N
Nine_Two
Guest
So where is it that all this stuff about the first cause and second cause come from? If that is not Thomism, than my apologies. I was under the impression that it was.
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
And the Eparchy of Newton appears to be the entire United States.
Thank you.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Secondary cause means “through”, it does not mean Source. First Cause is Source. Mardukm’s presentation here is indeed the Thomist position.
For example, when God made my body He was the First Cause, but the matter He used was the secondary cause. God alone is the Source of my existence and of matter, but matter is still a cause of my being.
Peace and God bless!
5
5Loaves
Guest
It’s been a while since I’d listened to this. It’s unfortunate Fr. James is not very natural during most of the interview, although it seems like when he gets asked around mid way about the SSJC things get more lively I thought.
I like the interview on Ancient Faith Radio Fr. John Schroede did with Fr. Tom Loya back in 2005.
In both the Fr. John Schroede interview and the Kevin Allen interview, it was very nice that they both knew so much about the ECCs and seemed to truly want to provide a better understanding of us.
5
5Loaves
Guest
I don’t want to listen to it again to hear what exactly Fr James said but if he said something to the effect that in the scenario where Orthodoxy and the Catholic Churches come into communion again then we ECCs would disappear because we’d resume our lives in the Orthodox Churches from whence we came, how is that negative?
M
mardukm
Guest
I’d never actually read St. Thomas Aquinas on this matter. I had in mind St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
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.”
Actually, I don’t think he discussed the theology of the West at all to be able to make a comparison.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
I couldn’t access the interview. Who are Fr. Schroede and Kevin Allen? Are they Latin Catholics. If so, it is always good to see (or hear, as it were) Latin Catholics who are knowledgeable about Eastern Catholics.It’s been a while since I’d listened to this. It’s unfortunate Fr. James is not very natural during most of the interview, although it seems like when he gets asked around mid way about the SSJC things get more lively I thought.
I like the interview on Ancient Faith Radio Fr. John Schroede did with Fr. Tom Loya back in 2005.
In both the Fr. John Schroede interview and the Kevin Allen interview, it was very nice that they both knew so much about the ECCs and seemed to truly want to provide a better understanding of us.
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
Regarding the governance of the eastern Catholic churches, Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote of the temporary quality of the eastern canon laws, in the Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones (CCEO):Thus it happens that it is necessary that the canons of the Code of the Eastern Catholic Churches have the same firmness as the laws of the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church; that is, that they be in force until abrogated or changed by the supreme authority of the Church for a just cause, of which causes full communion of all of the Eastern Churches with the Catholic Church is indeed the most serious, besides being especially in accord with the desire of Our Savior Jesus Christ himself.
M
mardukm
Guest
That’s awesome! I always theorized that some of the Canons exist because of the state of schism, and have always expressed a hope that such canons will disappear once reunion is achieved. This statement from HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory validates my hope.
Blessings,
Marduk
5
5Loaves
Guest
Both interviews were on Ancient Faith Radio.
Isn’t Kevin Allen the name of the Orthodox interviewer in the link OP began this thread with, featuring Fr. James Babcock ?
Fr. John Schroedel is an Orthodox priest. Click on “Would you like to try the next date?” and the program will play. It’s called “East Meets East”.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I believe its explained this way in the CCC through Augustine.
So the difference in terminology is “cause and principle” which in essense state the same.
264 “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son” (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).
So the difference in terminology is “cause and principle” which in essense state the same.
264 “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son” (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).
M
mardukm
Guest
G
Ghosty
Guest
Didn’t think you were very familiar with Aquinas, just pointing out that what you were saying is the “Thomist” position as well.I’d never actually read St. Thomas Aquinas on this matter. I had in mind St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Blessings,
Marduk
Aquinas used Aristotle’s approach to the term “cause”, which is different from the way that term is typically used in Byzantine theology. For Aquinas, from Aristotle, everything that can in any way be said to participate in the existence of something is a cause of it. So God is my cause, my parents are my cause, carbon and H20 are my cause, love and a twinkle in my mother’s eye are my cause, ect. My First Cause, however, is God and God alone; everything else is a secondary cause, and the term Source is really only applicable to the First Cause because every other cause follows from the First Cause. Another important point to remember is that “First Cause” doesn’t imply any kind of sequence in time or steps, but rather it means that every other cause is caused by this one cause. Hence the relevance of the spring-river-lake analogy.
The fact that Aquinas was the Latin Doctor that “translated” Eastern theology into the Latin tradition is often overlooked, or not even realized, in these discussions. There’s good reason that his position is the same as St. Gregory’s, though he was expressing it in “Latinese”.
The Summa Theologica is basically the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”, by St. John of Damascus, put into a point-counterpoint format.
Peace and God bless!
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Very interesting. I’d always hoped this was the case- that the differences are largely in linguistic nuances and not necessarily substantial.
As to the Filioque, I always thought it had its scriptural basis/foundation in Revelations:
[1] And he shewed me a river of water of life . . . proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb
I always thought the above was a Trinitarian symbol according to St John’s Gospel:
[38] He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. [39] Now this he said of the Spirit. . . .
As to the Filioque, I always thought it had its scriptural basis/foundation in Revelations:
[1] And he shewed me a river of water of life . . . proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb
I always thought the above was a Trinitarian symbol according to St John’s Gospel:
[38] He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. [39] Now this he said of the Spirit. . . .
Didn’t think you were very familiar with Aquinas, just pointing out that what you were saying is the “Thomist” position as well.
Aquinas used Aristotle’s approach to the term “cause”, which is different from the way that term is typically used in Byzantine theology. For Aquinas, from Aristotle, everything that can in any way be said to participate in the existence of something is a cause of it. So God is my cause, my parents are my cause, carbon and H20 are my cause, love and a twinkle in my mother’s eye are my cause, ect. My First Cause, however, is God and God alone; everything else is a secondary cause, and the term Source is really only applicable to the First Cause because every other cause follows from the First Cause. Another important point to remember is that “First Cause” doesn’t imply any kind of sequence in time or steps, but rather it means that every other cause is caused by this one cause. Hence the relevance of the spring-river-lake analogy.
The fact that Aquinas was the Latin Doctor that “translated” Eastern theology into the Latin tradition is often overlooked, or not even realized, in these discussions. There’s good reason that his position is the same as St. Gregory’s, though he was expressing it in “Latinese”.
The Summa Theologica is basically the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”, by St. John of Damascus, put into a point-counterpoint format.
Peace and God bless!
T
Tradycja
Guest
I think St. Josaphat, Blessed Bishop Charnetsky, Blessed Leonid Feodorov, Metropolitan Sheptysky, and Mar Ivanios would be scandalized at an Eastern Catholic priest saying that we don’t want the Orthodox to become Catholic. It just shows how we have all slid into indifferentism. Sure, there were mistakes made in history with the different Unions, but the Unions were fundamentally a GOOD thing and people entering into communion with Rome is a GOOD thing.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Maybe so. I myself am not at all scandalized by it.
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 disagree.
P
Peter_J
Guest
P.S. Likewise, while I’m not looking for Orthodox to switch to Catholicism, I do believe in trying to “hold on”, as it were, to those members that the Catholic Church already has. (This partly explains the importance of de-latinization. It’s not that we’re doing it to try to get Orthodox to switch to Eastern Catholicism; rather, de-latinizing hopefully helps ECs who are thinking about switching to Orthodoxy to decide to stay Catholic.)
V
Vico
Guest
There is no scriptural basis for the filioque (internal procession), rather it was based on reasoning from “consubstantial” in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) – ὁμοούσιον τῳ πατρί (same-essence with Father).
The scripture refers to the mission of the Holy Spirit.
It was such a controversy that the creed was omitted from the Roman Mass for over two hundred years from 795 A.D., yet it was a dogma from 447 A.D. (Pope Leo I).
N
Nine_Two
Guest
And the whole “As from one principle”, that is part of the Thomist formula as well, is it not?
- Status