East and West: Two standards of truth?

[corefaith]

It does not have to be translated because it is assent that must be given (it must be firmly held), yet it does not have to be comprehended. A teaching may not even be comprehensible to a person.

Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, Part_IIa/Q66 A5 - Reply to Objection 3Accordingly wisdom, to which knowledge about God pertains, is beyond the reach of man, especially in this life, so as to be his possession: for this “belongs to God alone” (Metaph. i, 2): and yet this little knowledge about God which we can have through wisdom is preferable to all other knowledge.

Can one truly give full assent to a dogma if he or she knowingly rejects certain principles on which it is based? Eastern Catholics give assent to an Immaculate Conception, but is it accurate to say that they give assent to the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception as pronounced by Pius IX when they reject the foundational notions of ‘merit’ and of ‘stain’ of original sin?

This comes full circle to the point of the thread because whether the answer is yes or no, there is an open question about how much leeway one has for rejecting key principles of dogma or for reconconceptualizing dogma.

Please understand I’m not implying Eastern Catholics are heretics! They have a different appproach. But it creates a theological conundrum–more for the West than for the East, perhaps.

 

[corefaith]

There are no theological disagreements on fundamental dogmatic beliefs. What we do have a difference in, is that we express the Catholic Truth in a different way. One such example is what Latins refer to as the Immaculate conception. Us in the East believe that The Theotokos is all holy, and most pure. That is the immaculate conception. We do not, however, speculate exactly how this happened, however we ackowledge that st mary was never stained with sin.

Yes, and there is nothing wrong in this approach. But it does seem from the Roman Catholic perspective it leaves a question open about assent (see post above).

 

[coptsoldier]

Vatican I dogmatic statemenrs were spoken from a latin expression, and should be interpreted as such. All Rome requires of the east is that we believe st mary was sinless, which the east has always believed.

 

[Vico]

Can one truly give full assent to a dogma if he or she knowingly rejects certain principles on which it is based? Eastern Catholics give assent to an Immaculate Conception, but is it accurate to say that they give assent to the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception as pronounced by Pius IX when they reject the foundational notions of ‘merit’ and of ‘stain’ of original sin?

This comes full circle to the point of the thread because whether the answer is yes or no, there is an open question about how much leeway one has for rejecting key principles of dogma or for reconconceptualizing dogma.

Please understand I’m not implying Eastern Catholics are heretics! They have a different appproach. But it creates a theological conundrum–more for the West than for the East, perhaps.

The assent of faith is submission not understanding, entrusting ourselves.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith”.3

150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.17

Union of Brest (or Treaty of Brest) 1595 - Poland (Ukrainian Catholic Church)

5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.
​

 

[corefaith]

The assent of faith is submission not understanding, entrusting ourselves.

For one who is incapable of understanding that might be true. But if one understands the terms and concepts (in the case of the Imaculate Conception ‘merit’ and ‘stain’ of original sin) yet does not believe them, that is quite a different issue.

It would be interesting to hear some Roman Catholics weigh in because it seems through the agreements with Rome that Eastern Catholics are not required to believe the dogma as it is written, in its entirety. From the Eastern Catholic perspective this isn’t necessarily a problem. However, for Roman Catholics it raises theological questions concerning dogma.

 

[Vico]

For one who is incapable of understanding that might be true. But if one understands the terms and concepts (in the case of the Imaculate Conception ‘merit’ and ‘stain’ of original sin) yet does not believe them, that is quite a different issue.

It would be interesting to hear some Roman Catholics weigh in because it seems through the agreements with Rome that Eastern Catholics are not required to believe the dogma as it is written, in its entirety. From the Eastern Catholic perspective this isn’t necessarily a problem. However, for Roman Catholics it raises theological questions concerning dogma.

No. Belief is “That state of the mind by which it assents to propositions, not by reason of their intrinsic evidence, but because of authority.”

Aveling, F. (1907). Belief. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm

 

[thinkandmull]

Eastern Church’s don’t disbelieve in Transubstantiation. It depends on what you mean by it. Is the substance that is changed physical or something else. That’s debatable

 

[Vico]

Eastern Church’s don’t disbelieve in Transubstantiation. It depends on what you mean by it. Is the substance that is changed physical or something else. That’s debatable

Saint Theophylact, commentary of Matthew 26:26:By saying, ‘This is My Body,’ He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, ‘This is a type,’ but ‘This is My Body.’ By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh.
Saint Cyril of JerusalemThese things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) * “strengthen thine heart,” partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”

• Psalms 104:15

 

[coptsoldier]

We have no issues with transubdtantiation. We believe in literal change. The only difference is terminological expression, not substance

 

[corefaith]

No. Belief is “That state of the mind by which it assents to propositions, not by reason of their intrinsic evidence, but because of authority.”

Except in the case we have been discussing there is no assent to the propositions, ‘merit’ and ‘stain’ of original sin. They are rejected. The point you have been making in no way addresses the issue.

 

[Vico]

Except in the case we have been discussing there is no assent to the propositions, ‘merit’ and ‘stain’ of original sin. They are rejected. The point you have been making in no way addresses the issue.

There is assent to the dogma including the terms ‘merit’ and ‘stain’ of original sin. It is not necessary to employ those terms in the tradition of a particular Church. This is because it is a Church defined dogma of faith or morals. Even though we do not use those terms we assent to the authority of the Church and do not oppose it.

 

[Errham]

As I’ve said in previous threads. Western and Eastern theology are two sides of the same coin; they should complement each other, not contradict each other. Although there are some exceptions where, as Catholics, we must be forced to simply cede on, (such as doctrine on original sin\immacualte conception and the primacy of Peter) however those are the exception, not the rule. The good Catholic will view theology as a single story told from the point of view of two different readers. Just as we have four different gospels, which do contradict each other at times, but we view them simply as one single narraritive, written from four different angles, that complement, rather than contradict each other.

This whole thread reminds me in a way of the “science vs. Bible” debate - it just doesn’t work like that.

 

[janeway529]

Corefaith, perhaps a simple way of understanding is as Abbot Nicholas Zachariadis has said, the Eastern Church and the Western Church are like the two lenses of a pair of glasses through which we perceive one Truth.

 

[eamonnroma]

As I’ve said in previous threads. Western and Eastern theology are two sides of the same coin; they should complement each other, not contradict each other.

I read Timothy Ware you said that the Orthodox regard Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same kind.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I read Timothy Ware you said that the Orthodox regard Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same kind.

Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware is a truly brilliant man and gifted speaker. His word choice is always rather deliberate. It would be interesting to read the exact quote to which you have referred and to understand the context in which it was made. From having read a fair amount of his work and listened to numerous speeches, it is my observation that he usually attempts to convey very precise messages, even when making a seemingly general statement.

 

[corefaith]

Corefaith, perhaps a simple way of understanding is as Abbot Nicholas Zachariadis has said, the Eastern Church and the Western Church are like the two lenses of a pair of glasses through which we perceive one Truth.

No disagreement on this. But none of the responses so far have addressed the details of the theological conundrum. What you describe applies more to liturgy and non-dogmatic statements but not necessarily to dogma.

One could argue, as it has been argued to me, that it is diengenuous to say one assents to a dogma when they reject the propositions on which the dogma is founded. If one can reconceptualize and redefine the terms and propositions of dogma until it fits his or her way of thinking then it will lose it’s force.

Use your imagination for a moment and try applying these same interpretive principles to many of the foundational doctrines of the faith and you will easily see how they are distorted as you redefine and reconceptualize them.

 

[wynd]

Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware is a truly brilliant man and gifted speaker. His word choice is always rather deliberate. It would be interesting to read the exact quote to which you have referred and to understand the context in which it was made. From having read a fair amount of his work and listened to numerous speeches, it is my observation that he usually attempts to convey very precise messages, even when making a seemingly general statement.

It’s from the beginning of his book The Orthodox Church.

Orthodox see history in another perspective. Consider, for example, the Orthodox attitude towards western religious disputes. In the west it is usual to think of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as opposite extremes; but to an Orthodox they appear as two sides of the same coin. Khomiakov calls the Pope ‘the first Protestant’, ‘the father of German rationalism’; and by the same token he would doubtless have considered the Christian Scientist an eccentric Roman Catholic. (Compare P. Hammond, The Waters of Marah, p. 10.) ‘How are we to arrest the pernicious effects of Protestantism?’ he was asked by a High Church Anglican when visiting Oxford in 1847; to which he replied: ‘Shake off your Roman Catholicism.’ In the eyes of the Russian theologian, the two things went hand in hand; both alike share the same assumptions, for Protestantism was hatched from the egg which Rome had laid.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

janeway529;12896882:

Corefaith, perhaps a simple way of understanding is as Abbot Nicholas Zachariadis has said, the Eastern Church and the Western Church are like the two lenses of a pair of glasses through which we perceive one Truth.

No disagreement on this. But none of the responses so far have addressed the details of the theological conundrum. What you describe applies more to liturgy and non-dogmatic statements but not necessarily to dogma.

janeway refers specifically to the way in which we perceive Truth (capital T). Dogma is expressed in specific statements regarding Divine Truth. Abbot Nicholas was not merely speaking of tradition (lowercase t) or discipline.

What exactly is this “theological conundrum”? Perhaps it could be that the scholastic approach to rationalizing Divine Truth and Revelation often creates the need for further rationalization and explanation (which in turn creates the need for additional dogmatic statements)?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It’s from the beginning of his book The Orthodox Church.

Thanks! I though it sounded familiar …

He makes this analogy specifically as a means to describe “the Orthodox attitude towards western religious disputes”. At a basic level, to the Orthodox, it was the Roman Catholic Church that first separated from the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Vico]

Thanks! I though it sounded familiar …

He makes this analogy specifically as a means to describe “the Orthodox attitude towards western religious disputes”. At a basic level, to the Orthodox, it was the Roman Catholic Church that first separated from the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The issues over which Constantinople removed the Pope from the diptychs since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D., that I am aware of, have been:

• 879 A.D. - Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII)
• 903 A.D. - Antipope Christopher used the filioque
• 1006 A.D. - Pope John XVIII (1003-9) used the filioque, then Pope Sergius IV (1009-12) added it in the creed
• 1054 A.D. - Latin Church replacement of artos with azymes and removal of epiclesis (St. Pope Leo IX)

All of these things were not to be done (even in the Latin Church) according to the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

There was no supporting documentation for what happened at the last excommunication, but the Orthodox decided that too much time had passed to reverse it.