Eastern Catholics, are they Orthodox?

[Nine_Two]

I’ve actually consistently argued in all my time here in CAF that the Latins view the Son only as the principle of being “through,” and not the principle of being “from.” I think what you perceive might be different is that in my recent debate with Cavaradossi, I attach those concepts to the terminology of “second cause” and “first cause.”

I didn’t read your discussion with Cavardossi, so I have no idea what you, or he, said.

Actually, I don’t think he discussed the theology of the West at all to be able to make a comparison.

I said they discussed the Eastern perception of Western Theology.

 

[Ghosty]

And the whole “As from one principle”, that is part of the Thomist formula as well, is it not?

Yes, and that simply means that the Father and Son aren’t two distinct causes the way that a mother and father are two causes of a child. In the classic Patristic analogy from St. John of Damascus you have the spring, the river, and the sea, or the root, the branch, and the fruit. The source of the sea is the spring, but the river is the cause “through”. The river is in no way a source of the sea, but since there is only one flowing of water from the spring to the sea there is only one principle in Thomistic terminology.

If the river contributed something of its own to the flow then you would have two principles, and this would mean that the spring is not the source of the sea, but merely one contributor of many. The same can be said of the root-branch-fruit analogy: the source of the fruit is the root, and the root alone, but the flowing of life and nature from root to branch is a single principle of the fruit. The branch is a cause of the fruit, but not the source of the fruit, and it is not a principle apart from the root.

So when Latin theology says that there is one principle of the Holy Spirit it is referring to the consubstantial and singular “flowing forth” of the Holy Spirit from the Father as Source (as Aquinas and Florence stated) and the Son as participant in the flowing, like the river and the branch in the analogies.

Hope that clears up some of the terminology!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

I studied the issue under the Dominican who teaches this subject at the Angelicum. How much deeper do I need to go?

Mardukm’s explanation here is the Thomist position, plain and simple.

Peace and God bless!

Hmmm … I rather doubt that Mardukm’s explanation here is as deep as what the Dominican at Angelicum teaches on the subject.

 

[Ghosty]

Hmmm … I rather doubt that Mardukm’s explanation here is as deep as what the Dominican at Angelicum teaches on the subject.

I didn’t say it was as detailed, just that what he said here matches the Thomist position. Nine_Two said that Mardukm was contradicting the Thomist position, hence my comment.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think that invalidates my point. (I could be wrong, seeing as I haven’t been as invested in the Thomism conversation as you three have.)

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, and that simply means that the Father and Son aren’t two distinct causes the way that a mother and father are two causes of a child. In the classic Patristic analogy from St. John of Damascus you have the spring, the river, and the sea, or the root, the branch, and the fruit. The source of the sea is the spring, but the river is the cause “through”. The river is in no way a source of the sea, but since there is only one flowing of water from the spring to the sea there is only one principle in Thomistic terminology.

If the river contributed something of its own to the flow then you would have two principles, and this would mean that the spring is not the source of the sea, but merely one contributor of many. The same can be said of the root-branch-fruit analogy: the source of the fruit is the root, and the root alone, but the flowing of life and nature from root to branch is a single principle of the fruit. The branch is a cause of the fruit, but not the source of the fruit, and it is not a principle apart from the root.

So when Latin theology says that there is one principle of the Holy Spirit it is referring to the consubstantial and singular “flowing forth” of the Holy Spirit from the Father as Source (as Aquinas and Florence stated) and the Son as participant in the flowing, like the river and the branch in the analogies.

Hope that clears up some of the terminology!

Peace and God bless!

It also clears up my original point.

The original comment is only a shallow interpretation and it goes much deeper.

Thank you.

 

[Nine_Two]

I didn’t say it was as detailed, just that what he said here matches the Thomist position. Nine_Two said that Mardukm was contradicting the Thomist position, hence my comment.

Peace and God bless!

Actually I gave up that point in my first reply to you. I didn’t realize you were still arguing that.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t think that invalidates my point. (I could be wrong, seeing as I haven’t been as invested in the Thomism conversation as you three have.)

I’m missing your point, then. I’m sorry.

Nine_Two: We’ve moved passed that, but I thought Peter J was bringing that back up. Obviously I misunderstood what he was getting at.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Sepp]

I’m not indifferent at all: if I were Orthodox, I would certainly not switch sides to become Catholic; but since I’m Catholic (barring some far-fetched plot twist in which it turns out that I’ve unknowingly been Orthodox all along) I’m not necessarily going to switch and become Orthodox. In fact I don’t consider myself free to do so without a very good reason. Do you consider that indifferentism?

I am not sure if it is considered indifferentism, but I would say that I disagree with your position if I understand it correctly. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that individuals ought to stay in the communion they are currently in, even if they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. In other words, that it doesn’t matter if one is Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

The problem is that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches believe different things about at least one major issue. And if you ask less ecumenically-minded Orthodox, you’ll get a longer list of disagreements. Fundamentally, reunion is going to mean either Catholics accepting the EO view, or Eastern Orthodox accepting the Catholic view. I just can’t see any way around that, having been on both sides of the fence. It seems to me that if we tell everyone to stay where they are and don’t try to convince them of our viewpoint, well…then we’ll stay like that forever.

 

[Peter_J]

Sepp, I did not saying that “individuals ought to stay in the communion they are currently in” – I completely believe that it’s possible for someone to be justified in switching from one side to another.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Sepp, I did not saying that “individuals ought to stay in the communion they are currently in” – I completely believe that it’s possible for someone to be justified in switching from one side to another.

But if one is right and the other is wrong, then is it not always justified to switch from wrong to right and never justified to switch from right to wrong?

 

[Vico]

I am not sure if it is considered indifferentism, … It seems to me that if we tell everyone to stay where they are and don’t try to convince them of our viewpoint, well…then we’ll stay like that forever.

This from the CDF provides some insight:

Oxford Dictionaries
indifferentism, noun: the belief that differences of religious belief are of no importance.
proselytize, verb: [with object] convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another: the program did have a tremendous evangelical effect, proselytizing many

Doctrinal Note On Some Aspects Of Evangelization (2007)
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

III. Some ecclesiological implications

1. However, the Church’s “missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also *de iure *(or in principle)”.[30] For a long time, the reason for evangelization has not been clear to many among the Catholic faithful.[31] It is even stated that the claim to have received the gift of the fullness of God’s revelation masks an attitude of intolerance and a danger to peace.
   

        Those who make such claims are overlooking the fact that the  fullness of the gift of truth, which God makes by revealing himself to man,  respects the freedom which he himself created as an indelible mark of human  nature: a freedom which is not indifference, but which is rather directed  towards truth.  This kind of respect is a requirement of the Catholic faith  itself and of the love of Christ; it is a constitutive element of evangelization  and, therefore, a good which is to be promoted inseparably with the commitment  to making the fullness of salvation, which God offers to the human race in the  Church, known and freely embraced.

IV. Some ecumenical implications

1. …

In addition, there is evangelization in countries where non-Catholic Christians live, including those with an ancient Christian tradition and culture. In this context, what is required is both true respect for the tradition and spiritual riches of such countries as well as a sincere spirit of cooperation. Catholics, “avoiding every form of indifferentism or confusion, as well as senseless rivalry, through a common profession of faith in God and in Jesus Christ before all peoples – insofar as this is possible – may collaborate with their separated brethren in social, cultural, technical and religious matters in accordance with the Decree on Ecumenism”.[45]

Ecumenism does not have only an institutional dimension aimed at “making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity”.[46] It is also the task of every member of the faithful, above all by means of prayer, penance, study and cooperation. Everywhere and always, each Catholic has the right and the duty to give the witness and the full proclamation of his faith. With non-Catholic Christians, Catholics must enter into a respectful dialogue of charity and truth, a dialogue which is not only an exchange of ideas, but also of gifts,[47] in order that the fullness of the means of salvation can be offered to one’s partners in dialogue.[48] In this way, they are led to an ever deeper conversion to Christ.

In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be a question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term.[49]

---

[45] Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 15.

[46] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (25 May 1995), 14: AAS 87 (1995), 929.

[47] Cf. ibidem, 28: AAS 87 (1995), 939.

[48] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3 and 5.

[49] The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person. It is in this sense that the term proselytism is understood in the context of the ecumenical movement: cf. The Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, “The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness” (1995).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html

 

[1AugustSon7]

This from the CDF provides some insight:

Oxford Dictionaries
indifferentism, noun: the belief that differences of religious belief are of no importance.
proselytize, verb: [with object] convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another: the program did have a tremendous evangelical effect, proselytizing many

Doctrinal Note On Some Aspects Of Evangelization (2007)
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

III. Some ecclesiological implications

1. However, the Church’s “missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also *de iure *(or in principle)”.[30] For a long time, the reason for evangelization has not been clear to many among the Catholic faithful.[31] It is even stated that the claim to have received the gift of the fullness of God’s revelation masks an attitude of intolerance and a danger to peace.
   

        Those who make such claims are overlooking the fact that the  fullness of the gift of truth, which God makes by revealing himself to man,  respects the freedom which he himself created as an indelible mark of human  nature: a freedom which is not indifference, but which is rather directed  towards truth.  This kind of respect is a requirement of the Catholic faith  itself and of the love of Christ; it is a constitutive element of evangelization  and, therefore, a good which is to be promoted inseparably with the commitment  to making the fullness of salvation, which God offers to the human race in the  Church, known and freely embraced.

IV. Some ecumenical implications

1. …

In addition, there is evangelization in countries where non-Catholic Christians live, including those with an ancient Christian tradition and culture. In this context, what is required is both true respect for the tradition and spiritual riches of such countries as well as a sincere spirit of cooperation. Catholics, “avoiding every form of indifferentism or confusion, as well as senseless rivalry, through a common profession of faith in God and in Jesus Christ before all peoples – insofar as this is possible – may collaborate with their separated brethren in social, cultural, technical and religious matters in accordance with the Decree on Ecumenism”.[45]

Ecumenism does not have only an institutional dimension aimed at “making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity”.[46] It is also the task of every member of the faithful, above all by means of prayer, penance, study and cooperation. Everywhere and always, each Catholic has the right and the duty to give the witness and the full proclamation of his faith. With non-Catholic Christians, Catholics must enter into a respectful dialogue of charity and truth, a dialogue which is not only an exchange of ideas, but also of gifts,[47] in order that the fullness of the means of salvation can be offered to one’s partners in dialogue.[48] In this way, they are led to an ever deeper conversion to Christ.

In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be a question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term.[49]

---

[45] Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 15.

[46] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (25 May 1995), 14: AAS 87 (1995), 929.

[47] Cf. ibidem, 28: AAS 87 (1995), 939.

[48] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3 and 5.

[49] The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person. It is in this sense that the term proselytism is understood in the context of the ecumenical movement: cf. The Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, “The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness” (1995).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html

This is excellent.