Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[tdgesq]

EXACTLY-- my point and the point of many others on this thread. The RCC not only assumes the dominance of Latin theological constructs in certain cases, it actually imposes them. It is insufficient for certain dogmatic statements to take refuge in the “we believe the same end but have different theological expressions of it” in cases in which the RCC has made a contrary dogmatic statement as to the proper expression, in addition to the end.

Yet up to this point, you haven’t been able to give us any. You give conclusions about dogmatic “theological expressions” the RCC teaches without any support. I’ve been through this drill at least half a dozen times with Orthodox who believe they know what the Roman Catholic Church Teaches.

I’m glad to see an Eastern Catholic finally recognizing that the concept of two or more theologies in one church is, indeed, a farce (your words; not mine).

Really? Hesychios’ profile states he’s OCA.

Methinks that this is a bit uncalled for. Ott is, in fact, a decent reference source.

So do I.

However, people on this thread apparently believe that some of us refuse to work with original texts and are comfortable simply quoting a secondary source, just because a comment we make may be mirrored in Ott.

If you tell me that you didn’t take your prior statement about Mary’s sinlessness from Ott’s FCD at p.203 1974 edition, then I will apologize. It just strikes me a little bit funny that you cite Trent and Mystici Corporis in the same order as Ott for a proposition that - well - doesn’t give the same dogmatic conclusion that you came to, which is actually this: “In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.)”

There’s no dancing on quicksand at all when one refers to magisterial authorities applicable to the entire RCC (such as the documents of ecumenical councils, the CCC, and papal encylicals) when those happen also to be “latin sources.”

I didn’t realize that all statements from the CCC and papal encyclicals, even all statements from ecumenical councils, constituted divinely revealed truth. Is that what you think?

We’re working with original documents but still aren’t getting it-- other than, perhaps, clarifying the notion that having one’s cake and eating it, too, is much rarer than EC’s appear to believe.

Your misunderstandings of RC dogma are many if your statements here, the particular issue of Mary’s sinlessness and the IC are any judge. I mean, you couldn’t even make your case from non-dogmatic sources. Maybe you should stick to what the Eastern Orthodox believe.

 

[East_and_West]

The filioque was essentially made dogma before the Great schism. The pope inserted it into the creed for the liturgy in Rome. There is nothing more authoritative than the liturgy. If it has entered the liturgy it is dogma to those who have entered it in. The east however did not add it. This is the beginning to the schism.

It was made dogma at a Ecumenical council. Plain and simple.

 

[jimmy]

It was made dogma at a Ecumenical council. Plain and simple.

It was entered into the liturgy long before the councils of constance and florence. The liturgy is just as authoritative than any council. For Rome to insert it into the liturgy is to say it is dogma, especially since Rome claims infallibility. The filioque was part of the cause of the schism. To say that it caused a schism between the latins and the greeks but was not considered dogma is not consistent. From what I recall Cardinal Humbert excommunicated the Greeks because they did not include the filioque in the creed.

 

[East_and_West]

It was entered into the liturgy long before the councils of constance and florence. The liturgy is just as authoritative than any council. For Rome to insert it into the liturgy is to say it is dogma, especially since Rome claims infallibility. The filioque was part of the cause of the schism. To say that it caused a schism between the latins and the greeks but was not considered dogma is not consistent. From what I recall Cardinal Humbert excommunicated the Greeks because they did not include the filioque in the creed.

Regardless of what schisms resulted, it was defined in council. Period.That is that. And as for the liturgy, you know very well it changes from time to time.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The filioque was essentially made dogma before the Great schism. The pope inserted it into the creed for the liturgy in Rome. There is nothing more authoritative than the liturgy. If it has entered the liturgy it is dogma to those who have entered it in. The east however did not add it. This is the beginning to the schism.

The first use of the filioque was in the East.

As Johannes Grohe has pointed out, a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son.” Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

It was found in the west after the council of Toledo (589) for almost 3 full centuries before the Photian controversy.

While a whole cottage industry has arrisen among Eastern polemicists on the matter, I am sometimes left to wonder - what came first, the chicken or the egg on this one. Did it in fact lead to the schism, or was it, ex post facto, an expedient reason to offer in the wake of schism?

Rather like the memorable scene in Casablanca:

Rick: *How can you close me up? On what grounds?
*Captain Renault: *I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir. ***
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] *Oh, thank you very much. *[aloud]
Captain Renault: *Everybody out at once! *

What could be found in the East, and lived with in the west for centuries, is now offered as a first cause and justification of a schism. To be clear, centuries of polemic on this and other matters have offered some excellent and pat talking points to some apologists.

But really all of this rises or falls on the merits or demerits of the papacy and concepts of authority as well as what constitutes a legitimate ecumenical council.

 

[Hesychios]

The first use of the filioque was in the East.

By a heretical council, no?

Does that church use it today?

It was found in the west after the council of Toledo (589) for almost 3 full centuries before the Photian controversy.

This should tell you an enormous amount of information about how the early church worked.

There was no telegraph or other means of modern communication, no ad limina visits…that sort of thing. The Mozarabic church in Spain simply acted on their own. The Creed in that version spread slowly across the northwest of Europe over several hundred years, as local churches were introducing the Creed into the Mass (no, they did not normally recite the Creed in the Mass at this time), this is not like today where a GIRM comes out from some department in Rome and everyone knows about it, including within instructions on how and when to stand and that sort of thing.

The East did not know what was transpiring until many years had passed and Frankish monks or priests were showing up in eastern countries reciting the altered version.

It took a long time for the altered Creed to spread in the west, and a while to even get noticed by the east, because in the ecclesiology of the day the bishops of Rome were not looking over everyones shoulders, and the eastern Catholic Patriarchs weren’t looking over anyones shoulders. They tended to business in their local synods, and trusted their brother bishops to do their jobs.

We hear about how Orthodox are concerned about problems in the Latin church and how it’s really none of their business…well, that’s really just how it was. The east didn’t assume anything was wrong until it was in their face, literally. Even still, the east (or, if you rather: the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and Synods) remonstrated with the western church, calling upon it to step up with corrections. I think that was the right approach.

…I am sometimes left to wonder - what came first, the chicken or the egg on this one. Did it in fact lead to the schism, or was it, ex post facto, an expedient reason to offer in the wake of schism?

How much do you really know about the great schism anyway?

Do we have to go into that on your invitation in this, the EASTERN CATHOLIC forum?

It was the ROMAN Catholic church delegation of Cardinals which excommunicated the EASTERN Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople, and all who follow him…

For what?

FOR DELETING THE FILIOQUE FROM THE CREED!
(how did they come to that conclusion )

Was that the chicken, or the egg talking? And why do you impute the motives of Eastern Catholic patriarchs and synods of the eleventh century?

Michael

 

[jimmy]

Regardless of what schisms resulted, it was defined in council. Period.That is that. And as for the liturgy, you know very well it changes from time to time.

Are you refering to what happened since VII with the change in the liturgy? Yes, I realize the west has completely changed its liturgy. That still doesn’t change the fact that the liturgy is the place of theology par exelence. It is communion with God. In the liturgy we are taken up into heaven. My reference to Cardinal Humbert shows that the west considered it to be dogma before the schism occured. Yes, the west proclaimed the filioque in a council after the schism, but there was no one to defend the east. It was the west simply anathematizing the east because the east held to the faith which was handed on to them and given by the ecumenical councils.

 

[Hesychios]

It was made dogma at a Ecumenical council. Plain and simple.

What year?

1274AD, while most of the East was under military occupation, and latin bishops had been placed on the Patriarchal thrones…220 years after cardinals Humbert and Frederic excommunicated the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs for dropping it from the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Michael

 

[mardukm]

What year?

1274AD, while most of the East was under military occupation, and latin bishops had been placed on the Patriarchal thrones…220 years after cardinals Humbert and Frederic excommunicated the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs for dropping it from the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Michael

It was actually one of the last three of the seven Councils (not sure which). During the Council of Florence, one of the Latin representatives presented a Greek copy of the Creed recited at one of these Councils, and the copy included filioque. Apparently, there was a time when filioque presented no problem to the entire Church East/Orient and West? Until Photius, that is.

To be honest, though I am sure of the facts, I am not sure about the dates of what I stated above. I’ll have to go over my notes.

Blessings.

 

[mardukm]

Are you refering to what happened since VII with the change in the liturgy? Yes, I realize the west has completely changed its liturgy. That still doesn’t change the fact that the liturgy is the place of theology par exelence. It is communion with God. In the liturgy we are taken up into heaven. My reference to Cardinal Humbert shows that the west considered it to be dogma before the schism occured. Yes, the west proclaimed the filioque in a council after the schism, but there was no one to defend the east. It was the west simply anathematizing the east because the east held to the faith which was handed on to them and given by the ecumenical councils.

I thought the first round of anathematisms based on Filioque came from Photius?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

The East did not know what was transpiring until many years had passed and Frankish monks or priests were showing up in eastern countries reciting the altered version.

It took a long time for the altered Creed to spread in the west, and a while to even get noticed by the east, because in the ecclesiology of the day the bishops of Rome were not looking over everyones shoulders, and the eastern Catholic Patriarchs weren’t looking over anyones shoulders. They tended to business in their local synods, and trusted their brother bishops to do their jobs.

We hear about how Orthodox are concerned about problems in the Latin church and how it’s really none of their business…well, that’s really just how it was. The east didn’t assume anything was wrong until it was in their face, literally. Even still, the east (or, if you rather: the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and Synods) remonstrated with the western church, calling upon it to step up with corrections. I think that was the right approach.

The problem I have with this Eastern Orthodox interpretation of history is the holy example of St. Maximus. What differentiates him from other Eastern Christians who condemned and refused to even hear what the Latin Church had to say about filioque?

Was it not a Greek monk who first made waves regarding Filioque in the sixth century? Was it not, again, Greek monks who complained about the West’s Tradition to Photius? Was it not Photius who hurled the first anathematisms regarding Filioque?

Latin Catholics seem so willing to humbly admit their part in the Schism, yet Eastern Orthodox seem to want to simply rewrite history in order to avoid any blame in the matter!

Sorry for being tough, brother Michael, but it had to be said.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ronyodish]

By a heretical council, no?

Michael,

Johannes Grohe is referring to the Church of the East synod of Mar Isaac of 410 in Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Here is some info. from the book The Church of the East: A concise history:

---

Conformity with the beliefs of the Church of the Roman Empire was firmly established at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410, though the canons and the creed were not simply assumed. The canons were adjusted to meet the needs of the Church of the East, and the creed was altered on the basis of a local Persian creed:

We believe in one God, Father, who in his Son made heaven and earth; and in him were established the worlds above and that are below; and in him he effected the resurrection and renovation for all creation.
…And in his Son, the Only-Begotten who was born from him, that is, however, from the essence of his Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; he was born and was not made; who is of the same nature as his Father; who for the sake of us human beings who were created through him, and for the sake of our salvation, descended and put on a body and became man, and suffered and rose on the third day, and ascended to heaven and took his seat at the right hand of his Father; and he is coming in order to judge the dead and the living.
…And we confess the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son;
…And in one Trinity and in one Essence and in one will.
(Trans. S. P. Brock)

This creed is a wonderful historical example of an agreement of faith despite differing formulations. The conformity with the Council of Nicaea is expressed in words the Persian fathers deemed adequate for their church.​

Does that church use it today?

Today:

Assyrian Church of the East: Words of the Nicaean Creed
Chaldean Catholic Church of the East: The Symbol of Faith

Check also this: The procession of the Holy Spirit

---

On the Holy Spirit, there was no historical disagreement between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church. In both our traditions, efforts were made to avoid neo-Arian influence in the explanation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed: In the Holy Trinity there can be no contradiction to the Monarchy of the Father. The Father alone is the Principle without principle, the sole Cause of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In the Holy Spirit the relationship between the Father and the Son attains Trinitarian perfection since the Spirit takes his origin from the Father, as the Father of the Son.​

God bless,

Rony

 

[Woodstock]

It was entered into the liturgy long before the councils of constance and florence. The liturgy is just as authoritative than any council.
East and West;3016914:

And as for the liturgy, you know very well it changes from time to time.

lex orandi, lex credendi

As we worship, so we believe. With a change of the liturgy comes the real potential for a change in the faith.

 

[East_and_West]

Are you refering to what happened since VII with the change in the liturgy? Yes, I realize the west has completely changed its liturgy. That still doesn’t change the fact that the liturgy is the place of theology par exelence. It is communion with God. In the liturgy we are taken up into heaven. My reference to Cardinal Humbert shows that the west considered it to be dogma before the schism occured. Yes, the west proclaimed the filioque in a council after the schism, but there was no one to defend the east. It was the west simply anathematizing the east because the east held to the faith which was handed on to them and given by the ecumenical councils.

No. What i am refering to is that fact that the Church has not always used the divine liturgy of St. John Crysostem and there was a time when there was no Nicean creed in the liturgy because that creed did not exist. To deny that the Liturgy has changed over time is simply silly.

 

[ronyodish]

I don’t deny the IC, I simply see it through an Eastern theological perspective. In the Chaldean Church, we call Mary in classical Aramaic as Malyath Taibootha or in modern Aramaic as Mleetha Ni’ma, which means Full of or Filled with Grace. We see her as full of grace from her conception onward.

In addition to this previous posting of mine, here is some additional info. in regards the Virgin Mary as seen in the Joint Committee for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East in this link that I just posted:

---

The Blessed Virgin Mary

The Blessed Virgin Mary holds a very important position in both our spiritual traditions. Reading liturgical and theological texts from the Church of the East, we have discovered that the Assyrian Church of the East shares with the Catholic Church the same faith in regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary: that she was preserved from every sin, since the moment of her conception; that she became the “Mother of Jesus Christ our God and Savior”; that she already participates fully in the fruits of redemption, being glorified in heaven with her Son, in the totality of her person; and that the Church can rely on her constant intercession for help and protection.​

God bless,

Rony

 

[jimmy]

No. What i am refering to is that fact that the Church has not always used the divine liturgy of St. John Crysostem and there was a time when there was no Nicean creed in the liturgy because that creed did not exist. To deny that the Liturgy has changed over time is simply silly.

Who says it hasn’t changed? I haven’t. But they do not contradict the liturgy that they already have. I am not byzantine so the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is irrelevant to me. I am Maronite, we follow the liturgy of St. James which predates that of St. John. Adding the creed to the liturgy does not change the liturgy, it makes the creed dogmatic in the highest sense.

 

[East_and_West]

Who says it hasn’t changed? I haven’t. But they do not contradict the liturgy that they already have. I am not byzantine so the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is irrelevant to me. I am Maronite, we follow the liturgy of St. James which predates that of St. John. Adding the creed to the liturgy does not change the liturgy, it makes the creed dogmatic in the highest sense.

The Filioque does not contradict the Liturgy. If the Creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeeds from the Father and only the Father, not the Son at all, then we would be contradicting the liturgy. But it does not say that. Rather it initially said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is silent on the issue of the Son. So contradiction here. And don’t try to say that because the creed was silent on the matter we shouldn’t believe it. There was a time when there was no creed in the liturgy mentioning that Christ is of one substance with the Father. It doesn’t mean that the Church should not have believed that.

 

[jimmy]

The Filioque does not contradict the Liturgy. If the Creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeeds from the Father and only the Father, not the Son at all, then we would be contradicting the liturgy. But it does not say that. Rather it initially said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is silent on the issue of the Son. So contradiction here. And don’t try to say that because the creed was silent on the matter we shouldn’t believe it. There was a time when there was no creed in the liturgy mentioning that Christ is of one substance with the Father. It doesn’t mean that the Church should not have believed that.

I wasn’t implying that it contradicts the liturgy. I was simply trying to show that if it is inserted into the liturgy then it is considered dogma. As woodstock said, lex orandi, lex credendi. The way of worship is the way of belief. The council of Florence did not make it dogma according to the west. The west already considered it dogma. All Constance and Florence did was to anathematize those who did not accept the Latin distinction. You said earlier that the Latin Church only made it dogma when the Church was only latins. That is false. It inserted it into the liturgy before the schism. Therefore Rome considered it to be dogma before the schism.

 

[East_and_West]

I wasn’t implying that it contradicts the liturgy. I was simply trying to show that if it is inserted into the liturgy then it is considered dogma. As woodstock said, lex orandi, lex credendi. The way of worship is the way of belief. The council of Florence did not make it dogma according to the west. The west already considered it dogma. All Constance and Florence did was to anathematize those who did not accept the Latin distinction. You said earlier that the Latin Church only made it dogma when the Church was only latins. That is false. It inserted it into the liturgy before the schism. Therefore Rome considered it to be dogma before the schism.

Interesting take on the situation. I guess you can say that the West did that before the schism. BUT it was in council that it was formally promulgated with an ananthema all.

 

[jimmy]

Interesting take on the situation. I guess you can say that the West did that before the schism. BUT it was in council that it was formally promulgated with an ananthema all.

I can not contest that. You are correct.