Eastern Church teaching

[MementoMori3283]

Latin theology is not our standard of truth. We have experienced the faith as we have experienced it. Our standard is that of the action of the Holy Spirit within the Church, not whether Rome has given its approval.

and how do you know when the Holy Spirit acts? or are you under the impression that the Holy Spirit acted once and for all time at Pentecost?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The CCC is a latin Catechism and nothing more.

With all due respect, that is your opinion and nothing more.

As expedient as it is to dismiss something or someone alternately calling someone or somethng “Latin” or “Latinized”… What does that even mean? Where does that end? At what point is something neither Eastern nor Western nor Oriental nor Protestant but just plain true? Are there no expressions of the faith that can be said to transcend different schools and distinctions and just be “Catholic?” Who decides that and who is comfortable knowing what bathwater gets thrown out and which babies get kept?

If we want to open a new can of worms altogether we could start to speculate and discuss what it even is to be “a Latin”. The Korean Catholic seminarian who studies philosophy from Greece and is in Asia and reads from Aquinas and the Greek Fathers and Scott Hahn, and Fr. Schmemann… What is he? What is that?

This idea that these schools of thought are all pristine and discrete unto themselves just does not reflect a true reality, as expedient as it might be to call them all “Latins” or “Scholastics” and dismiss them from there.

 

[jimmy]

With all due respect, that is your opinion and nothing more.

As expedient as it is to dismiss something or someone alternately calling someone or somethng “Latin” or “Latinized”… What does that even mean? Where does that end? At what point is something neither Eastern nor Western nor Oriental nor Protestant but just plain true? Are there no expressions of the faith that can be said to transcend different schools and distinctions and just be “Catholic?” Who decides that and who is comfortable knowing what bathwater gets thrown out and which babies get kept?

The CCC is an expression of Latin theology. Latin theology is not the standard for all theology.

If we want to open a new can of worms altogether we could start to speculate and discuss what it even is to be “a Latin”. The Korean Catholic seminarian who studies philosophy from Greece and is in Asia and reads from Aquinas and the Greek Fathers and Scott Hahn, and Fr. Schmemann… What is he? What is that?

This idea that these schools of thought are all pristine and discrete unto themselves just does not reflect a true reality, as expedient as it might be to call them all “Latins” or “Scholastics” and dismiss them from there.

I am not claiming that they are absolutely distinct and that there is no crossover. What I do claim is that they are based on a different mentality. The west is based on a scholastic mentality. Everything(except a few things like the Trinitarian nature of God) can be deduced through logic. The faith develops through the Church’s meditation on the faith. Whereas in the east the theology can not develop except through revelation. The Syrians have developed their theology around saints like Ephrem, James of Sarug, and Severus of Antioch. They have a completely different understanding of what theology is. They do not believe in development of doctrine and they are not scholastics. They base their theology on mystery and paradox. Knowledge of God can only come through the revelation of God, not through logic. So although there might be crossover between the traditions they have a fundamentally different approach. They read the scriptures and the fathers differently.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The CCC is an expression of Latin theology. Latin theology is not the standard for all theology.

Jimmy I don’t mean to be exasperating but the only thing you have done here in response to my original objection is rephrase it into two sentences - my questions and onjections still stand.

I am not claiming that they are absolutely distinct and that there is no crossover. What I do claim is that they are based on a different mentality. The west is based on a scholastic mentality. Everything(except a few things like the Trinitarian nature of God) can be deduced through logic. The faith develops through the Church’s meditation on the faith. Whereas in the east the theology can not develop except through revelation. The Syrians have developed their theology around saints like Ephrem, James of Sarug, and Severus of Antioch. They have a completely different understanding of what theology is. They do not believe in development of doctrine and they are not scholastics. They base their theology on mystery and paradox. Knowledge of God can only come through the revelation of God, not through logic. So although there might be crossover between the traditions they have a fundamentally different approach. They read the scriptures and the fathers differently.

Again, the blanket assumptions or statements like “The west is based on a scholastic mentality.” is so often invoked that it has just about been rendered meaningless. Further I would suggest that the vast, vast spectrum of theological thought in the Catholic world well transends this simple reduction of it all being “scholastic” or of the “scholastic mentality”. I think the two honest-to-God scholastics I have met in my life are an octogenarian Jesuit who did his own translation and commentary on the Summa and a young Dominican.

Beyond that I see little evidence to support an assertion that even most of the west today is well rooted in “scholastic” thought. For good or ill the days of manualist theology and dedication to a singular school of thought is largely in the past.

Ultimately - after we investigate and explore the differences in approach - one is left to ask (1) what allowances can legitimately be made for cross over and (2) using different vehicles, voices and schools of thought, are we arriving at substantially different understandings of Truth?

 

[jimmy]

All well and good and hard to argue otherwise…

The problem, Jimmy, is understanding who can approve anything.

An analogy that may somewhat be lacking I admit is a scenario wherein I work for the marketing department of a large corporation, and one day decide to set up a charcoal grill in the lobby and start barbecueing up a storm. The Senior VP of accounting comes in and asks what the heck I am doing, do I just say “You are from accounting, you do things differently and have different protocols, you have no authority over me!” ??

Jimmy you have latched unto this contradistinctive strain of thought and I believe created the false dichotomy that the Papacy is reduced to little more than the Patriarch of the West and the Petrine ministry exists in a fashion no more than analagous to just being the head of a local church. From there what he says or rules you equate with just being “for them” and not for all. I simply don’t think this is workable in a Catholic framework.
…

I don’t reduce things to a single strain of thought. I do have problems with the papacy though because the concept of infallibility and universal jurisdiction reduces theology to a single strain of thought. The pope defines something and it is as good as the word of God. To say otherwise is to be a heretic. The concepts it is based on have precluded that the Syriac tradition and anything other than scholasticism is erroneous.

The only way there will be reconciliation between the western theology and the various eastern theologies is if scholasticism is largely discarded. Otherwise we who do not wish to make new definitions of the faith will always be looked down upon as anti Latin or anti-dogma or liberal or something else. But the fact is that we are only holding onto the faith as it was handed on to us through our Church.

Regarding critique from outside. It is not the job of the Latins who base their theology on scholasticism to tell the Syriacs how to do theology. The fact is that it is criticism like this which has caused schisms. The criticism by the latins and Greeks of the Syriac theology did not do anything be create schism when the Syrians maintained the same faith(atleast on the issues that were being condemned) as the Greeks and Latins when it came to Christology. But the Greeks and Latins felt their theology was superior and it caused schism. I tend to think that no Tradition has failed. All particular theological traditions have been guided by the Holy Spirit. The Syrians have maintained the Faith, the Greeks have maintained the Faith, and so have the Latins.

I don’t like your analogy, it is too contradistinctive(I am not even sure if that is the word I want). It creates too much of a rift between the two. I would say it is like kids in one neighborhood who play stickball in their streets and they lay by a set of rules. They go to the next neighborhood and they see that the kids in that neighborhood play by slightly different rules. They think that the kids must submit to their own rules because they are the true rules. I think the rift is actually caused by those who think their own theology is superior, not by those who choose to do theology how their Church has always done it. Can’t we all just get along?

 

[Peter_J]

We also run into the problem - I believe - of begining to enshrine singular schools of thought as either definative or definative to us (by virtue of our ethnic heritage or church membership). From there some go so far as to treat these schools of thought as discrete and pristine traditions that are either so true and “catholic” (lower case “c”) that we need never look elsewhere for confirmation in our thinking, or have no use for anything not from that school.

Very true.

P.S. I’m reminded of this by Anthony Dragani:

The Council of Florence was largely a missed opportunity. Most of the Orthodox participants at the Council were not there out of a burning desire for Christian unity, but because their empire was about to fall to the Muslims. The Byzantine Emperor hoped that by establishing reunion with the Catholic Church that the western nations would send military aid.

Thus, the reunion was one of political expedience. Because of this, the Orthodox representatives readily agreed to everything proposed by the Latin representatives. There was no real theological discussion, and no issues were resolved. Nor could there be, for most of the Latin representatives were schooled in scholastic theology, and addressed the Council in Latin, using scholastic terminology that the Orthodox were completely unfamiliar with. According to the accounts that I have read, the Orthodox delegates sat there in bewildered silence, completely unable to comprehend what the Latins were talking about.

The Council itself was really doomed from the very start. As soon as the Orthodox delegates arrived, they were greeted with a demand by Pope Eugene IV: the Patriarch of Constantinople had to get down on his knees and kiss the feet of the pope. This outraged the Orthodox Patriarch, who refused to comply. After a tense standoff Pope Eugene eventually relented, but from that point on things were sour.

Most of the Orthodox delegates wanted to just get the reunion over with as quickly as possible, so that they could secure help for their people. However, one Orthodox Bishop - Mark of Ephesus, wanted a real theological dialogue to take place. He believed that there were serious theological controversies that had to be discussed, and he was appalled that his fellow Orthodox bishops put political expedience over issues of faith. After the Council was over, and reunion was officially proclaimed, the Orthodox bishops returned home. Upon his return Mark of Ephesus wrote vehemently against the Council, calling it a “false union,” and he stirred up public opinion against it. However, the Orthodox leadership remained in full communion with Rome right up until Constantinople fell (the promised military aid from the West never materialized). When the Muslims took over the city, they appointed Orthodox bishops who were opposed to the union, and it was officially dissolved.

In my humble opinion, one of the major reasons that the union failed was that it was a union from the top down. The common folk were not supportive of it, and in many cases bitterly opposed it. For a genuine reconciliation to occur, it must be from the bottom up. When Orthodox and Catholic Christians come to recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, they will be willing to work through the issues and reunite as one Church.

(source)

A good illustration of the dangers of having “no use for anything not from [one’s own] school”.

 

[jimmy]

We also run into the problem - I believe - of begining to enshrine singular schools of thought as either definative or definative to us (by virtue of our ethnic heritage or church membership). From there some go so far as to treat these schools of thought as discrete and pristine traditions that are either so true and “catholic” (lower case “c”) that we need never look elsewhere for confirmation in our thinking, or have no use for anything not from that school.

*I have been trying to make the point that the Eastern Traditions are equal with that of the west. The only way this will ever happen is if there is a development in the pneumatology in western ecclesiology in which the local Churches are recognized to be guided by the Spirit. The Spirits guidance is not simply of Rome and ecumenical councils. *

 

[ERose]

**
*I have been trying to make the point that the Eastern Traditions are equal with that of the west. The only way this will ever happen is if there is a development in the pneumatology in western ecclesiology in which the local Churches are recognized to be guided by the Spirit. The Spirits guidance is not simply of Rome and ecumenical councils. *

Jimmy,

I can understand that different experiences or traditions can effect our perceptions of the truth. The fact of the matter is that there is only one absolute truth. I cannot and will not believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal one idea to one group of people and another idea, that may contradict the first idea, to another group of people.

We have to have a medium as a church that defines the truths or dogmas that have been given to us by the Holy Spirit. At this time it has to be the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

We have to have a medium as a church that defines the truths or dogmas that have been given to us by the Holy Spirit. At this time it has to be the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Yikes.

 

[natsclem]

Latin theology is not our standard of truth. We have experienced the faith as we have experienced it. Our standard is that of the action of the Holy Spirit within the Church, not whether Rome has given its approval.

CCC is Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is not Catechism of Latin Church. The Catechism is not about Latin theology but about Catholic Faith and Morals to which every Catholic must subscribe in order to be saved. It contains both Eastern and Western reflections that expound the tenets of Catholic Christianity.

The action of the Holy Spirit is in perfect harmony with Christ’s Teachings delivered by the Apostles, fortified by the ministry of Peter, and continued in perpetuity by their successors. In fact, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the actions of the Chair of Peter in binding and loosing. Obedience to the Chair of Peter is obedience to Christ and is the guarantee of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy,

I can understand that different experiences or traditions can effect our perceptions of the truth. The fact of the matter is that there is only one absolute truth. I cannot and will not believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal one idea to one group of people and another idea, that may contradict the first idea, to another group of people.

We have to have a medium as a church that defines the truths or dogmas that have been given to us by the Holy Spirit. At this time it has to be the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Rome recognizes that the doctrines as they are defined are only perceptions of the Truth, they are not the Truth in themselves. We do not need a medium to define the Truth. The fact is that The Spirit is within the whole Church and that is enough to guide the Church. The CCC is not necessary in any sense. Why would we need it? What, Maronites can’t see the truth in the faith so they need Latins to tell them the true faith? Or Greeks need the Latin Church to tell them what true theology is? I am sorry but I reject this idea. The Latins can teach as they teach but we will teach as we teach. We have the faith which was handed on to us and it is living within our Churches.

CCC is Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is not Catechism of Latin Church. The Catechism is not about Latin theology but about Catholic Faith and Morals to which every Catholic must subscribe in order to be saved. It contains both Eastern and Western reflections that expound the tenets of Catholic Christianity.

It is nothing other than Latin theology as written by a few Latin cardinals. It is no more authoritative to a Maronite or a Greek Catholic than the western code of canons is binding on a Maronite. It might quote St. Isaac of Nineveh or Maximus the Confessor but it is in a western sense that ignores the whole structure of Syriac or Greek thought. It might quote St. Ephrem or other Syrians but it ignores the fact that these saints were against definitions and their whole theology was based on paradox and mystery.

The action of the Holy Spirit is in perfect harmony with Christ’s Teachings delivered by the Apostles, fortified by the ministry of Peter, and continued in perpetuity by their successors. In fact, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the actions of the Chair of Peter in binding and loosing. Obedience to the Chair of Peter is obedience to Christ and is the guarantee of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

And until this western concept changes there will never be a reuniting of the Church. The fact is the ultramontanism of the Latins has not been a source of unity but of division. You claim that it is Rome who declares a council ecumenical and it is communion with Rome that is the gaurantee of orthodoxy. Well it is on Romes head that they condemned the Church of the East as heretics when they actually held to the orthodox faith. It is on Romes head that the Oriental Orthodox were condemned as monophysites when they actually held to the true faith.

Until the west recognizes that the Spirit guides more than just Rome there will never be a true understanding of the east. Peter was not the only one who recieved the Spirit at Pentecost, all the apostles did. Every particular Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not just Rome.

 

[jimmy]

We have to have a medium as a church that defines the truths or dogmas that have been given to us by the Holy Spirit. At this time it has to be the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I am sorry, but this is a rediculous statement ERose. We do not need a human interpreter of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The Holy Spirit caused the apostles to be understood in all languages and He can’t even make the various Churches teach the true faith? He needs Rome to interpret what He is saying? That is nonsense to me.

There would be no problem if Rome did not have an excessively dogmatic attitude toward theology. Instead they continually push the theology further till there are contradictions between the various Churches. Why can’t they simply maintain the faith that was handed on to them? Instead they want to continue to define new dogmas like the mediatrix of all graces and the coredemptrix. Why is development so essential in their minds? Our diversities become simply a sort of buffet for Rome to gather together and unify under one dogmatic definition. But we do not want new definitions. We simply want the faith of our fathers.

 

[Peter_J]

I cannot and will not believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal one idea to one group of people and another idea, that may contradict the first idea, to another group of people.

So you’re saying that one revealed truth can’t contradict another reveal truth? Isn’t that just obvious?

Maybe I’m being a little dense tonight, but however I try I just can’t see the point you’re trying to make in this sentence.

 

[natsclem]

…
I am not claiming that they are absolutely distinct and that there is no crossover. What I do claim is that they are based on a different mentality. The west is based on a scholastic mentality. Everything(except a few things like the Trinitarian nature of God) can be deduced through logic. The faith develops through the Church’s meditation on the faith. Whereas in the east the theology can not develop except through revelation. The Syrians have developed their theology around saints like Ephrem, James of Sarug, and Severus of Antioch. They have a completely different understanding of what theology is. They do not believe in development of doctrine and they are not scholastics. They base their theology on mystery and paradox. Knowledge of God can only come through the revelation of God, not through logic. So although there might be crossover between the traditions they have a fundamentally different approach. They read the scriptures and the fathers differently.

Where do you get the idea that the faith of the West is based only on logic as what you seem to be trying to say?

If you say that knowledge of God can only come through revelation, that’s your opinion. But the reality is that the existence of the Supreme Being, the Creator, the Uncaused Cause, can be ascertained by reflecting on nature/creatures. This is evidence by the fact that there were men who have no access to divine revelation through the Jews affirmed the existence of a supreme being. I agree that without divine revelation such knowledge is imperfect and limited.

The Trinity or Real Presence, however, is necessarily knowable by revelation alone.

Humans as they are, the Eastern Church Fathers, though not as systematic as St. Thomas, also used logic/reasoning in presenting divine truths; otherwise, they are not humans (aliens?).

To inform you, not all teachings (products of his systematic theology) of St. Thomas or St. Augustine were accepted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Faith (product of revelation and assent to what is revealed) and Reason (product of logical exercise) work hand in hand in helping us to understand Divine truths.

 

[natsclem]

I am sorry, but this is a rediculous statement ERose. We do not need a human interpreter of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The Holy Spirit caused the apostles to be understood in all languages and He can’t even make the various Churches teach the true faith? He needs Rome to interpret what He is saying? That is nonsense to me.

There would be no problem if Rome did not have an excessively dogmatic attitude toward theology. Instead they continually push the theology further till there are contradictions between the various Churches. Why can’t they simply maintain the faith that was handed on to them? Instead they want to continue to define new dogmas like the mediatrix of all graces and the coredemptrix. Why is development so essential in their minds? Our diversities become simply a sort of buffet for Rome to gather together and unify under one dogmatic definition. But we do not want new definitions. We simply want the faith of our fathers.

You seems to generalize–you should differentiate the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the proponents (Catholic clergy–bishops and priests–and lay people) of the said doctrines.

In the first council, in Jerusalem, Peter stood up, expressed his interpretation of the revelation he received and decided on the issue on whether circumcision is necessary for salvation as what some of the new Jewish Christians was propagating. His decision was adapted by the council and voiced by James.

You reject “development of doctrine” but Christ promised that the HS will be sent to teach His followers (John 14:26). The declarations of the church councils that you subscribe to are manifestations of the development of doctrine. In the first place divine revelations are not one time all explicit. The Trinity, for example was not explicit in Judaism. During the Time of the Lord, it was not even as clear as during the council of Nicea.

You are Maronite…I was told that Maronites are never separated from Rome and I believed…until this time.

 

[Nicholas82]

You are Maronite…I was told that Maronites are never separated from Rome and I believed…until this time.

Honestly, who do you think you are? Why don’t you stick to what you know. You’re a lay-person, worry about yourself and not the Maronites.

 

[natsclem]

Honestly, who do you think you are? Why don’t you stick to what you know. You’re a lay-person, worry about yourself and not the Maronites.

Who are you too? I am addressing my statement to Jimmy who stated in his profile as Maronite. Maronites are Catholics and there is no counterpart Maronite Orthodox. Or Jimmy is only posing himself as Maronite.

If i am a lay person…so what? Are you a Patriarch?

 

[Nicholas82]

Who are you too? I am addressing my statement to Jimmy who stated in his profile as Maronite. Maronites are Catholics and there is no counterpart Maronite Orthodox. Or Jimmy is only posing himself as Maronite.

If i am a lay person…so what? Are you a Patriarch?

Who am I? I am nobody, same as you. So you believed the Maronites were Catholic until now? Based on what? One Maronite’s statement that you take issue with? You know that Maronites are Catholic and it’s none of your business implying otherwise. Are you Maronite? Do you know enough about Maronites to think that it’s your business to decide who is Maronite and who is ‘posing’ as one? My point is you don’t speak for the Maronites, nor do you speak for Roman Catholics or any other kind of Catholics… so go ahead and take issue with what Jimmy says, but don’t worry about judging an entire Church. Should everyone judge your rite by your opinions?

 

[natsclem]

Who am I? I am nobody, same as you. So you believed the Maronites were Catholic until now? Based on what? One Maronite’s statement that you take issue with? You know that Maronites are Catholic and it’s none of your business implying otherwise. Are you Maronite? Do you know enough about Maronites to think that it’s your business to decide who is Maronite and who is ‘posing’ as one? My point is you don’t speak for the Maronites, nor do you speak for Roman Catholics or any other kind of Catholics… so go ahead and take issue with what Jimmy says, but don’t worry about judging an entire Church. Should everyone judge your rite by your opinions?

Were do you find that I am judging an entire Church?

I said Maronites are Catholics. Based on Jimmy’s statements, it appears that not all Maronites are Catholics. He declared in his profile that he is Maronite but some of his statements are not Catholic. One of the members of CAF is Yeshua–he said in one of his posts that the term “Maronite” is synonymous with “Catholic”. How come that Jimmy is expressing statements that are not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Is he an Orthodox posing as a Maronite?

If he is a Maronite who does not subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church then, therefore, now, I can say that not all Maronites are Catholics.

 

[ERose]

So you’re saying that one revealed truth can’t contradict another reveal truth? Isn’t that just obvious?

Maybe I’m being a little dense tonight, but however I try I just can’t see the point you’re trying to make in this sentence.

If you follow Jimmy’s line of thought it basically means that the Holy Spirit tells one Church one thing and another something else. You are right it is ludicrous to think that this is the case. As St Paul said there is one faith, one hope, one baptism, one God and Father of All. There is only one truth and no more. Everything else is opinions.