Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[Cavaradossi]

In Catholicism only Uncreated Grace which flows from God’s essence, not the intermediary of ‘energies’ as in EO, can deify humans.

What does that mean? Uncreated grace is identical with energy, and energy is what flows from essence (just as St. John of Damascus defines it, energy is the drastic movement of a nature). So in saying that uncreated grace flows from God’s essence, what it seems like you are saying is that uncreated grace is an uncreated energy of God which is precisely the Eastern position on the matter. Could you elaborate on how the two differ?

Created grace is a gift from God that is healing and leads one to the Church, like prevenient grace, but it doesn’t deify.

But here is what we consider the crux of the issue when it comes to created grace. Perhaps it is possible that there is a created grace which leads people to the Church (I am skeptical), but in speaking of the deification of man, do we participate in the attributes of God, or do we participate in a created likeness of his attributes? If we understand deification as St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas do, deification is indeed coming to participate in the attributes of God, because the energies (whence we derive the names for the attributes of God) are identical both as enhypostatized in God and as enhypostatized in man.

 

[dvdjs]

But here is what we consider the crux of the issue when it comes to created grace. Perhaps it is possible that there is a created grace which leads people to the Church (I am skeptical), but in speaking of the deification of man, do we participate in the attributes of God, or do we participate in a created likeness of his attributes?

This is probably not the question at all. Please go back to post #369 and references to it above. Unless you mean to use “created” in the phrase “created likeness” in the same manned as it is used in “created grace”. There is more to this theological jargon that the simple meaning that one might assume.

 

[dvdjs]

Thing is, most of Roman Catholic theology today originated in the Second Millennium. A lot of Patristic teaching from the First Millennium is largely forgotten in the West.

Not sure where that comes from, but there may be a point. Starting with the Fathers and growing with the church, there has been continuing paths of theological reflection. It may be true that many people are looking at the end of that train rather than the beginning. Nevertheless, that train surely had a beginning, and that is consistently revealed if you read anything at all - even the CCC or the Catholic encyclopedia.

This may not be true in the East. In the Muslim world, learning was restricted. And in this century there has been a lot of back-tracking on the Western Captivity of the latter half of the past century, and a new captivity under the communists. This means that the new resurgence in theological scholarship could hardly be anything other than neo-patristic, in ways that seem to some to be a revolution in Orthodox theology. Especially here where relatively few Orthodox are reading Greek or Russian and translation are limited. Of course the point about things largely forgotten also applies in the East. Very little of the Patristic literature is translated into modern languages, and the revolutionary aspects seem wholly lost on new folk who think that this has always been the mind of the Orthodox church.

 

[Surnaturel]

Since the essence-energies distinction predates the schism, can be found in the writings of St. Basil the Great, a Doctor of the Church, and is used by the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Byzantine tradition, it is not correct that Catholics reject it.

1. there is only one, vague letter by St. Basil that mentions energies and essence. St. Gregory of Nyssa makes some interesting allusions but it is not the Palamas distinction.
2. for most of the Greek and Latin Fathers the distinction was epistemological, not ontological
3. I intended to say that from a Roman Catholic perspective, and I mentioned St. Thomas and Karl Rahner, it is not accepted. I don’t mean in any way that it’s thought to be heretical by RCs or myself. Sorry if it came out that way. As I have said on here before, I prefer the E-E distinction over the scholastic account of ‘created grace,’ but both are still less satisfactory than Rahner’s presentation (my own opinion).

 

[dvdjs]

For the virgin to be sanctified from the embryonic state is not a very incredible claim, given the tendency of the Eastern fathers to understand our inheritance from Adam as being primarily the inheritance of death, which drives us into Sin, rather than a stain on our soul which prevents us from living a holy and sinless life.

The predominance of that tendency has been strongly challenged in Orthodox circles. The idea of separation from God, which is what the “stain” is - and the impact of that separation in leaving us disoriented and liable to sin, is well represented among the Fathers. And in contemporary Orthodoxy.

 

[Surnaturel]

What does that mean? Uncreated grace is identical with energy, and energy is what flows from essence (just as St. John of Damascus defines it, energy is the drastic movement of a nature). So in saying that uncreated grace flows from God’s essence, what it seems like you are saying is that uncreated grace is an uncreated energy of God which is precisely the Eastern position on the matter. Could you elaborate on how the two differ?

In Latin theology, from the beginning, the idea of divine energies that are ontologically distinct from the divine essence is foreign. Rather, it is simply God coming to the person as Himself in a relational encounter with human creatures. That is, God in Himself is experienced in this world, albeit with the intrinsic limitations of a finite, historically conditioned world and creature and an infinite God.

In other words, the Eastern worry is that if God could engage us as He is in the immanent Trinity than His transcendence would be compromised. This objection isn’t a concern for Western theologians because we believe that the very nature of God as infinite and transcendent could never be comprehended in its entirety even if He chooses to engage us as He is in Himself (via essence). That’s the Rahnerian view, in any case, which I believe to be the best expression of the truth.

But here is what we consider the crux of the issue when it comes to created grace. Perhaps it is possible that there is a created grace which leads people to the Church (I am skeptical), but in speaking of the deification of man, do we participate in the attributes of God, or do we participate in a created likeness of his attributes? If we understand deification as St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas do, deification is indeed coming to participate in the attributes of God, because the energies (whence we derive the names for the attributes of God) are identical both as enhypostatized in God and as enhypostatized in man.

The attributes of God. The difference is that the intermediary of enhypostatized energies is not deemed necessary. It is a participation in the divine essence of the hypostases of the Trinity that deify us.

What I don’t understand from the EO perspective is why enhypostatized energies are asserted instead of saying that the divine persons (hypostases) themselves deify us when they engage us in the sacraments, etc.?

I am also skeptical as to the validity (or possibility) of the idea that an energy of the divine person can be ontologically separated from his essence.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not sure where that comes from, but there may be a point.

It comes from history. The West largely has brushed off the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance as “The Dark Ages” where it is made to seem that nothing happened. But the Byzantine Empire thrived during this era, and that included advances in theology made by the great minds of the East. I’ve read a commentary where the person pointed out that the Renaissance was even started by refugees from the Fall of Constantinople, where they brought their advanced knowledge in the ways of iconography to the West which let to all these beautiful classical paintings we have today.

 

[dvdjs]

It comes from history. The West largely has brushed off the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance as “The Dark Ages” where it is made to seem that nothing happened. But the Byzantine Empire thrived during this era, and that included advances in theology made by the great minds of the East. I’ve read a commentary where the person pointed out that the Renaissance was even started by refugees from the Fall of Constantinople, where they brought their advanced knowledge in the ways of iconography to the West which let to all these beautiful classical paintings we have today.

I agree with the idea that Renaissance was coupled to the Fall of Constantinople. But the rest of this is dubious history at best. Early connections are well know, notably the link between Damascene and Aquinas.

The suggestion that there was an interruption of the intellectual heritage, and that people had to start from scratch, somewhat disembodied, better fits that contemporary East than the West after the dark ages.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The Holy Spirit processing from Jesus Christ -
Jn 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

First of all, one cannot give what one does not possess.

This Bible passage doesn’t suggest in that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son, but shows that the Holy Spirit came to us in time through the intercession of the Son. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father.

John 14:16-17 Jesus said, “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth…”

John 15:26 Jesus said, "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth Who procceds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Reading John 20:22 in context with the other sayings of Jesus regarding the Holy Spirit, we can see that the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople got it right when the Bishops of the Council formulated the Creed to read in the section re: the Holy Spirit, “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the prophets.”

The Bible passages of Jesus’ own words & the Bishops at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople both confirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally & to us into time through the Son. This is what the Orthodox Church believes.

Although a local synod of Toledo in Spain changed their Creed to read, “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” for centuries the Popes of Rome rejected the synods’ change of the Creed and it wasn’t until Charlemagne’s insistance that a Pope of Rome conceded centuries later - per the history I have read it was a political move to allow the Pope the political priviledge of crowning Charlemagne, not a religious move Pope Hadrian despite his concession to Charlemagne still claimed that the doctrine of single procession was consistent with the Fathers of antiquity and the Tradition of the Church of Rome.

Today, the addition, new(er) belief of the Trinity namely that “The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son…He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration” CCC#246 is now firmly intrenched into Catholic doctrine.

Catholics and Orthodox certainly believe every different things about the Holy Trinity our God; although, I’m fairly certain we still worship the same God, but only one of the Churches have 20/20. God-Willing we will all be saved and whoever believed incorrectly about Him will know Him fully in the here-after.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Do you even know what their position is on Chalcedon, what they rejected, and what they actually believed? You keep stressing this point but I’m getting the feeling that beyond the fact that they rejected the findings of the council, you have no clue what the actual disagreement is. While they did reject Chalcedon, the difference of position between EO and OO is not as far apart as you think it is.

Actually, this is the first time I mentioned this (though, I think another member had brought it up in another post). But, to answer your question, they rejected the Councils teaching that Christ has two natures - hence the name Monophysite. In the Catholic Church, we have (and continue to) come to the realization that it is really an issue with different language and expressions of the same faith. We have signed joint declarations to this effect and continue to work to heal the wounds of the past.

So the question to the Eastern Orthodox members here remains…there are two possibilities, as I see it. The first possibility is that the Oriental Orthodox are truly heretics in regards to the Council of Chalcedon, in which case how can you say with a straight face that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are extremely close in theology if there is such a chasm in understanding on a central theme as the nature of Jesus. The other possibility is that you recognize, as we have recognized, that the difference is merely one of a difference in language and expression of the same one faith, in which case what is your beef when the Roman Catholic Church has her unique expressions of the same one faith. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[LionHeart777]

This Bible passage doesn’t suggest in that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son, but shows that the Holy Spirit came to us in time through the intercession of the Son. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father.

John 14:16-17 Jesus said, “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth…”

John 15:26 Jesus said, "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth Who procceds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Reading John 20:22 in context with the other sayings of Jesus regarding the Holy Spirit, we can see that the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople got it right when the Bishops of the Council formulated the Creed to read in the section re: the Holy Spirit, “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the prophets.”

The Bible passages of Jesus’ own words & the Bishops at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople both confirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally & to us into time through the Son. This is what the Orthodox Church believes.

Although a local synod of Toledo in Spain changed their Creed to read, “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” for centuries the Popes of Rome rejected the synods’ change of the Creed and it wasn’t until Charlemagne’s insistance that a Pope of Rome conceded centuries later - per the history I have read it was a political move to allow the Pope the political priviledge of crowning Charlemagne, not a religious move Pope Hadrian despite his concession to Charlemagne still claimed that the doctrine of single procession was consistent with the Fathers of antiquity and the Tradition of the Church of Rome.

Today, the addition, new(er) belief of the Trinity namely that “The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son…He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration” CCC#246 is now firmly intrenched into Catholic doctrine.

Catholics and Orthodox certainly believe every different things about the Holy Trinity our God; although, I’m fairly certain we still worship the same God, but only one of the Churches have 20/20. God-Willing we will all be saved and whoever believed incorrectly about Him will know Him fully in the here-after.

If what you are saying is correct than why did the Greeks agree not have a problem with the filioque once it was explained when the two sides met in Florence? (source: catholic.com/tracts/filioque)

Why do we read from “Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware…” that “‘The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences’ (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).” ?? (Source: Ibid. emphasis mine.)

Also, regarding Sacred Scripture, from the same Catholic Answer’s tract we read that:

Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

(Ibid.)

(Gal. 4:6 has not come up yet.)

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Eastern Orthodox members here still haven’t answered my question as to what is your criteria for recognizing the truth. If one person says Jesus is God and another says Jesus is not God, by what measure do you measure these statements. If you point to a Council, how do you know that Council taught the truth? If you point to the Bible, how do you know that is the truth?

Before this thread, I thought the Eastern Orthodox Church confessed that they taught the truth, that they gave a guarantee that what they professed was the truth. Posters in this thread have countered that and stated that the Eastern Orthodox Church makes no such guarantee. I find this telling on the one hand since Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and now it seems that only the Catholic Church now makes such a claim - a claim of ‘listen to me and you will hear the truth’.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Thing is, most of Roman Catholic theology today originated in the Second Millennium. A lot of Patristic teaching from the First Millennium is largely forgotten in the West.

The primary framework through which the Roman Church expresses the same one faith, that is the Scholastic/Thomistic framework, was fleshed out after the Great Schism. So what? We have to express God, who is beyond us, in a human manner and this is the one we in the West currently employ.

Also, the Catholic Church hasn’t forgotten the Church Fathers. Far from it…the Catechism is brimming with quotes of the Church Fathers (as one example).

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

My responses below in red.

If what you are saying is correct than why did the Greeks agree not have a problem with the filioque once it was explained when the two sides met in Florence? (source: catholic.com/tracts/filioque)

**To say the Greeks had a huge issue with it is an understatement which is why that false union was utterly rejected by the Orthodox Church and not just by the Greeks. **

Why do we read from “Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware…” that “‘The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences’ (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).” ?? (Source: Ibid. emphasis mine.)

I haven’t read what you’re claiming another author wrote about what Bishop Kallistos supposedly said.

Also, regarding Sacred Scripture, from the same Catholic Answer’s tract we read that:

Yes, I’m sure that is what Catholics believe on the issue. As an Orthodox Christian, I don’t find it convincing in the least. The Bible & the Ecumenical Council’s Creed says what it says and it can’t be twisted to say something different…Gal. 1:8 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

 

[GaryTaylor]

This Bible passage doesn’t suggest in that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son, but shows that the Holy Spirit came to us in time through the intercession of the Son. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father

God is not subject to time, we are. You are left to explain the function of Trinity without it. Scripture gives a human perspective which includes what is not there[time] only to help comprehend. God the Father is the First principle all are one God eternally forever. What date was the Second Person begotten?

One God indivisible, True God from True God, Light from Light, One God. not in time its reality without time past/future/present=I AM.

 

[jimmy]

The Coptic Orthodox rejected the Council of Chalcedon. So, I see two possibilities. Either you claim that something as significant as agreement of the nature of Christ is non-consequential to your similarness, in which case I would question your sincerity or knowledge. Or, you recognize that it was at the root a case of different cultural expressions of the same one truth, in which case I wonder why you don’t recognize the same in may of the “disagreements” between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.

Frankly, I think this is a bigger problem for the Catholic church than for the Orthodox due to the dogma of infallibility. The Orthodox make no claim to infallibility, consequently, it’s possible that, although the council taught the true faith they may have erred in anathematizing those who held the alexiandrian teachings. The Catholic church can make no such consession. All the lines become solid with infallibility: either you are on the right side or the wrong side.

 

[jimmy]

I am not equating the truth with the bishop. But, I am asserting that a bishop is expected to proclaim the truth of the Gospel, even though many have failed in this respect.

The basic problem remains…how do you know what the truth is. By what criteria do you judge that the Arians were wrong and the Fathers of Nicea were right? Or that Christ has two wills and not one (or three or none…). How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? How do you know what is the truth?

Infallibility doesn’t help with that. To use it in that way is circular. The pope is in fallible because he said he is, therefore we can trust that the pope and thse who followed him teach the truth. It is circular. The only true answer is because you have studied it, and you have faith that your church has remained true, or atleast despite any possible errors God is merciful. No claim to authority is proof of actual authority.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

God is not subject to time, we are. You are left to explain the function of Trinity without it. Scripture gives a human perspective which includes what is not there[time] only to help comprehend. God the Father is the First principle all are one God eternally forever. What date was the Second Person begotten?

One God indivisible, True God from True God, Light from Light, One God. not in time its reality without time past/future/present=I AM.

God is eternal. God is: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. The Son is Jesus Christ, but the Son was not Christ/Messaiah (Man) from all eternity. He became Man at a point in time our (historical) time in the womb of Mary.

We know based on the Bible & the Ecumenical Council that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally & came to us in time through Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, this is the first time I mentioned this (though, I think another member had brought it up in another post). But, to answer your question, they rejected the Councils teaching that Christ has two natures - hence the name Monophysite. In the Catholic Church, we have (and continue to) come to the realization that it is really an issue with different language and expressions of the same faith. We have signed joint declarations to this effect and continue to work to heal the wounds of the past.

So the question to the Eastern Orthodox members here remains…there are two possibilities, as I see it. The first possibility is that the Oriental Orthodox are truly heretics in regards to the Council of Chalcedon, in which case how can you say with a straight face that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are extremely close in theology if there is such a chasm in understanding on a central theme as the nature of Jesus. The other possibility is that you recognize, as we have recognized, that the difference is merely one of a difference in language and expression of the same one faith, in which case what is your beef when the Roman Catholic Church has her unique expressions of the same one faith. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

So my guess was correct, you do not understand the issue.

The issue isn’t one or two natures per se, but how does Christ’s human nature and divine nature synthesis is understood. The Chalcedonian definition is that there are two distinct natures in Christ. The non-Chalcedonian position is that Christ being human and divine are both found within one nature, whilst maintaining that both human and divine are distinct and are not confused with one another. So it is not like they believe that Christ is divine only or human only, both sides agree that Christ is fully human and fully divine, the argument is only how is that manifested, how does that exactly work? They do not agree that one being can have two natures. Being = nature, so the synthesis of humanity and divinity within Christ happens within one nature. The Chalcedonians believe that it is the mystery of God found in Christ, that two separate natures exist distinctively as two separate natures, even though they are one in Christ. The argument of the non-Chalcedonians come from conter-Nestorianism, that having two natures means you can separate the natures, which means that God the Word could have been separate from Jesus Christ the son of Mary. The Chalcedonian position comes from seeing Christ as eternally divine and then assuming a second nature at the incarnation.

So you see, the difference isn’t huge. This is more of semantics. We already agree Christ is both fully human and fully divine, just how that is understood is where the disagreement is.

 

[jimmy]

In Catholicism only Uncreated Grace which flows from God’s essence, not the intermediary of ‘energies’ as in EO, can deify humans. Created grace is a gift from God that is healing and leads one to the Church, like prevenient grace, but it doesn’t deify.

St. Thomas was a faithful Catholic and he said himself that his teachings would be in error if they don’t conform to the Churh. Thus, when you know about the man then it is quite certain that he would have accepted his error.

You just made the same distinction as the Orthodox. The Orthodox speak of the dine energy, flowing from the divine essence and deifying men. You just said uncreated grace flows from the divine essence and deifies men. Either you believe that uncreated grace is the divine essence, or your above statement is identical with the Orthodox claim.