If I convert to orthodoxy will I go to hell?

[ziapueblo]

So maybe the council doesn’t contradict itself after all.

Take a really close reading of Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint along with the Balamand Statement.

That’s exactly the point. This council is so easily misunderstood . . .

I don’t think that’s “my understanding” is a misunderstanding of those documents. As an Orthodox Christian I believe that it is important to read these documents but we (Orthodox) are not bound by them.

(of which there is another 20)

A good number of Eastern Catholics would disagree with you here.

Blessed Holy Week to you and all the rest on the new calendar!

ZP

 

[Paul_Edwards]

A good number of Eastern Catholics would disagree with you here.

Anyone who rejects those 20 dogmatic councils whether from East or West is no catholic at all really, because they anathematize themselves from the church by contradicting statements which end with the words “let him be anathema”. These statements are dogmas which are De Fide required to be accepted. A person who rejects such statements is ipso facto excommunicated from the Catholic Church Latae sententiae

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

they anathematize themselves from the church by contradicting statements which end with the words “let him be anathema”. These statements are dogmas which are De Fide required to be accepted. A person who rejects such statements is ipso facto excommunicated from the Catholic Church Latae sententiae

I wonder, do you know if canons in the Orthodox Church act Latae sententiae? Say if someone disagrees with the recitation of certain anathemas and therefore doesn’t say them during the Synodikon of Orthodoxy on the Triumph of Orthodoxy Sunday?

 

[ziapueblo]

Interesting that recent Popes (there was a thread on this not to long ago) have called councils after the 7th Ecumenical Council onward as general councils of the West.

ZP

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Christ Our Pascha cites post-Nicea II Ecumenical Councils, so afaik the UGCC recognizes all 21 councils as ecumenical.

 

[ziapueblo]

The Eastern Catholic Churches recognize the Orthodoxy of the councils since the 7th council. Of course, most of my knowledge of the Eastern Church comes from what most would consider “rogue” Melkite lol!

ZP

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The Eastern Catholic Churches recognize the Orthodoxy of the councils since the 7th council

I don’t understand your reply. Are you referring to the Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Church since 787 or the councils in Orthodoxy?

 

[ziapueblo]

The Catholic councils.

ZP

 

[Margaret_Ann]

OK. Thank you. What confused me was the capital O. Generally, orthodoxy means “right belief” while Orthodoxy describes the Eastern and Oriental communities not in union with Rome.

 

[ziapueblo]

For some reason the word always gets autocorrected to the capital “O” lol

ZP

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Interesting that recent Popes (there was a thread on this not to long ago) have called councils after the 7th Ecumenical Council onward as general councils of the West.

Then maybe they should’ve referred to the Second Vatican Council as a general council and then there wouldn’t have been such a rift between the SSPX and Rome.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As you know, Eastern Catholics are not bound by theologia secunda. I won’t explain what it is because I know from you

However, there are two points to make- first, Papacy is theologia prima in itself without the centralisation part. Basically inerrancy of Rome, need to be in communion with Rome and primacy of Rome are all indeed found in Greek Fathers too. This is also proven by my second point- Vatican I was not purely Western Council. Melkite Patriarch attended and famously signed documents while adding Florentine cause (with regards to dignity of Eastern Patriarchs). I think it was amazing he did that because it shows what is and what is not theologia prima and hence binding upon East.

So centralisation into Rome, Cardinal Patriarchs and Canon Law from Rome are not part of Eastern tradition. At the same time, Papal Infallibility, Primacy in more than name and need for communion with Pope all are.

For Eastern Catholics to not accept Vatican I is same as to not accept Vatican II… and honestly even Florence is indeed also an Eastern-Western Council. I understand when exact definitions of Trent are not taken into account, but only essence of council is (and honestly that Council is not very ambiguous and I don’t think Orthodox have problem with Trent either but I am not sure). But to deny that Council attended by East has no significance in the East… well… last time I checked anathemas of Nicea can apply to Western Catholics too.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

St. Gregory Palamas is recognized as a saint

I have found out more information about Gregory Palamas. He is certainly not a saint and not only because he is orthodox but for other reasons also, namely for teaching a heresy which is now known by the name of Palamism. The Catholic encyclopedia in fact has a lot to say about this.

In 1720, the synod of zamosc prohibited the veneration of and even the mention of the name of Gregory Palamas in the Uniate Church. This is very revealing and the decrees of this council were ratified by Pope Benedict XIII. Perhaps other eastern rites ought to imitate this example and remember to remove him from their liturgical calendar.

 

[ziapueblo]

He is certainly not a saint and not only because he is orthodox but for other reasons also, namely for teaching a heresy which is now known by the name of Palamism.

His feast day is celebrated on the second Sunday of great Lent in the majority of Byzantine Catholic Churches, in communion with Rome (like the Byzantine Catholic Church in my area). From the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (in communion with Rome):

https://melkite.org/tag/sunday-of-gregory-palamas

As a Latin Catholic, you do not need to like St Gregory Palamas, but you are to allow Byzantine Catholics, in communion with Rome, the freedom to to publicly venerate him.

In 1720, the synod of zamosc prohibited the veneration of and even the mention of the name of Gregory Palamas in the Uniate Church.

Like I said, he is venerated in most Byzantine Catholic Churches. From the Byzantine Catholic, in communion with Rome, Sunday Gospel Reflection on St Gregory Palamas Sunday (Fr Hezekias is the executive director and founder of the Institute of Catholic Culture):

Check this out (Byzantine Catholic, in communion with Rome, reflections on Lent). They are using the late and great Fr Alexander Schmemann’s book Great Lent and yes, the Sunday of St Gregory Palamas is mentioned in the book:

Great Lent - God With Us

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

In the video, it is actually explained what Catholic Church did or did not condemn.

Palamism as a theology does not hold explicit distinction in God- that would be heresy. Nowadays Palamites simply do not do so. Even if Gregory Palamas did so (not saying he did, not saying he did not), it would still not be reason why is he venerated in Eastern Catholic Churches. Saints are venerated for sanctity of life, not necessarily theological approach and heresy is not impediment to sainthood (as history proves). Palamism as theology (without explicit distinction in God) is valid and those who profess it are correct. Latin Catholics are required to accept validity that teaching for unity of the Church (same way Eastern Catholics accept validity of Purgatory). Palamism is not theological approach of the Latin Church, but it does not contradict it either… and because we are in communion and communion means unity… and unity also carries unity of faith under it, we are required to accept validity of teaching of every Sui Iuris Church in Catholic Church and every Rite in Catholic Church.

Let’s pray that the Holy See will have reinstated into it the Holy Office to its full potential as it existed before(currently called the congregation for the doctrine of faith), so that it can deal with problems like this, and that good knowledgeable men will always be appointment to the Roman Curia

Amen!

 

[George720]

Gregory Palamas… is certainly not a saint and not only because he is Orthodox but for other reasons also, namely for teaching a heresy which is now known by the name of Palamism.

Thank-you - I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia and looked up Palamas, and read this article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm

He is one of the most beloved Saints in the Orthodox Christian Faith…

If you read his homily 53, he will be beloved by you as well…

From the article:

The story of the system of mysticism defended by the monks of Athos in the fourteenth century forms one of the most curious chapters in the history of the Byzantine Church.
In itself an obscure speculation,
with the wildest form of mystic extravagance as a result,

The Latin Scholastics simply do not have a basis for understanding Saint Gregory…
They do not understand Theology as an empirical account derived from a human-Divine encounter… It is not in any way a speculative intellectual-philosophical enterprise, as this site seems to do… It is descriptive…

The author is right that Palamas is not compatible with Latin Scholasticism…
For us, the epistemological prerequisite for knowledge of God is, instead, repentance…

geo

 

[ziapueblo]

This is a terrible mistake which will hopefully one day be rectified.

Read Orientalium Dignitas, On the Churches of the East, Pope Leo XIII - 1894:

Orientalium Dignitas - Papal Encyclicals

Also: DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES
OF THE EASTERN RITE ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...cree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

And finally, APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORIENTALE LUMEN OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II:

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ts/hf_jp-ii_apl_19950502_orientale-lumen.html

Enjoy!

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Latin Scholastics simply do not have a basis for understanding Saint Gregory…
They do not understand Theology as an empirical account derived from a human-Divine encounter… It is not in any way a speculative intellectual-philosophical enterprise, as this site seems to do… It is descriptive…

I wouldn’t say that. Latin Church did indeed practice something akin to hesychasm, and while it is true Latins define things, it is not necessarily different from what Early Church did. In the end, Greek Church was not so ambiguous about things as it is now early on (and that is, of course, tradition which developed and is in itself fully legitimate). What Latin Scholastics argue against is denial of Divine Simplicity. Divine Simplicity itself is fundamental dogma which does actually come from empirical understanding of God! After all, Greek Church held that too and so did Eastern Fathers (which is also why Filioque was such a problem for Photius etc).

Latins did not understand Palamistic distinction as descriptive but as real, and hence they thought Palamas is denying Divine Simplicity. In the end, Palamite language is in itself a bit harder to understand and does suggest that was the case (as shown in the video), but since what was handed down through Palamites is NOT denial of Divine Simplicity, Palamism itself in current form is not heretical neither does it go against Scholasticism. One can question whether Gregory Palamas truly held current form of Palamism, but one can not question validity of current form of Palamism… in the end it is quite clear there were those in history who would think Palamism makes real distinction in God and hence denies Divine Simplicity (actually even some Palamites, which confused Latins as much as Greeks were confused when some Latins really believed in double procession of Holy Spirit).

Misunderstanding of doctrine from inside and outside fermented feeling that other side has heretical beliefs, but that was not the case as it is shown today when we speak officially what our theology holds.

EDIT: And yeah I am kinda repeating myself for sake of it, but even if Gregory Palamas would hold heretical notion of Palamism not held by current Palamites, that does not mean he can not be Saint or that he can not be venerated. He surely displayed Sanctity of Life and also contributed to theological approach of Eastern Church (even if it was somehow not 100% correct contribution, thanks to him there was correct outcome). I am not saying he held or did not hold that, I am simply presenting extreme “if” scenario for sake of argument.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

While I agree with everything you said about Palamism, neither of those documents would apply in this scenario IF (and that is not true) Palamism was heresy. Since then it would not be Apostolic Tradition neither tradition of the East- it would simply be heresy and hence it would enjoy no protection from correction (otherwise Church would lose status as guardian of truth and deny it’s creator, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ). Basically not everything developed in the East is really part of deposit of faith, neither is everything developed in the West.

For example, Eastern “tradition” of not needing to be in communion with Rome and to deny inerrancy of Rome is indeed something that grew as post-schism tradition, but enjoys no protection based on above documents. Neither does centralization of Church to Rome enjoy protection based on any single Latin tradition.

That does not, in this context, apply to Palamism- because it is not heresy. However Paul does not deny Palamism because it is Eastern or isn’t Latin- he denies it because he sees it as heretical (or video he linked does). Hence those documents do not change anything in his view in themselves. If Palamism (and it is) is correct there is no need to deny it anyway, and if it is incorrect (it is not incorrect) those documents can not change that. Palamism is not accepted by Church because it came from East or because Eastern Orthodoxy accepts it, Palamism is accepted by Church because it is true!

 

[AlbMagno]

The Church has a policy of only declaring formally something as dogma when it is threatened by a heresy or external philosophy. Once you understand this it will be much easier to understand Catholic history and theology.