Difficulties with difference in Catholic & Orthodox theology (possible convert)

[SonCatcher]

Heterodox is already the “nice” term, which is simply used to say that the beliefs of one group depart from orthodoxy according to the perspective of another group. If even such a term, already used for its lack of a pejorative connotation is off-limits, how in the world can we express our differences in belief?

The Catholic understanding is that Catholic teaching is orthodox.

The forum rules require respectful treatment of the religion of others, particularly of Catholics. I find the term heterodox to be offensive (especially since the poster edited to add that word in - yes, I saw the post prior to edit).

 

[SonCatcher]

Theotokos Panachranta

“All Immaculate God-Bearer”

11[sup]th[/sup] century Orthodox icon

 

[Hasire]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Panachranta.jpg
Theotokos Panachranta

“All Immaculate God-Bearer”

11[sup]th[/sup] century Orthodox icon

Nice Icon.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Catholic understanding is that Catholic teaching is orthodox.

The forum rules require respectful treatment of the religion of others, particularly of Catholics. I find the term heterodox to be offensive (especially since the poster edited to add that word in - yes, I saw the post prior to edit).

Heterodox simply means other-believing. From the Orthodox perspective, Roman Catholics believe other than we do. Would that not be a fair assessment? ‘Heterodox’ is precisely used instead of terms like “heresy” and “unorthodox” as it lacks the sort of explicit connotation of judgment that those other terms carry. For one to say “group X is unorthodox” would be an assessment which makes an explicit value judgment, while to say “group X is heterodox” makes implicit judgment, as it does not explicitly state that the beliefs of group X are false, but only states that they differ from the beliefs of the speaker. I really do not see what the fuss is about, but then I suppose you are free to feel outraged over something which you perceive as a slight. I just don’t think it is sound to declare that the intent behind it was malicious (much like declaring that the original poster suffers from anger issues) on the basis of some posts on the internet.

 

[Shamati]

.

Hi.

In my country of about 10 million people we have only about 100 000 catholics and 120 000 orthodox. It was illegal to be a catholic until around 1920s in Sweden. I think there is only 1 byzantine rite catholic church in all of Sweden and unfortunately not near where I am. I am reading the catholic cathecesis.
I come from a comoletely secular non religious upbringing and came to christianity only free having first realised there is a “spiritual reality” by drugs and by vading through the complete labyrinth of spiritual teachings available today ie. New Age, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Sufism, Gnosticism and finally through jewish kabbalah and “Christian” hermeticism to p(name removed by moderator)oint what i call “historical christianity”: Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I always knew about Jesus Christ but was very confused about his actual identity until 2-3 years ago. The never ending array of new theories about the life of Jesus and movies about “cover ups” from “what actually happened” made it hard to know Christ was God and incarnated on earth.

What is most important for me is to have a truly living spiritual life, to learn humility and meekness. I recognize that both catholicism and orthodoxy can both effectively teach me a way to find Christian humility. I have a tendency to become very interested and want to intellectually understand what interests me and I am not sure yet wether this is an actual obstacle for my soul or something that can be used for good. Orthodoxy emphasizes that you should remove all humanity conceived to encounter the living God like Moses has remove his sandals first to behold the Burning Bush. Whereas the catholic at least seems to teach that I can use my will to study and analyze to get i know God. I know judaism teaches a similar view where we can, with our intellects “connect” all things back to the absolute source and thus get to know the supreme being that is God. The Orthodox monks say that we can easily fool ourselves this way and think we know God, which is actually a construction of the Mind and does not exist. Archimandrite Sophrony calls this “The God of the philosophers”. One “circles” around God by traveling paths of ideas from wise men, but there is a danger that when the circle closes in, what we encounter might be more majestic than anything we can conceive of but can nonetheless be a construction of the mind. This “feels” reasonable to me because we know that even those with the gravest mental retardations can get to know God personally during life, which would not be possible for all people had it been an intellectual feat.
I know there are saints in the catholic tradition that at least seem to be of the same type as those venerable orthodox monks & fathers, such as St. Francis & St. John of the Cross. Because my knowledge of both traditions is still shallow I can not yet make a definite judgement on wether the catholic or orthodox church are opposed to one another concerning this, for me fundamental thing.

I have no wife or children and if future family plans were of importance for me I’d probably choose the catholic church for its superior organisation and assimilation or “compatability” with western, anglo-saxon modern culture. Because the orthodox only chant & preach in a foreign language.

I know I must learn to Obey my superiors and I actually like the idea of the papacy (although i’d wish it to involve minimal to no politics or administrations and be purely spiritual). My doubts wether or not the catholic church can still provide a sanctuary of holiness in the bussiness of a highly predatorial capitalist society began when I witnessed the Mass who at my local church seems more “profane” and eager to appeal to the modern Man than the Orthodox Mass. I have visited many masses at the swedish lutheran church in recent years and the catholic mass very much resembles that one except i understandingly cant recieve the eucharist in the catholic church. But sometimes the lutheran Mass is even more reverent and has rails for Holy communion to kneel before etc. The catholic church is very “modern” and has no sanctuary and only a simple table in front of bare walls. I know there is a traditionalist movement within the church but the impression I have got from their writings and videos online is that they seem divided and that there is an actual division within the church in which both sides seek to have as much influence as possible. But I feel less spirituality and hear even more (at least to me) extreme commandments to obey Dogma i do not yet understand. I know that Divide & Conquer os a facourite technique to get humans focusing more on eachother than their souls. Maybe it has always been like this but it seems to me like the catholic church has taken influence and is being effected by the outside world. Maybe its the same at the heart of orthodoxy, just not as publicly visible.

when I see doctrines that differ from the Orthodox or pre schism I get suspiscious that they might be “rational conclusion” achieved by philosophical speculation. And honestly, it is pretty hard for a former agnostic to wrap my head around something like the Bodily assumption of Mary and the immaculate Conception of Mary. I have not been blessed with the immediate acceptance, trust and obediance in that everything I recieve from the Catholic cathecism is just as much divine revelation as the Gospel.

I have a longing for God 24/7 and might even seriously consider becoming a Monk. I will have no hurry deciding until I know better

 

[pneuma07]

The catholic church (being a western tradition) seems to have emphasized cataphatic or positive teology which bases itself on revelation and speculates around it to arrive at Dogmas. This principle is also used in the east but never without completing a statement with a negative one (ie: God is everywhere. But we do not know everywhere where God exists) but the negative is seen as superior by the orthodox.

Aristotelean philosophy was seen as pagan and scholasticism is thus absent in the east who holds than no one can become a theologian simply by getting a masters degree from university studies but have to resort to ascetical practises to achieve the Theoria = “vision of God” (Theoria is obtained according to Eastern Orthodox theology by way of contemplative prayer called hesychasm and is the vision of God as the uncreated light i.e. the light of Tabor)

I have a problem with this. To me, the actual deification and vision of God is more in line with the traditional revelation than speculating on biblical revelation and metaphysical philosophy that developed with and out of pagan culture (platonism, neoplatonism & atistotelean)

Hej Shamati,

from a fellow European.
Jag kan inte tala svenska, tyvärr .

Let me try to get the gist of your present concerns as per your posts here. It seems to be:
*
“The first VII Councils expounded the revealed datum. That was an exhaustive exposition. Going beyond those Councils means going beyond Revelation, where knowledge of God is unattainable.”*
We can then examine this tenet under several points of view.

(Meanwhile, btw, maybe we could agree that some nuances on the supposed opposition between apophatic theology and pagan culture could be introduced into the above discourse. Wasn’t eg Pseudo-Dyonisius deep in neo-platonism ?)

From this difference I have a hard time coming to terms with certain dogmas such as Marys immaculate conception because couldnt such a Dogma also be a natural dogmatic consequence from starting the dogmatic definition of Original sin? Given that I as an inquirer and not et catholic does not yet have the firm conviction that. The catholic church is protected from teaching Error.

I also agree more with the orthodox and to a degree jewish view of original sin: that it separated Man & Woman from perfect existence in Union with God to a flawed existence but that no Man or Woman has any personal guilt from this first sin but rather beats the consequences. That the fear of death is the cause for sin and not that we die because we sin. If all people inherited the guilt of Adam and Eves sin, wouldnt that mean that all who are not baptised is automatically destined to go to Hell?

The Catholic Church does not teach that all who are not baptised go to Hell.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation CCC 847
BTW, is there a Swedish edition of the CCC ? ( not that you need one )

Maybe i am wrong or have misses something but I feel that the Dogmas is something i need to wholeheartedly believe and for this I have to reconcile these differences. I feel this way of speculative development of theology is painting oneself into a corner. The other converts at church say they dont accept all dogmas as true (immaculate conception of Mary, Marys assumption of body and soul etc) but I dont know, it just dont feel right to NOT with my whole heart be willing to die for the faith if i shall convert. Because the catholic church dont accept an eastern rite Christian who rejects dogmas?

Can anyone help me and correct me if there are wrong understandings and point me in the right direction? I tie these differences in theology together with the reformation and all western christianity is based on this theology, which I believe has cause a great decline of the sense of mystery and mysticism and ultimately resulted in the enlightenment and todays secularisation

.

Of course dogmas, whether proposed in the first or the second millennium are “something I need to believe”. The Church tells us through them “ dear children, on this point a very strong persuasion has been reached, and I can definitely teach you that … “. And that is not businness as usual.
She does so seldom, about precious individual items. Which is extremely little, if we think of that, in front of the whole of our actual or potential questions. Mystery is therefore there, and well alive, IMHO, its huge domain is far from being diminished by a few specific propositions proposed during a whole millennium.

As if the night had lost all its mystery because of a few stars …

that Christ may show me His path and make me willing to tread it

I join those who already pray that Christ may show you ( and all of us ) His path .

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

If one speculates with philosophical principles is one thing but to establish Dogmas, which is set in stone for all catholics to hold as true revelation from God correct? I believe this to be a mistake. Indeed many orthodox may believe that Mary was conceived without the “stain of sin” and that she was bodily and spiritually assumed into heaven but wouldnt it be to alienate potential followers of Christ to say that “all who does not with his heart believe these dogmatic statements to be true, which has been arrived at by intellectual theological speculation, rejects Gods revelation”?
Even if orthodox do believe these things I dont see how they can be considered as valid as dogmas as what Christ and his apostles explicity said was established at the 7 ecumenical councils.

.

Here we are. An underlying essential assumption of your present concern, seems to be IMHO, that the 7 Councils are exhaustive in expounding the whole of the deposit of the faith, and something like the final conclusion of any legitimate cataphatic theology.

Then a sort of “Non plus ultra “ is implicitly or explicitly proclaimed. We could call this particular tenet “Solis septem conciliis” or SSC. …

Now , how do we get SSC ?

How do I know, say, that the first 4 were not enough ?

How do I know that after those definitions nothing else can be added, if not by “speculative means “ ?

A dogmatic declaration of a Council indeed makes explicit what had not been explicit before.
Of course you do not need a Council, in order to JUST quote literally Scriptures.
So I have a major difficulty with the mentioned feature of the 7 Councils.

You simply do not have to establish what Christ and the Apostles have already established explicitly themselves .
In other words, you define ……what was ( believed but ) not defined yet. ……

I know that i shall not intellectually investigate too much but the opposite to know God in heart but conversion is important and I believe specific Dogmas to be of life importance because they will establish boundaries which one will orient himself and all his future life around, wether consciously or unconsciously

Amen

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

How can I come to the conviction and faith that the catholic church is the Only true church protected from teaching any Error if its Dogmas have developed from speculative positive theology out of a faith that is still to this day kept by the Orthodox churches??

First, IMHO you should not let the key assumption about SSC unexamined.
Then you could come to see that in any century dogmas have always conserved the same nature.
As for the faith of the 7 Councils, that has of course been conserved and defended by the CC .
As you know, and as it has been recently focused by Benedic XVI, the Church asks to consider her magisterial teaching in a hermeneutic of continuity. There is nothing she guards more than continuity in the teaching of the deposit of the faith.
You could theoretically “prove” that she was unable to fulfill this task of hers, but we have to allow her to require us to follow this hermeneutic of continuity in assessing that.

The very mission of the Apostolic Succession is delivering Sacred/Holy Tradition .

On top of that then, if anybody questions the faithfullness of the CC to Sacred/Holy Tradition, than the very raison d’etre of Apostolic Succession as a whole is gravely shaken.
In other words, if you come to think that the large majority of the present successors of the Apostles went seriously astray, we get just a few steps from the whole Protestant rejection of Apostolic Church, in its meaning that we share with Eastern and Oriental Orthodox brothers.

And the further question arises:
once the Solis Septem Conciliis tenet is questioned, by what objective principle ( therefore apart from my private judgment and inclinations ) can I today identify a given minority, or another one, of the successors of the Apostles, as the sole real bearers of Tradition ?

IMHO this way the “ tu quoque” argument of many Protestant brothers towards Apostolic Christianity, against our pointing to the divisions among their diverse folds ( ie that Apostolic Christianity is also a house inherently divided, and that the individual believer is therefore left there to his private judgment to settle which Communion preaches sound Tradition ) would be seriously vindicated . Wouldn’t it ?

I know the catholic church holds that the Christian theology evolves because not all truths Christ spoke could be understood until much later. But the way you can also see it is that when you start tanig these positive statements regarding dogmas and theology in general without complementing with the negative statements its sort of like a snowboard that keeps growing larger and larger. One Dogma leads to an inevitable consequence for aborter oart of faith and so on.
Wouldnt it be safe to say that negative statements of theology is superior converting anything not explicitly states by Christ? I have always been fascinated with Byzantine christianity but i always believed what I was told by catholics that the ONLY difference is that the now orthodox does bot accept the successor of Saint Peter as te rightful leader of christendom which I personally believe an think all early evidence points to. However, these are pretty major theological differences it at least seems like and considering the changes in catholicism and the doctrine of faith developing ine can understand why some orthodox can have a difficulty abandoning the Faith of their fathers and submit ti the authority of the Pope and the magisterium.

The point is: what was “explicitly stated by Christ” ? Was eg Trinitarian doctrine, as proclaimed in the Councils, explicitly stated by Him ?
If so, why all those dramatic disputations ? Why did it take centuries to get definitions on that ?

Even more relevant to our present dialogue : by whom and when was the end of the legitimate unfolding of the understanding of Revelation fixed ? Was this end in 787 ?

IMHO if any orthodox brothers teach that there should be no further Ecumenical Council after the Seven, because everything was already stated, are not keeping an ancient doctrine. On the contrary, they are teaching a novelty.
Indeed, consider that as late as the XV century there was not an a priori refusal to have a new Council.

The decisions of Ferrara-Florence Council were of course, a posteriori, ultimately rejected , after having been approved by almost all the Eastern representatives there, by the Eastern Churches,. But, mind you, they had not refused a priori the participation to a doctrinal Council, on the ground that anything explicitly taught by Scriptures and Tradition had already been settled since 787.

So, Solis Septem Conciliis is IMHO a novelty.

God bless you and thank you for your help!

And may God bless you, Shamati

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

No it didnt. Its a western rite by nature and according to orthodox view all joining its ranks must submit to western authority and accept the Frankish pagan interpretation of christianity as superior.
Only the westerners actually believe the catholic church to be the true Heir of the new testament church. Ask the peoples of the middle east what church they belong to and consider the church of christ.

Where is the apophatic ? Only to excuse what legal language cannot express or explain. Where is the room for mystery in statements about Marys immaculate C. and assumption.

You may excuse me for asking whether the arguments you know to support this repeatedly mentioned “Frankish pagan interpretation of Christianity” are as solid as such a grave charge requires.
Could we ask people in the Middle East in full communion with Rome also ? :

As for mistery, you may consider that within the exposition of the Fall itself ( which was highlighted in the thread ) in the Catechism of the CC , mystery is explicitly mentioned.

404 …Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.
But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in **a fallen state.**294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 **original sin does not have the character of a personal fault **in any of Adam’s descendants. ……

More generally: again, how can we be induced to believe, that mystery is no longer a pervasive dimension in our relation with the Divine, just because few propositions were definitely taught in the second Millennium ?

To me, it would sound as pretending that I know the whole earth, because I visited just some towns more.

BTW Of course I do not consider Orthodox brothers heretics.

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

Ideally i want to be in communion with Rome. But i just cant convince myseöf that the part of the church that has stuck to what was agreed upon by majority consensus and the 7 ecumenical councils to be the schismatic, protestant, heretics. While hold the western church who had “developed” theology out of philosophical speculation which has seemingly separated it from its non dualistic hebraic roots and has developed a clergical monarchy which it used the Bible to claim its spiritual authority to change anything and all things Christian.

Any statement according to which the CC would not stick to the 7 Councils goes so profoundly against the Churc’s self-comprehension that we need to understand where in your view the CC altered the heritage of those Councils.

Besides: who told you that she claims spiritual authority to change anything and all things Christian ?
Consider please that this IS a macroscopic misinterpretation.

So COULD the catholic church “take back” a Dogma?

No, she can’t. Of course.
Either speaking about second millennium or first millennium dogmas.

The spirit of dogmas. whether in the first or second millennium, is not Control. The Church is Mater before being Magistra.
She shares the certainties she reached. That’s that. We can take them or leave.
That does not mean at all that we have to leave the Church any time we seriously doubt a particular doctrine which is de fide, as long as we trust that the Church knows better , and I can conceive that the problem is with me.

How did you assess the “death of the monastic life “ in western Christianity ? Are you speaking about our own time or which age ? Did you know that St. Augustine ( often quoted as the forerunner of rationalism ) was a great supporter of monasticism ?

You could speak about monasticism in countries where Reformation suppressed catholic presence. BTW We saw whole monasteries flourish again in the XX century, all over Europe.
To name but one, bridgettine nuns have come back to their Vadsterna Abbey.

 

[pneuma07]

If it was truly “catholic” the dogmas would only be those accepted by the original church after the 7 ecumenical councils and maybe the now specifically catholic dogmas as to be accepted by catholics of a “latin rite” instead of the opposite. I must look at both orthodoxy and catholicism as the same church and that one can not choose wrong from either one since they all go back to the beginning and was United in te formation of the faiths fundamentals. To say that the orthodox today are the schismatic heretics would be equivalent of saying that the beliefs of the early fathers was wrong wouldnt it?

What it comes down to is that I can not be an catholic of the byzantine rite even if I wanted to if I do not accept all dogmas to divine revelation and as authoritative as the 7 councils, correct? Thus it becomes impossible to keep the “meat and bones” faith of eastern christianity without being a heterodox catholic.

The Church conserves her right and duty to go on teaching even in a condition of lack of communion within Apostolic Chirtianity.

That is precisely what the Chalcedonian Church did after the 4th Council.

I understand we are not asked to reject all the following Councils. Is according to you Constantinople II as authoritative, say, as Constatinople I ? If the anser is yes, then we agree that Vatican II cannot be ipso facto disregarded, as well.

I do not say that Eastern Orthodox are heretics.

You could ask qualified Eastern Catholics on the further point.

Are you sure one must give up the very “meat and bones” of Eastern Christianity in order to consider the second millennium formulations as legitimate manifestation of Sacred/Holy Traditions ?

 

[pneuma07]

I guess the real problem I have is to accept the catholic belief that the understanding of the “deposit of faith” deepens over time. For example I hold the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa higher than the little I know from St. Thomas Aquinas.

Couldn’t modern and medieval theologians be seen at least as dwarfs on the shoulders of ancient giants ?

If the understanding of the deposit cannot somehow deepen over time, why bothering having any organized theological reflections at all ? Theology should have just come to an end many centuries ago, both western and eastern.
If you do not tell all theologians in our time , of any tradition or mindset, to change job, then you implicitly share that new insights can be reached.

I hope these posts can somehow help.

God bless you, Shamati.

P7

 

[KalKano]

No its not. It is theological and spiritual and i believe that the current definitions of the papacy is an indication of the vast theological difference between orthodoxy and catholicism. I dont believe it to be Gods order anymore. I just cant convince myself that the strain that kept ther faith pure to the dogmas of the councils are the ones in error and schism with the ones that has developed dogmas from rationalism and authority to something other than said councils. If i have to choose I must choose orthodoxy and because i acknowledge I could very well be wrong the presence of a living spiritual tradition available to all, not just scholars or monastics is an indication that it had something the west now lacks for me.
I dont believe it to be “Gods Order” as in His will for His people to have a hierarchy with the extreme centralization of catholicism and still claim it to be truly catholic as in encompassing the universal beliefs of christians from all cultures. In orthodoxy the unity is not primarily in an earthly hierarchy but in the faith itself. Ideally it should be in both but we know this wont happen since everyone who accepts the authority of Rome must submit to all dogmatic statements and t eachother on papal authority to be divinely revealed teachings, regardless of them differing with views of the early church. If it was truly “catholic” the dogmas would only be those accepted by the original church after the 7 ecumenical councils and maybe the now specifically catholic dogmas as to be accepted by catholics of a “latin rite” instead of the opposite. I must look at both orthodoxy and catholicism as the same church and that one can not choose wrong from either one since they all go back to the beginning and was United in te formation of the faiths fundamentals. To say that the orthodox today are the schismatic heretics would be equivalent of saying that the beliefs of the early fathers was wrong wouldnt it?

What it comes down to is that I can not be an catholic of the byzantine rite even if I wanted to if I do not accept all dogmas to divine revelation and as authoritative as the 7 councils, correct? Thus it becomes impossible to keep the “meat and bones” faith of eastern christianity without being a heterodox catholic.

I think you under estimate the origins of papal claims. These are ancient and go back to the early Church. It is St. Leo and and St. Gregory (saints venerated by both East and West) that clearly layout papal claims. In the first 1000 years of the Church, when East and West were unified, it was the East not the West the fell into heresy. The great heresies of the Church came not from Rome which was on the side of the True Faith but from the East. All the major local Churches in the East at one time fell into heresy but not Rome.

As a practical matter, if ecumenical councils are how great issues within the Church are decided, how could God leave the Church unable to call ecumenical councils. In the West ecumenical councils have continued to be used to address the great issues facing the Church. In Eastern Orthodoxy councils have become a revered source of Truth from the past and not a tool for addressing crisis in the Church today. Eastern Orthodoxy does not accept any ecumenical councils except the first seven. In fact, it is not clear to me that they believe an ecumenical council can be called without the accent of the Roman Pope (who from their point of view is in schism).

Your posts on the beauty of Easter Orthodox liturgy is well taken. I personally prefer the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite but Divine Liturgy is wonderful.

May God bless your search for the Truth.

 

[Hasire]

I think you under estimate the origins of papal claims. These are ancient and go back to the early Church. It is St. Leo and and St. Gregory (saints venerated by both East and West) that clearly layout papal claims.

Claims are what they are, claims. “Mere expectations are not right.” Right from my Civil Code

In the first 1000 years of the Church, when East and West were unified, it was the East not the West the fell into heresy. The great heresies of the Church came not from Rome which was on the side of the True Faith but from the East. All the major local Churches in the East at one time fell into heresy but not Rome.

The West in general did fell to heresy, the Arians, Sabellianism, etc.
And from Rome with Pope Honorius who was condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact” Catholic Encyclopedia

As a practical matter, if ecumenical councils are how great issues within the Church are decided, how could God leave the Church unable to call ecumenical councils. In the West ecumenical councils have continued to be used to address the great issues facing the Church. In Eastern Orthodoxy councils have become a revered source of Truth from the past and not a tool for addressing crisis in the Church today. Eastern Orthodoxy does not accept any ecumenical councils except the first seven. In fact, it is not clear to me that they believe an ecumenical council can be called without the accent of the Roman Pope (who from their point of view is in schism).

It’s because there are no General Councils after the Seventh. You only have Western Councils (In our PoV obviously) after the Seventh one.
No Pope called one of the first councils, the Emperors did.

 

[catholic1seeks]

To Shamati:

Many others have already chipped in. Also, there has been some heat in this thread, which is always unfortunate! [GUYS! C’mon! – we are discussing faith here; our interest in this stuff should live itself out in the words we use! ]

The conversation has moved on various paths, but after skimming through most of the thread, I would just like to point out some things…

First of all, “negative” theology vs. “positive” theology. This issue does not equate to an issue of “which side has the Truth?” As pointed out, they are traditions – approaches of theology. The substance of the faith should be key. Religion and culture are intricately connected, so of course there are various methods of going about “studying” God and Christianity. Of course East and West would have their own modes of expression; they have different cultures. That the philosophy of Aristotle and Scholasticism helped develop certain concepts of Western Christianity… SO?

Also, it is not either/or in Catholicism. The Catholic Church speaks of mystery, too. Just yesterday I was reading Pope Benedict’s Light of the World, and upon being asked about truth, relativism, etc., he responds by saying, “We never have the truth; at best, it has us.” Catholicism knows we cannot fully understand God (and, by extension, the Truths of the faith). Take what the catechism has to say. Quoting the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, section #42 says:

God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God --“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”-- with our human representations.Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

Section #43 goes on to say the following, in reference to the Lateran Council IV and AQUINAS:

Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”;and that “concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him.”

God is infinitely beyond, and the truths of the faith are oh so above; but just as God has given us the gift of reason to come to know Him, so we can come to know certain things about Him. However, our language is always in need of purification, refinement, and authentic development (Just think of those first seven councils).

1. Shamati – and I don’t mean to misrepresent you, so please correct me! – I’ve seen a sort of animosity from you towards dogma. It must be remembered that the whole idea of dogma existed even in those first seven great councils that you definitely uphold. Because, after all, those councils were determining the orthodox belief, clarifying what the Christian faith really is. Now, just as not everything was explained or “on the table” for discussion for clarification all at once at the inception of the Church – no, seven councils spanned the course of centuries – so even now there is clarification, there are councils, there is dogma.

Some (Western) Christians may feel as though everything did come into being at once; to them, the Bible just fell from Heaven, for example. NO! The canon of the Bible took time to develop, with discussion, clarification, and through local councils. Central doctrines of Christinaity took time, like the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the Theotokos. All of those took time, taking hundreds of years after Christ for the Church to describe in her own terminology. As another user posted, why would this process stop after those seven councils? The Church through time would encounter situations that would call for clarification, like the Council of Trent.

The idea of dogma and its importance (i.e., the understanding of certain truths of the faith and the need for right beliefe) has been there, from the inception of the Church. Think of the early creeds, of needing to profess the core truths before one was baptized.

Now, dogmas do sound arbitrary IF they are viewed as independent items of faith. But dogmas are precisely not independent of each other. They only seem so in light of a specific definition made in history, like when the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854. The catechism says in #90:

The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”

When I was reading Patriarch Bartholomew’s* Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodoxy Today*, I found myself loving his (and the Orthodox) understanding of doctrine. But I found it wholly compatible with Catholicism, and I in fact saw specifc elements of the Catholic understanding of dogma. He said that, in Orthodoxy, doctrine is meant to set safe boundaries, saying where you cannot go past. In Catholicism, dogma is the same. Dogma does not put faith in a box or put a finger on God, but it does say certain things about Him and the faith. The first seven councils did this.

There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. (CCC #89)

 

[guanophore]

As someone who has struggled with a great deal of Western Christian theology because of its over-emphasis (in my opinion) on rationality, I have serious doubts as to whether or not someone with these doubts can feel at home in any Western Tradition.

Thanks be to God that His One Church is not limited by human ways of thinking. I also find the Eastern Catholic contentment with mystery much more satisfying than the philosophical and rational kniptions of the scholastics.

 

[KalKano]

Claims are what they are, claims. “Mere expectations are not right.” Right from my Civil Code .

My point was that great saints of the early Church proclaimed and defended the Catholic understanding of the Pope. This was not some later invention. You may disagree with these saints and cite others who disagree but that does not change my basic point. My understanding is that in general Eastern Orthodox today agree that the Pope has “primacy” (or perhaps “primacy of honor”) the questions then and today is what does “primacy” mean?

The West in general did fell to heresy, the Arians, Sabellianism, etc.
And from Rome with Pope Honorius who was condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact” Catholic Encyclopedia.

I don’t believe this assessment is correct. Yes there was heresy in the West but it originated in the East and spread across the entire Church. During the first 1000 years of the Church, when East and West were in communion, the Popes and the Roman Church were consistently, with the possible exception of Pope Honorius (see below), orthodox and proclaimed the Truth against the many heresies of that time. To state otherwise is simply not correct.

Your are correct that Pope Honorius was condemned, however, subject is not without controversy. Catholic perspective would be Pope Honorius never formally taught heresy and was condemned for his failure to act rather than for teaching heresy. For a full discussion of Pope Honorius see newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

It’s because there are no General Councils after the Seventh. You only have Western Councils (In our PoV obviously) after the Seventh one.
No Pope called one of the first councils, the Emperors did.

Again my point is that if Councils are the means for solving great problems within the Church, why would God take this essential tool away from the Church? In Western ecclesiology this is not a concern. However, in Eastern ecclesiology Councils have become a thing of the past. Perhaps they cannot be called because of the Great Schism or because there are no Roman Emperors to call them.

 

[Shamati]

According to Orthodoxy, The Bishop of Rome can only have primacy if he protects Orthodoxy. As soon as Rome started to invent new dogmas or even the Filioque, that primacy is lost and the Roman churhc is no longer considered Orthodox.

In Orthodoxy, it is not believed that what has been handed down to us from the Apostles is an “Deposit of Faith” that can and should be developed. Instead, the dogmas we have are the lights shich we are to use to orient our lives and beliefs around. We can develop ideas and theology around these dogmas but not invent new ones.

The Cappadocian Fathers, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory of Nazianzus said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists in the same sense that everything else exists. That is to say, everything else that exists was created, but the Creator transcends even existence. The essence of God is completely unknowable; mankind can know God only through His energies.

The apophatic tradition in Orthodox (and early) Christianity hold that, outside of directly-revealed knowledge through Scripture and Sacred Tradition (such as the Trinitarian nature of God), God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings can understand; He is transcendent in essence. Further knowledge must be sought in a direct experience of God or His indestructible energies through vision of God, theoria.

Because of this belief (which I share) I find any new dogma problematic to wrap my head around. Not only because I agree with the specifically “orthodox” tradition of theology but because I have found that much of the theology of the Early Church Fathers were fo this specific strain of theology. The “western way” becomes an innovation that I find impossible to wholeheartedly believe to be true because it demands that I view Dogmas in the so called “development of the deposit of faith” as just as valid Revelations as Sacred Scripture or traditions that have been in the Church since days of Old. I can not do this with an intact conscience because there have been problems with certain things in the history of the catholic church, such as indulgences etc.

In the west “Negative” theology, or theology by negation is seen as complementary and to be used in a dialectic with Positive theology to reach a syntesis, while in Orthodoxy Apophatic / Negative theology is rightly considered to be superior to it.

 

[Shiranui117]

According to Orthodoxy, The Bishop of Rome can only have primacy if he protects Orthodoxy. As soon as Rome started to invent new dogmas or even the Filioque, that primacy is lost and the Roman churhc is no longer considered Orthodox.

In Orthodoxy, it is not believed that what has been handed down to us from the Apostles is an “Deposit of Faith” that can and should be developed. Instead, the dogmas we have are the lights shich we are to use to orient our lives and beliefs around. We can develop ideas and theology around these dogmas but not invent new ones.

The Cappadocian Fathers, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory of Nazianzus said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists in the same sense that everything else exists. That is to say, everything else that exists was created, but the Creator transcends even existence. The essence of God is completely unknowable; mankind can know God only through His energies.

The apophatic tradition in Orthodox (and early) Christianity hold that, outside of directly-revealed knowledge through Scripture and Sacred Tradition (such as the Trinitarian nature of God), God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings can understand; He is transcendent in essence. Further knowledge must be sought in a direct experience of God or His indestructible energies through vision of God, theoria.

Because of this belief (which I share) I find any new dogma problematic to wrap my head around. Not only because I agree with the specifically “orthodox” tradition of theology but because I have found that much of the theology of the Early Church Fathers were fo this specific strain of theology. The “western way” becomes an innovation that I find impossible to wholeheartedly believe to be true because it demands that I view Dogmas in the so called “development of the deposit of faith” as just as valid Revelations as Sacred Scripture or traditions that have been in the Church since days of Old. I can not do this with an intact conscience because there have been problems with certain things in the history of the catholic church, such as indulgences etc.

In the west “Negative” theology, or theology by negation is seen as complementary and to be used in a dialectic with Positive theology to reach a syntesis, while in Orthodoxy Apophatic / Negative theology is rightly considered to be superior to it.

Just so we’re clear… You do know that it was the East who came up with all the dogmas from the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and not the West, right? The Cappadocian Fathers that you mentioned were instrumental in defining and explaining our understanding of the Trinity. Dogma itself is not a bad thing; it sets a line and says, “This is the correct understanding (inasmuch as humanity can comprehend it), and outside of this is heretical.” “Negative” theology is just as instrumental in defining and declaring dogma as “positive” theology; “negative” theology states what the wrong beliefs are and anathemizes them, while “positive” theology helps us to understand God and the Truth, inasmuch as what’s possible for mere mortal humans.

However, as I think you’re trying to point out, over-dogmatizing and trying to make definitive statements about everything in the Faith is the incorrect approach. And trying to dogmatize something that doesn’t belong in the Apostolic Tradition is also completely out of the question.

 

[Shamati]

Just so we’re clear… You do know that it was the East who came up with all the dogmas from the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and not the West, right? The Cappadocian Fathers that you mentioned were instrumental in defining and explaining our understanding of the Trinity. Dogma itself is not a bad thing; it sets a line and says, “This is the correct understanding (inasmuch as humanity can comprehend it), and outside of this is heretical.” “Negative” theology is just as instrumental in defining and declaring dogma as “positive” theology; “negative” theology states what the wrong beliefs are and anathemizes them, while “positive” theology helps us to understand God and the Truth, inasmuch as what’s possible for mere mortal humans.

However, as I think you’re trying to point out, over-dogmatizing and trying to make definitive statements about everything in the Faith is the incorrect approach. And trying to dogmatize something that doesn’t belong in the Apostolic Tradition is also completely out of the question.

Yes, and I do believe the 7 ecumenical councils to be Orthodoxy defined. I see these Dogmas as establishing a fence around us saying: “This far, but not further”. The west has developed way beyond this