Do Melkites and other EC Reject Latin Views of the Papacy?

[jimmy]

Yes, but Sayedna Zoghby spoke only of his own opinion; his works are hardly authoritative on the matter. There are a number of flaws in Sayedna Zoghby’s thinking on the matter, for example no doctrine can be binding and true on one group, but untrue for another; such thinking is obviously self-contradictory and unreasonable, because it supports moral and doctrinal relativity. Are only Latin Catholics born without Divine Grace, for example? Such thinking is, to but it bluntly, absurd; either something is Truth for all, or it’s not Truth at all. It would also mean that the teaching that Christ is Divine and Human is not Truth for the non-Chalcedonians, or that Iconophilia really is idolatry for Maronites.

Sayedna Zoghby did some great work in promoting Byzantine theology and ecclesiology, but not all of his thoughts are worth holding on to. This is one of those thoughts, not because it contradicts Rome, but because it’s utterly untenable at its root. It would be wrong on the face of it even if it wasn’t contradicted by the Catholic Communion.

Peace and God bless!

I think what Archbishop Zoghby says is that the western councils don’t deal with the essential matter of the faith and therefore are only theologoumena because the east did not affirm them as well.

Is the west bound by the teachings of Gregory Palamas(they are dogma in the Byzantine tradition)? How about by the Syriac teachers who rejected Chalcedon? If Rome thinks the west and east believe pretty much the same thing then they are going to have to shed the later councils because it is only standing in the way of communion. They can not say these councils are binding on all and maintain that the Greek Catholics hold the true faith yet not declare the absolute distinction between essence and energy to be binding on all. Or is it only the western concepts that are binding on the whole Church?

That being said, the theological approach and language of Western Councils isn’t binding on non-Latins, but the Catholic Church has never really claimed that it is.

So a Greek Catholic does not have to confess that Original Sin is any more than death? What the western councils have done is legislate western theology. They have legislated the Augustinian view of Original Sin. They have specified seven sacraments when many of the eastern Churches traditionally consider all of creation to be a sacrament. They have legislated the western ecclesiology and reduced the bishops to legates of the pope practically. These all come with anathema’s. If we maintain our theology we are under anathema by Rome if these councils are binding on the east. Our Churches are reduced to nothing but the use of a few different words in theology and different vestments with some insense. I can not maintain my Syriac sacramental spirituality if sacraments are reduced to seven as the west has done. And in that case we are superfluous or even worse, a lure for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

 

[Ghosty]

Is the west bound by the teachings of Gregory Palamas(they are dogma in the Byzantine tradition)? How about by the Syriac teachers who rejected Chalcedon?

Regarding St. Gregory Palamas, yes the West is bound by the distinction since it’s already taught in Western theology, and ALL Catholic theology. The terms and approach are not used, but the teaching is present everywhere. This is what I mean when I say that the Catholic Faith is Truth for all, but the expressions of that Faith may be different.

As for the Syriac teachers who rejected Chalcedon, that is a question you’d have to pose to Sayedna Zoghby, since he affirmed that the Seven Councils were utterly binding on all, as is (same position that the Eastern Orthodox hold, incidentally). That is not the position of the Catholic Communion, however, which says that the Faith is binding, but the expression is not (which is why the Catholic Communion has joint-declarations of Faith with the non-Chalcedonian Churches, but the Eastern Orthodox do not, despite the other commonalities found between Easterns and Orientals). My point is precisely that the Syriac expression falls within the Truth of Chalcedon, even if the terminology is rejected, and this is because the Truth is one for all, and not relative.

If Rome thinks the west and east believe pretty much the same thing then they are going to have to shed the later councils because it is only standing in the way of communion.

First the non-Catholic Eastern Churches would have to accept the teachings of those Councils as orthodox and representative of the Truth. These Councils can no more be “shed” than the teaching that God is both Transcendent and Imminent (Palamas) can be shed.

If any of the Apostolic Churches must “shed” any aspects of the Truth, then there will be no Communion, and there will be no Catholic, Orthodox Faith at all.

So a Greek Catholic does not have to confess that Original Sin is any more than death?

I would expect any Catholics to honor their traditions. In the case of the Byzantine tradition, the notion that the inheritence from Adam is simply physical mortality is not the ancient tradition, but a recent (past century or so) remodel based on a rejection of anything in common with “Western” teaching. This doesn’t mean that the Byzantine tradition used Augustinian terminology or approach, but there is nothing in the authentic Byzantine tradition that contradicts the notion that more than mere immortality was lost in the Fall.

That is a bit beside the point, though, which is simply that the Truth taught by the various Apostolic Churches is either One, with different approaches and emphasis, or the Apostolic Churches have never been united in Faith, and the whole notion of a Catholic Church as expressed in the Creed is a lie. This is because the differences go back to the earliest Fathers and Councils (the differences between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian Fathers, to name just one huge distinction), and there was never a time when such differences didn’t exist. In fact, we can even find such differences in emphasis in Scripture itself.

A difference of emphasis is not automatically a problem, but it becomes a problem when the terminology becomes dogma in itself, and the complimentary approaches are ruled out as heretical.

What the western councils have done is legislate western theology. They have legislated the Augustinian view of Original Sin.

No, they haven’t; they have legislated with Western theology and Augustinian terminology. That is a big difference, and it is evident in the fact that the non-Augustinian approaches have not been ruled out (not even in the Latin Church itself, in fact, as evidenced by the persistence of the Thomistic and Jesuit theological traditions, which are quite distinct from the Augustinian approach, including the approach to Original Sin). Since even the Latin Church has non-Augustinian approaches, approaches that in the case of Thomism, for example, have largely superceded the Augustinian in most of history, and since the Eastern Churches have not had their own approaches forbidden them, we can see that it’s not as clear cut as you paint it.

I can not maintain my Syriac sacramental spirituality if sacraments are reduced to seven as the west has done.

Sure you can, unless you believe that “all of Creation” is something administered by a Bishop. What you are doing here is stretching the Latin definition of Sacrament beyond its actual meaning and use, and then trying to say that by “limiting” it to Seven the Syriac tradition is obliterated.

When the Latin Church made such a ruling on Sacraments, it was with a very specific definition in mind, and it doesn’t preclude understandings of God’s presence in all things, nor does it preclude other means of Grace beyond the Sacraments as the Latins define them.

Rather than asking “Does the Latin definition of Sacrament eliminate the Syriac belief, because Creation itself is a Sacrament in that tradition”, you should ask “does the Latin definition of Sacrament eliminate God’s involvement in, and manifestation through, Creation”. The answer to the latter is clearly a resounding “no”, as any reading of Thomistic or Franciscan theology can demonstrate.

In your approach it seems to me that you might be inadvertently doing what you perceive the Latin Church of doing, namely applying your tradition and theological expression as a limitation and definitive “lens” on other Apostolic traditions. I believe it’s more fruitful to look at the definitions these other traditions use, and how they use them, and go from there, rather than expect them to conform to our own common uses; that’s the only way the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” can exist, otherwise it was always a lie for the reasons I stated above.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

Specifically, the 7 councils approach is the Eastern Orthodox.

The Coptic Orthodox (aka the Oriental Orthodox) hold to there being fewer, since they missed the last few.

 

[jimmy]

As for the Syriac teachers who rejected Chalcedon, that is a question you’d have to pose to Sayedna Zoghby, since he affirmed that the Seven Councils were utterly binding on all, as is (same position that the Eastern Orthodox hold, incidentally). That is not the position of the Catholic Communion, however, which says that the Faith is binding, but the expression is not (which is why the Catholic Communion has joint-declarations of Faith with the non-Chalcedonian Churches, but the Eastern Orthodox do not, despite the other commonalities found between Easterns and Orientals). My point is precisely that the Syriac expression falls within the Truth of Chalcedon, even if the terminology is rejected, and this is because the Truth is one for all, and not relative.

This sounds good but the thing is that if we are expected to accept the definitions of the west then we are implicitely forced to be followers of specific theological approaches. It forces us into a discussion that we never would have entered had they never bound us by it. For example, the development of the western ecclesiology as dogma forces the east to accept this dogma and consequently to downgrade their own ecclesiology. Maybe we can explain it in different words but it makes no difference.

In your approach it seems to me that you might be inadvertently doing what you perceive the Latin Church of doing, namely applying your tradition and theological expression as a limitation and definitive “lens” on other Apostolic traditions. I believe it’s more fruitful to look at the definitions these other traditions use, and how they use them, and go from there, rather than expect them to conform to our own common uses; that’s the only way the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” can exist, otherwise it was always a lie for the reasons I stated above.

Peace and God bless!

That is not my intent. What I am trying to point out is that we as easterners are regularly expected to submit to western concepts. The west has developed its doctrine along certain lines and it is subsequently defined in that way. We are all then expected to profess that same thing which never had any part in our theology. I do not expect - nor do I ask - the west to submit to my Maronite tradition. What I ask is that they do not expect or even ask me to submit to the Latin tradition. What is problematic is when the Latin west adopts a definitions with certain theologies underlying them, without the (name removed by moderator)ut or agreement from the east and then expects the east to submit or accept it. This by its nature reduces our theology and tradition to something that can be discarded.

What I see to be at stake here is a certain ecclesiology. It seems to me that the west has very little understanding of a particular Church. Consequently it seems to be that we are simply an extension of the universal Church and consequently our particular theology is simply an allowance of the universal Church. As much as the universal Church has not defined the faith we are allowed to stick to our tradition. Consequently they are exchanging an ecclesiology in which all particular Churches are guided by the Spirit in diverse ways(within context of the whole obviously) for an ecclesiology in which the Pope is guided along with the bishops when they are called to council. Then particular theologies or traditions legislated from the top down and are used for utilitarian purposes. Consequently our only justification is that the pope approved that we exist. But the thing is, the diversity in the Church is necessary from its very beginning(even from Pentecost).

Vatican II was very good in a lot of ways for the sake of the relationship between east and west.

 

[Ghosty]

This sounds good but the thing is that if we are expected to accept the definitions of the west then we are implicitely forced to be followers of specific theological approaches. It forces us into a discussion that we never would have entered had they never bound us by it.

Western Councils dealt with Western issues that did not directly affect Eastern Christians, just as Eastern Councils did the same on their own ground. Accepting the definitions of “regional” Councils doesn’t force one to adopt these definitions as one’s own, in terms of using the theological approach that led to them.

For example, a Latin Catholic doesn’t need to adopt the theological approach of the Essence/Energies distinction in order to accept the teaching that God is both Transcendent and Imminent. A Latin can accept the dogma being defended with that theological language without adopting the theology used to defend it. I see no reason to believe otherwise, in fact; if there are definitions and debates that simply don’t apply to non-Latin theologies, then they simply don’t apply and that’s that.

Just like how particle physics doesn’t apply to my daily nursing work or dog-training, but I can accept that there is some factual truth being discussed by physicists that is indeed real, albeit utterly irrelevant to me. If the issue of “justification versus sanctification” (a debate between Latins and Protestants, for the most part) doesn’t come up in your tradition, and doesn’t apply to your spiritual needs, then there is really no reason at all to even read up on it unless you have a burning curiosity. The fact that the debate has been settled by certain local Councils and Papal definitions doesn’t really matter to us, unless the debate somehow becomes an issue within our own tradition at some point (not likely, but anything is possible with heresy).

What I ask is that they do not expect or even ask me to submit to the Latin tradition.

I don’t see this as happening, so I’m a bit at a loss. The Vatican certainly isn’t banging down the doors of Melkite seminaries (which are shared with Eastern Orthodox, incidentally) and demanding that we address the Augustinian notion of Original Sin. Perhaps you are running into zealous Latins (or Maronites, as I know that there is a very, very strong Latinized tendency in the Maronite Church) who expect this, but try not to confuse such people with the Catholic Communion itself.

It can be easy at times to look at the most “traditionalist” folks as being the ones that truly tow the line with regards to the Faith, but that isn’t always the case, and certainly isn’t the case with modern “traditionalist” Latins. Many of them will brow-beat non-Latins and expect rigin conformity to Latin theology and terms, and in those cases I just shrug and say “sorry, doesn’t apply to us; we’re in line with the Pope who expects us to bring Eastern theology to the Catholic Communion, not with you”. It’s a simple, if difficult, stance to take.

I will say, however, that it does help to learn Latin theology, especially the most notable theologians, not only because it is enriching in and of itself, but because it provides great leverege when dealing with the sorts who expect “Latin-think only”.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

What I see to be at stake here is a certain ecclesiology. It seems to me that the west has very little understanding of a particular Church. Consequently it seems to be that we are simply an extension of the universal Church and consequently our particular theology is simply an allowance of the universal Church.

This has definitely been a problem with the Catholic Communion, to be sure, but fortunately we live in a time when this is changing, and when we have the power to contribute to this change. The Oriental Orthodox have a solid notion of Particular Churches, but they often lack an understanding across Church boundaries (Ethiopians presume that the Armenians are identical to themselves, until they meet them). The Eastern Orthodox have a sense of jurisdictional distinction, but little else; just thank God that you’re not a Syriac-minded person who finds yourself in the Eastern Orthodox Communion! The Catholic Communion has the difficulty of living with the largest single Apostolic Church in history, the Latin Church, which also happened to be the only Church setting the tone for the Catholic Communion for centuries.

Fortunately we as Catholics do have the leeway of stressing our unique traditions, and offering them to the Catholic Communion as a whole. It’s an opportunity that is easily missed, but missing it would be a critical failure in our duty towards God and His Church. The other thing we must look out for, and guard against, is the attitude that you fear, namely the dogmaticization of local theological offerings. The Latins have the easiest time at this sinful activity, given their numbers and the weight of Latin dominance in the Catholic Communion in past centuries, but Latins are by no means the only culprits. Any time others say “the Latins must be wrong, because OUR tradition uses terms differently”, they are falling into the very same sin; the only difference is that they don’t have the power to enforce their evil on others.

In the end, I believe that what we must do is accept ALL Catholic traditions as they stand, and when we come across seemingly conflicting accounts and theologies we must look at what each side is actually trying to address, and understand the terms as they themselves use them. In my own experience this has always resulted in either a realization that the two sides are expressing the same Truth in different ways, or that they are adressing different Truths with superficially similar language (I believe that the issue you mentioned of the Seven Sacraments falls into this latter category).

I guess the main point I want to emphasize is that a Communion must be a Body first, and must be viewed at from that perspective. We must not look at our body and say “How can a pituitary gland, which secretes useful but deadly hormones, exist alongside a liver which is meant to cleanse the body of deadly chemicals”, but rather ask “how do the pituitary gland and liver work together to make this system we call a living body”. Only by understanding our Body AS a Body first, can we understand the individual parts; if we view the individual parts first and foremost, we will never arrive at the conclusion that they work together as a Body.

So, in terms of the Catholic Body, I always ask “what purpose does the Melkite Church serve in balancing the Latin Church”, or similar questions. I don’t ask “how can the Melkite Church exist alongside the Latin Church” because such a question denies the reality that they DO work together and function together as a Body. I have to accept the reality of the Body before I can even begin to understand the organs, exactly the same as in biology.

On another note, I realize I may have been too harsh with you, Jimmy, and I apologize. Your experiences are no doubt very different from my own, and you are coming at these questions with a very different background and possibly with different concerns. I don’t mean to belittle your experience and first-hand knowledge of the “dark side” of our Catholic Communion. I hope that you can take my words as an indicator of my own experience of what can be (and is, in many places and cases), and not as a judgement against your own.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

On another note, I realize I may have been too harsh with you, Jimmy, and I apologize. Your experiences are no doubt very different from my own, and you are coming at these questions with a very different background and possibly with different concerns. I don’t mean to belittle your experience and first-hand knowledge of the “dark side” of our Catholic Communion. I hope that you can take my words as an indicator of my own experience of what can be (and is, in many places and cases), and not as a judgement against your own.

Ghosty, don’t worry. I didn’t take your words as an offense against me. I respect your perspective and I learn a lot from these discussions. That said, I do tend to be a little harsh at times on the Latins(it especially comes out in these forums) but I am trying to understand their perspective.

I am trying to learn about western theology and its theologians. That is kind of necessary considering that I am getting a theology degree from a Latin minded school. I recently bought a book on St. Thomas which discusses some of his more neglected aspects like his mystical approach which most people don’t notice. It seems like an interesting book.

I would like to make one point about my approach in my posts. I tend to oppose a theoretical theology and support a practical theology. I oppose the theoretical theology because it tends to be reduced to semantics and has no play in reality. So I think that when we speak about the equality of the Maronites and Latins and Melchites and other Churches we must speak of it from practical approaches. We can not say that the eastern theologyies are equal to the western theology when in practice the west is strong arming the east. So I think that our equality must be recognized in practical ways.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

So What do Oriental catholics and chaldeans consider “Ecumenical”?

How are the fifth, sixth and seventh councils received? I was told that chaldeans went nuts with images in the “Spirit of the seventh council” because the Assyrian Church of the East is somewhat iconoclastic.