Eastern Catholics and Dogma

[ciero]

Paul VI certainly left open that door which was very helpful indeed to East-West relations (and ALSO to our own EC ecclesiology!).

Good for you! I love it when you allow the Popes to defend us!

Alex

Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do!

Especially when dealing with these rabid Latins!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Right, it does deny the double procession.
But is it not a problem since it says “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son,…” Doesn’t the East object to this?

No, the East objects to double procession.

It also objects to the Creed being changed with out an ecumenical council. The Filioque was added without a council even though a later council of the West (no Eastern Bishops involved) may have ratified this it still was not added with the Easts consent.

We have also been called to return to the Creed as it was given to us, sans Filioque.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

WE celebrate the seven Ecumenical Councils. This unites us. Byzantine and Romans. The Romans had high councils, so did we following the Seven Great Councils. I don’t think they are “Binding” in the same sense as they are in the west. But certainly we must preserve the same faith that flows throughout the universal church. The quintext council of Trullo which is our regional council that governs our clerical laws, is not binding on the west. Why should the Lateran councils on us. Even moreso.

Why should we impose the Seven Ecumenical councils on the Chaldeans or Orientals in Communion with Rome. TO what do we hold them to? They have local councils in their traditions that govern their theology and canon law. But certainly they must hold the same faith we and the Romans do in it’s fundamental truths.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

If Eastern Catholics are not expected to accept some doctrines that came from the post-ecumenical councils, how can they be called Catholic in regard that a Catholic must accept the universal teachings of the Church?

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

If Eastern Catholics are not expected to accept some doctrines that came from the post-ecumenical councils, how can they be called Catholic in regard that a Catholic must accept the universal teachings of the Church?

My friend. It is not the faith that we are saying we reject. But the manner in which it is presented and taught.

When Christianity came to the Celts, or the Slavs, or the Nubians, It was that same faith of the Church of Christ, but how each culture, how each people came to understand that was through their own particular lens. And through the ages, these lenses have codified into traditions, or regions (Coptic, Byzantine, Roman, Anglican, Chaldean).

Where a Roman says Grace, we say the Ministry of the Holy Spirit. Where a Roman says Sanctification, we say Theosis. Where the Romans say Purgatory the Syrians say the mystical fire of God.

It is the same, Immutable truth of the Kingdom of God revealed to his people according to their respective understandings. Unity and Uniformity need not mean the same, if by Unity we mean TRUE UNITY by that which was believed everywhere, at all times, and by all. It is the CATHOLIC that matters. Not whether one is Roman, or Syrian.

 

[FCCopleston]

Would it be fair to say that the Eastern Church confesses that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father* through* the Son, and not also from the Son?

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Would it be fair to say that the Eastern Church confesses that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father* through* the Son, and not also from the Son?

In Christ,
FCCopleston

I think this reply answers your question.

Well, get a load of this folks. This is the first article of the Union of Brest:

“Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”

Shut my mouth, and make me a monkey’s uncle!

 

[JackQ]

And if the Latin Catholic Church had adhered to this theological expression, there would never have been any split between East and West.

What the Eastern bishops are saying here is that “how we have always believed is the way we will continue to believe” - no mention of the Filioque at all.

Alex

Well, I don’t know about that. I don’t think the split originally had anything to do with the Filioque directly.

 

[JackQ]

No, the East objects to double procession.

It also objects to the Creed being changed with out an ecumenical council. The Filioque was added without a council even though a later council of the West (no Eastern Bishops involved) may have ratified this it still was not added with the Easts consent.

We have also been called to return to the Creed as it was given to us, sans Filioque.

We Latin Catholics don’t believe in a “double procession” either. You know that, right?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We Latin Catholics don’t believe in a “double procession” either. You know that, right?

Yes I know that the West does not teach “double procession” but unfortunately this is not clearly taught to the laity so many of them (some who post here) thinks that the filioque is teaching “double procession”.

Hence the issue many of them have with us Byzantine Catholics not reciting the filioque in the Creed we use.

 

[DL82]

Eastern Catholics accept 7 Ecumenical councils…all the rest are local councils of the Western Church…all the Popes since Paul VI have taught this.

So does this mean Vatican I and II (and therefore the doctrine of papal infallibility) are local councils of the Western Church? Why, then, were Eastern bishops and patriarchs in attendance?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

If Eastern Catholics are not expected to accept some doctrines that came from the post-ecumenical councils, how can they be called Catholic in regard that a Catholic must accept the universal teachings of the Church?

That is a good question! Eastern Catholics do not really see anything in the “14 later Latin Counncils” that adds to what they already believe. Trent was called to deal with the Protestant Reformation - something that was totally foreign to the East.

Even the union Councils of Lyons and Florence affirmed what the Eastern Churches already believed within the context of their own theology. Those councils were basically the Latin Church trying to get the East to accept Latin scholastic terminology.

In fact, those Councils demonstrated the narrowness of the Latin Church in equating its theological terminology/perspectives with the truth of the Orthodox Faith of the universal Catholic Church.

In terms of the declaration of papal infallibility - the Orthodox Church always believed that the Church, the Body of Christ, is infallible (how could it not be?). Eastern Catholics believe that a pope may ONLY define/refine what is already contained within the deposit of the Apostolic Faith. That is not at variance with what Latin Catholics believe.

In effect, we would advance the argument that the later 14 Latin Councils are Local Councils only that affect the internal issues of the Latin Church alone. Now, in the Orthodox East, there are canons affecting church discipline and the like taken from Local Councils which can be made universal by the Church.

But ultimately, unless it can be shown that Latin theological terminology is superior to all else, and that what Latin defined dogma proclaims is not already accepted by the Eastern Churches, the Latin Church’s later 14 Councils really have no bearing on the East.

I know Traditionalist Catholics who accept 13 later Latin Councils only . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

So does this mean Vatican I and II (and therefore the doctrine of papal infallibility) are local councils of the Western Church? Why, then, were Eastern bishops and patriarchs in attendance?

Eastern Catholic bishops and patriarchs were in attendance - hardly the entire East.

And nomatter how many EC primates were in attendance at Vatican II, for example, this does not take away from the fact that it was a Western Council.

Even the document on the Eastern Catholic Churches was a “Latin document on the East.”

That document was really about giving back to the EC Churches the patrimony they had lost either through overt Latinization or through their own historical negligence.

Also, I think we need to raise an important issue with respect to what defines an Ecumenical Council.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils were called together to defend the Orthodox Faith of the universal Catholic Church when certain aspects of that Faith, handed down by Christ to the Apostles, were under attack by heretics. Each Council condemned the heresy involved and defined explicitly the articles of Faith that the Church always believed in for the entire Church.

Trent certainly condemned the a priori’s of Protestantism and defined Catholic doctrine against these.

So the participation of the entire Church is not the only prerequisite for an Ecumenical Council.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

If Eastern Catholics are not expected to accept some doctrines that came from the post-ecumenical councils, how can they be called Catholic in regard that a Catholic must accept the universal teachings of the Church?

Which doctrines are those? The Feast of the Holy Conception of the Mother of God, for instance, was established by the Eastern Church and Catholic England, in the sixth century, was the first to receive it in the West.

The East has ALWAYS venerated profoundly the All-Immaculate and All-Holy Mother of God from her Conception through to her Dormition and bodily assumption into Heaven.

The West cannot teach us anything in regards to veneration of the Mother of God. In fact, I think the West today has much to learn from the East in this respect.

The East is much less prone to dogmatizing and prefers the “lex orandi, lex credendi” approach. If something is contained within the rich panoply of liturgical prayer, it does not need to be “defined” or “dogmatized” (a characteristically Roman Catholic preoccupation).

It is only when a doctrine comes under direct attack from heretics that an Ecumenical or Local Council needs to be called to condemn the heresy/heretics and clearly define the doctrine.

And the East has been mercifully spared the errors of the Reformation and of Modernism.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Would it be fair to say that the Eastern Church confesses that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father* through* the Son, and not also from the Son?

In Christ,
FCCopleston

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds ACTIVELY from the Father but PASSIVELY from the Son.

This truth is brilliantly summed up in the Eastern “From the Father through the Son.”

Aquinas affirmed both expressions as being equally valid and orthodox.

To say that the Spirit proceeds “through the Son” is the same as saying “from the Son” from the Roman Catholic scholastic perspective.

Except that the former is a more theologically refined and more careful expression.

Alex

 

[DL82]

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds ACTIVELY from the Father but PASSIVELY from the Son.

This truth is brilliantly summed up in the Eastern “From the Father through the Son.”

Aquinas affirmed both expressions as being equally valid and orthodox.

To say that the Spirit proceeds “through the Son” is the same as saying “from the Son” from the Roman Catholic scholastic perspective.

Except that the former is a more theologically refined and more careful expression.

Alex

I suppose a pragmatic test would be to ask whether the filioque, properly understood, leads to any different conclusions with regard to the different dimensions of theology:
Theologically - can we say anything different about God adopting the Latin and Eastern formulations about the spiration of the third Person of the Trinity?
Christologically - do we arrive at a different understanding of the identity of Christ based on these different formulations?
Morally - ought we, in imitation of God, to behave differently depending on which of these understandings we hold?
Eschatologically - can we say anything different about God’s purpose and the purpose of life based on our understanding of the Holy Spirit in East and West?
Ecclesiologically - does the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, act or constitute itself differently on the basis of its understanding of whether the Spirit proceeds ‘from’ or ‘through’ the Son?

If none of these are different in any way, then it would seem we believe the same things.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I suppose a pragmatic test would be to ask whether the filioque, properly understood, leads to any different conclusions with regard to the different dimensions of theology:
Theologically - can we say anything different about God adopting the Latin and Eastern formulations about the spiration of the third Person of the Trinity?
Christologically - do we arrive at a different understanding of the identity of Christ based on these different formulations?
Morally - ought we, in imitation of God, to behave differently depending on which of these understandings we hold?
Eschatologically - can we say anything different about God’s purpose and the purpose of life based on our understanding of the Holy Spirit in East and West?
Ecclesiologically - does the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, act or constitute itself differently on the basis of its understanding of whether the Spirit proceeds ‘from’ or ‘through’ the Son?

If none of these are different in any way, then it would seem we believe the same things.

I think we do!

However, the Triadology of the East seems to emphasize to a great degree the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church, Theosis etc.

I don’t really see the same emphasis in the West (unless you mean the Charismatic Movement . . . OK I apologise for that! ).

Alex

 

[Aramis]

I suppose a pragmatic test would be to ask whether the filioque, properly understood, leads to any different conclusions with regard to the different dimensions of theology:
Theologically - can we say anything different about God adopting the Latin and Eastern formulations about the spiration of the third Person of the Trinity?
Christologically - do we arrive at a different understanding of the identity of Christ based on these different formulations?
Morally - ought we, in imitation of God, to behave differently depending on which of these understandings we hold?
Eschatologically - can we say anything different about God’s purpose and the purpose of life based on our understanding of the Holy Spirit in East and West?
Ecclesiologically - does the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, act or constitute itself differently on the basis of its understanding of whether the Spirit proceeds ‘from’ or ‘through’ the Son?

If none of these are different in any way, then it would seem we believe the same things.

Without “through the Son”, the gospel passages concerning Christ and the Spirit can be misinterpreted to lead to two spirits: the Father’s and the Son’s.

With the Latin credo, when understood as “originating in the Father, and flowing forth the Father and the Son,” it reveals the unity of the preextant Spirit with the Father and the Son, and that the Will of the Son affects the Spirit.

 

[JackQ]

Without “through the Son”, the gospel passages concerning Christ and the Spirit can be misinterpreted to lead to two spirits: the Father’s and the Son’s.

With the Latin credo, when understood as “originating in the Father, and flowing forth the Father and the Son,” it reveals the unity of the preextant Spirit with the Father and the Son, and that the Will of the Son affects the Spirit.

This is an excellent point. My only concern with “through the Son” language is that it might give the impression that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son exclusively.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is an excellent point. My only concern with “through the Son” language is that it might give the impression that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son exclusively.

Doesn’t He?