussion still. It is true that the later popes, up until the 12th century, did condemn Honorius from the sixth council onward - am I incorrect on that?

Yes, popes have done many condemnable things; none for the crime of heresy. Only a successor Roman Pontiff can legitmately condemn a prior Roman Pontiff.

Honorius’ letter Scripta fraternitatis vestrae (AD 634) to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople stated there were not two wills in Christ. Yet, Pope John IV (640-642) and St. Maximus explain that Honorius meant in his letter that there were not two contrary wills. Of course, the heretics used his letter to spread their error regardless of what was meant by Honorius. Honorius did little to combat this heresy. Pope John IV had to continue to contend with it, along side St. Maximus.

It was Pope Leo II who actually condemned Honorius, and he explained why.

From Warren Carroll, The History of Christendom, vol. 2: the Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1987), p. 254:
Writing to the Emperor … Pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because “he permitted the immaculate Faith to be subverted.” Writing in Latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather gaining them by his negligence. To King Erwig he wrote that Honorius was condemned ***for negligence in not denouncing the heresy and for using an expression which the hertics were able to employ to advance their own cause ***…
… Pope Honorius, therfore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence [in] allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it.
Honorius was surely condemned. Why? Not for teaching heresy, but for his neglect in combating the heresy.

Did St Maximus believe that the “Through the Son” was equal to what the Latins meant by “And the Son?” I don’t know the answer to that.

Yes, “though the Son” also making clear “unity and identity of the essence,” to further combat the Arian heresy by emphasizing the dignity and importance of the Son. In other words, I think that St. Maximus understood the Latin usage of filioque to mean, the Father causes the Spirit, but that the Father’s causing of the Spirit involves the Son. With regard to the filioque controversy, St. Maximus wrote:

“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence.” (Letter to Marinus)

Elsewhere St. Maximus explained:

“Just as Mind is the cause of the Word, so also it is [cause] of the Spirit, but by means of the Word διὰ μέσου δὲ τοῦ λόγου].” (Quaestiones et dubia, I, 34)

 

[Madaglan]

As it stands, St Maximus the Confessor is understood differently depending on who is reading/writing about him.

I think it is true to say St Maximus understood the Filioque in the same sense that some Greek Fathers discussed the “Through the Son.”

And St Maximus could have been wrong on that score - the jury is still out, even though Latin theologians did use St Maximus extensively in the later union councils to tell the Greeks they all believed the same things.

But since the Filioque deals with an issue relating to the internal Life of the Most Holy Trinity and the “Through the Son” of the East refers to the “Economic Trinity” - the two are not about the same thing.

Even when Aquinas dealt with the Eastern “Through the Son,” he was basing his argument on his assumption that it extended to the internal relations of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Alex

My understanding is that, in the Byzantine East, “through the Son” has been understood, at least since St. Gregory of Cyrus, as the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. This manifestation is both temporal and eternal. While it is true that St. Photius and those of his time made a distinction between the eternal procession (from the Father alone) and the temporal mission (from the Son), St. Gregory of Cyrus and St. Gregory Palamas several centuries later would make a further distinction between the eternal procession and the manifestation of the Spirit. In the two Gregory’s articulated view, the Spirit does not process from the Son but is manifested through the Son, both temporally and eternally.

So, it seems to me, that in the Byzantine East, procession through the Son does not refer to the eternal “procession” within the Trinity, as understood by the Latin West, but rather to the energetic manifestation of the Spirit, which is both eternal and temporal. Therefore, any mention in the Fathers of procession “through the Son” would entail both the Economic and Ontological Trinity–though this procession would be interpreted as eternal manifestation rather than procession ekporousis. That is how I understand the matter based on what I’ve read.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, popes have done many condemnable things; none for the crime of heresy. Only a successor Roman Pontiff can legitmately condemn a prior Roman Pontiff.

Honorius’ letter Scripta fraternitatis vestrae (AD 634) to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople stated there were not two wills in Christ. Yet, Pope John IV (640-642) and St. Maximus explain that Honorius meant in his letter that there were not two contrary wills. Of course, the heretics used his letter to spread their error regardless of what was meant by Honorius. Honorius did little to combat this heresy. Pope John IV had to continue to contend with it, along side St. Maximus.

It was Pope Leo II who actually condemned Honorius, and he explained why.

From Warren Carroll, The History of Christendom, vol. 2: the Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1987), p. 254:
Writing to the Emperor … Pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because “he permitted the immaculate Faith to be subverted.” Writing in Latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather gaining them by his negligence. To King Erwig he wrote that Honorius was condemned ***for negligence in not denouncing the heresy and for using an expression which the hertics were able to employ to advance their own cause ***…
… Pope Honorius, therfore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence [in] allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it.
Honorius was surely condemned. Why? Not for teaching heresy, but for his neglect in combating the heresy.

Yes, “though the Son” also making clear “unity and identity of the essence,” to further combat the Arian heresy by emphasizing the dignity and importance of the Son. In other words, I think that St. Maximus understood the Latin usage of filioque to mean, the Father causes the Spirit, but that the Father’s causing of the Spirit involves the Son. With regard to the filioque controversy, St. Maximus wrote:

Elsewhere St. Maximus explained:

Yes indeed, St Maximus was a great ecumenist of his day and was zealous for the unity of the Church. But Orthodox and RC commentaries can differ on their interpretations of some of St Maximus’ wording, a process that will, no doubt, go on for a long time and will occupy many scholars with little else to do with their time!

St Maximus’ musings on Triadology are perfectly “Orthodox” as well.

Papal weakness in addressing heresy was also, as I understand it, involved with the Roman Church not canonizing Pope Liberius (the East has no problem with St Liberius and gives him the full honours of the altar).

Honorius was actually esteemed by the Oriental Christians for the reason you give. While not a formal heretic by any means, the fact remains that his condemnation did not lessen the esteem the East at the time had for Rome and the popes of Rome.

Today, his condemnation might be used for polemical purposes (and it is). In his day, it had no bearing whatever on the primacy of Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs and Emperor were falling over themselves in praising the Papacy (which they surely needed, from a pragmatic point of view, to act as ultimate arbiter in their constant political bickering and struggles).

That is the irony of the situation. As someone who is always in favour of the underdog, I think Honorius should be declared a saint . . . I would not have wanted his job for all the denarii in the Oikumene!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

My understanding is that, in the Byzantine East, “through the Son” has been understood, at least since St. Gregory of Cyrus, as the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. This manifestation is both temporal and eternal. While it is true that St. Photius and those of his time made a distinction between the eternal procession (from the Father alone) and the temporal mission (from the Son), St. Gregory of Cyrus and St. Gregory Palamas several centuries later would make a further distinction between the eternal procession and the manifestation of the Spirit. In the two Gregory’s articulated view, the Spirit does not process from the Son but is manifested through the Son, both temporally and eternally.

So, it seems to me, that in the Byzantine East, procession through the Son does not refer to the eternal “procession” within the Trinity, as understood by the Latin West, but rather to the energetic manifestation of the Spirit, which is both eternal and temporal. Therefore, any mention in the Fathers of procession “through the Son” would entail both the Economic and Ontological Trinity–though this procession would be interpreted as eternal manifestation rather than procession ekporousis. That is how I understand the matter based on what I’ve read.

If what you say is true re: the manifestation of the Spirit BOTH temporally and eternally - then there is full and complete unity between Rome and Orthodoxy on Trinitarian theology.

I’m not expert on the matter, don’t know and don’t have the right to assess these things.

But if you are right, then the matter is settled.

All I can do is pray that you ARE right! As an Eastern Catholic, I believe just as you have stated in your excellent post.

God bless,

Alex

 

[smad0142]

Here are some of my questions for the EC.

If you don’t believe the teachings of the Church, then why are you Catholic?

And if you don’t believe the teachings of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then what makes you any different from the Orthodox? Because honestly the only things that separate us are a handful of dogmas.

And furthermore if you do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church of God with a Living Authority then why o why do you confine yourselves to the first seven ecumenical councils?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Here are some of my questions for the EC.

If you don’t believe the teachings of the Church, then why are you Catholic?

And if you don’t believe the teachings of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then what makes you any different from the Orthodox? Because honestly the only things that separate us are a handful of dogmas.

And furthermore if you do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church of God with a Living Authority then why o why do you confine yourselves to the first seven ecumenical councils?

If you are addressing this to me . . .

I believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church. I believe, for example, that the Most Holy Mother of God was All-Holy and without any kind of sin from her Conception. My tradition has believed this for many more centuries than Rome has (in the sense that no Roman Catholic, following the IC dogmatic pronouncement could entertain otherwise and remain a Catholic).

I believe that when a person dies and needs to fulfill penance, that person needs the prayers of the Church, especially the Divine Liturgy, to be fully united with God in heaven. I believe the Holy Spirit proceeds/is manifested from the Father through the Son, temporally and eternally. I believe that the Papacy is instituted of God to safeguard the unity of the Catholic Church and the Orthodoxy of its faith. Whenever the Pope will tell me something I don’t already believe, I will believe it.

It’s just that that hasn’t happened yet.

I believe that I am Orthodox Catholic in union with Rome, just as my forbears were until the 13th century when the break between the two Churches became formalized. I don’t believe there is anything, save for full union with Rome, that distinguishes the Orthodox Church from Catholicism (that the handful of dogmas are about form, not substance).

I also believe that the seven Ecumenical Councils together with the Eastern liturgical “lex orandi, lex credendi” tradition teaches us everything that the Catholic Church affirms today and that the 14 Latin Councils dealt with internal matters affecting the Western Church (i.e. Trent dealing with the Reformation). And the Immaculate Conception was a way for the West to respond to the context of its view of Original Sin that did not obtain in the East.

If anyone doubts that the Orthodox Catholic East was wildly in favour of the Papacy, they have only to look at the decrees and language of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

I doubt that any Roman Catholic papal triumphalist today could match the praise for the Papacy that the Eastern Fathers at that council heaped upon Rome.

My great-uncle was the underground Catholic Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in western Ukraine, Archbishop Volodymyr Sterniuk, C.Ss.R. He spent 10 years in Siberia and suffered under 18 house arrests by the soviets for his loyalty to Rome and for ordaining clergy. He was but one example.

My grandfather, a married Eastern Catholic priest, was imprisoned for his loyalty to Rome and had needles stuck under his fingernails to get him to sign a document saying he was no longer in union with Rome. He too was but one example.

If you feel that today’s Roman Catholics have anything to teach us about loyalty to Rome, we would be glad to hear it!

Anytime . . .

Alex

 

[smad0142]

Alex,

Praised be God for your family’s faith.

I think you and I, as practicing EC, can tell countless stories of EC not as comitted to the teachings of the Church as you are.

My questions are more intended for those people who do not adhere to the teachings of the Church as you do.

Thanks for the response though!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex,

Praised be God for your family’s faith.

I think you and I, as practicing EC, can tell countless stories of EC not as comitted to the teachings of the Church as you are.

My questions are more intended for those people who do not adhere to the teachings of the Church as you do.

Thanks for the response though!

Cheers!

 

[Nine_Two]

I also believe that the seven Ecumenical Councils together with the Eastern liturgical “lex orandi, lex credendi” tradition teaches us everything that the Catholic Church affirms today and that the 14 Latin Councils dealt with internal matters affecting the Western Church (i.e. Trent dealing with the Reformation). And the Immaculate Conception was a way for the West to respond to the context of its view of Original Sin that did not obtain in the East.

I’m curious about this. Is it not true that the 14 “Latin” Council’s are considered Ecumenical? Many of them were attended by Eastern Catholic clergy. I can recall one story I read of a Greek and an Italian getting into a fight at Trent.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m curious about this. Is it not true that the 14 “Latin” Council’s are considered Ecumenical? Many of them were attended by Eastern Catholic clergy. I can recall one story I read of a Greek and an Italian getting into a fight at Trent.

I don’t believe it’s possible to consider these councils, particularly trent, as anything other than eccumenical. It’s not possible for a Catholic of any rite to pick and choose the doctrines defined at these councils, they are infallible because they were well represented by the whole church.

There for, we say while Eastern theology may describe the dogma, or doctrine differently, it essentially agrees with it. Same could be said for the tradition of the Church at Rome.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t believe it’s possible to consider these councils, particularly trent, as anything other than eccumenical. It’s not possible for a Catholic of any rite to pick and choose the doctrines defined at these councils, they are infallible because they were well represented by the whole church.

There for, we say while Eastern theology may describe the dogma, or doctrine differently, it essentially agrees with it. Same could be said for the tradition of the Church at Rome.

That seems to be the official line, and regardless if I agree with it or not, Eastern Catholics seem happy to discard them.

 

[crazzeto]

That seems to be the official line, and regardless if I agree with it or not, Eastern Catholics seem happy to discard them.

I’ve noticed that tendancy, which frankly plays a big factor in my having little desire to explore eastern catholosism at this point despite my great respect of the eastern tradition and my love of tradition. There’s is an unhealthy propencity to schism, or have schismatic sympathies in many cases. This shouldn’t be the case, no Catholic should so quickly disregard the teachings of Eccumenical councils.

Ironically I have the same problem with Traditional Western Catholosism as well, in particular RE more recent councils that they tend to want to ignore and put on the back burner etc. Some times it’s just hard for a traditional leaning Catholic to catch a break.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Is there something taught by the later Latin Councils that the Eastern Catholic churches don’t accept as part of their patrimony from pre-schism times?

If not, what is there for EC’s to accept from these Councils, that dealt with issues affecting the Western Church only?

The Oriental Orthodox have a similar issue with the Eastern Orthodox - they only accept the first three Councils and say the latter four deal with issues that arose in the Roman-Byzantine province of the Church and had nothing to do with them. Thus, without accepting the 7th Ec. Council, they have and venerate icons.

Where is the schismatic tendency?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t believe it’s possible to consider these councils, particularly trent, as anything other than eccumenical. It’s not possible for a Catholic of any rite to pick and choose the doctrines defined at these councils, they are infallible because they were well represented by the whole church.

There for, we say while Eastern theology may describe the dogma, or doctrine differently, it essentially agrees with it. Same could be said for the tradition of the Church at Rome.

While there were Eastern Bishops at a number of the later Latin Councils, this is far from the norm.

Unless Trent or other Councils can be shown to assert truths that the EC Churches have not accepted throughout, I don’t see what the later Latin Councils can honestly be said to be “Ecumenical” in any other sense than the universal Latin Church.

Alex

 

[smad0142]

The councils are ecumenical insofar as all of the world’s Bishops who belong to the Church were invited to, and for the most part did, attend. Even though other churches, namely the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, existed at the time and have validly ordained Bishops, they are not necessary for an ecumenical council because they have left clear and manifest unity with the Church.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The councils are ecumenical insofar as all of the world’s Bishops who belong to the Church were invited to, and for the most part did, attend. Even though other churches, namely the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, existed at the time and have validly ordained Bishops, they are not necessary for an ecumenical council because they have left clear and manifest unity with the Church.

OK. Now if the world’s Orthodox bishops would agree to unity with Rome, would THEY have to accept those 14 Latin Councils, even though they were not present at them and even though the issues those Councils raised were internal Latin Church matters?

And what of those Councils would the Eastern Churches have to accept?

Alex

 

[crazzeto]

OK. Now if the world’s Orthodox bishops would agree to unity with Rome, would THEY have to accept those 14 Latin Councils, even though they were not present at them and even though the issues those Councils raised were internal Latin Church matters?

And what of those Councils would the Eastern Churches have to accept?

Alex

All Catholic churchs must accept all dogmatic proclimations. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t on the one hand say “well I agree with xzy” then try turning around and claiming you reject the dogma.

If your church is in full visible communion with Rome, then it essentially agrees with all dogma of the faith. This is how we are united, not by expression but by faith. With out this unity, then what are we? What is our commuion based on?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

All Catholic churchs must accept all dogmatic proclimations. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t on the one hand say “well I agree with xzy” then try turning around and claiming you reject the dogma.

If your church is in full visible communion with Rome, then it essentially agrees with all dogma of the faith. This is how we are united, not by expression but by faith. With out this unity, then what are we? What is our commuion based on?

Could we not be united on a common faith? An obvious statement. But again, IF the later 14 Latin Councils dealt with internal matters of the Latin Church, Latin theology/ecclesiology and movements like the Reformation, why should this impact the Eastern Churches?

Now, if it can be shown that the Eastern Churches deny something affirmed by Rome (distinguishing carefully between Latin theological wording and the actual faith behind it which can be expressed in other ways), then I concede your argument.

If not, then . . .

Alex