T
Thomas48
Guest
This is not the case my friend, for us Eastern Catholics what Rome says is law no matter what our hierarchs have to say on it. My community is a great example of Rome giving a “take it or leave it agreement”.
- Status
I mean that Rome tells the Eastern Churches to keep their traditions whole and entire inside of a formal document. It does not matter what you call this council, the fact remains that we have full approval of Rome to be Eastern.
A
AdvanceAlways
Guest
But does full permission to be Eastern mean to deny Catholic dogmas? I do want to emphasize again that I do love the Eastern Catholic Churches, I am a registered member of a Ruthenian parish. I love that the Eastern Churches are reclaiming their authentic patrimony, but I just don’t understand why one would want union with Rome if one outright rejects the dogma of the Catholic religion?I mean that Rome tells the Eastern Churches to keep their traditions whole and entire inside of a formal document. It does not matter what you call this council, the fact remains that we have full approval of Rome to be Eastern.
D
Denho
Guest
We believe union with the Bishop of Rome is, all in all, a good thing impelling towards the unity desired by our Lord. Schism for schism’s sake is not something to aim for.
What we disagree about is “the dogma of the Catholic religion.” If this is to mean the truly catholic sense of the term, then we do not reject anything. If one means “the particular expression of the Roman Church, formulated as such” then no, I do not think that can ever be realistic.
There are so many reasons why one particular expression is not suitable in another tradition.
Let’s take an ancient and very concrete example for a go:
The Church of the East utilizes a vocabulary in East Syriac (a language with a vocabulary far smaller than that of Greek, Latin, or even Coptic). The Greeks imposed the ousia-prosopon-hypostasis distinctions without any regard for how those terms would be understood and applied across the Churches. The Church of the East was accustomed to speaking of those distinctions as kyana-qnoma-parsopa. Some Greek theologians translated “qnoma” as a synonym for “person,” which is an acceptable translation in particular contexts. The East Syriacs maintained, as was their custom, in Christ there are two qnome, it seemed to say to the Greeks that there are two Persons in Christ, which is the textbook definition of Nestorianism that the Council of Ephesus anathematized. When you actually look at the Syriac, however, you will see that that “person” and qnoma are not exactly 1-to-1 synonyms. Qnoma was understood, in a Christological sense, to be “an instantiation of a nature.”
Here you have two completely separate traditions, with two completely valid vocabularies, but they are incomprehensible to one another because x in Syriac does not mean y in Greek - it just means x in Syriac. You have to find a way to respect the actual meaning when attempting to reconcile two divergent languages (theological and actual).
The Latin Church can formulate a doctrine, say transubstantiation, and that is all well and good. That will be an acceptable explanation in a Latin context, with Latin speakers, schooled in scholasticism and classical rhetoric, and that is all wonderful. Please now let them try to explain accidents, substances, form, matter, etc to a Syriac speaker who thinks theologically in poetry, typology, and symbolism (and who has not been immersed into the tradition of Aristotle).
We are not saying that the “Catholic Church” is incapable of developing doctrine. What we are saying is that it does no one any good when they formulate said doctrine in incredibly technical scholastic vocabulary that cannot be expressed in another tradition easily. These problems then compound on one another. The Latin Church insisted on its particular expression of “Original Sin” (which conveys the same truth as Ancestral Sin in the Constantinopolitan tradition but with different emphasis and verbiage). Then the Latin Church decided to define the Immaculate Conception using the language shackled to their particular understanding of Original Sin. This multiplies the problem because now you have a dogma entirely engrossed and inexorably tied to an expression that is foreign to all of the other Churches. The Immaculate Conception attempts to speak of a truth (the unique and amazing holiness of the Virgin) but finds itself incapable of reconciling itself with those traditions that speak of the consequences of Adam’s sin in a different light.
Lets say, hypothetically, a Greek Patriarch fond of Palamas was elected to the See of Rome and he decided he was going to proclaim the Dogma of the Essence-Energy Distinction for the Universal Church. How would the people of the Latin Church feel when a completely foreign terminology and paradigm was now enjoined on them to embrace under pain of damnation? The street goes both ways. Now you have a Constantinopolitan camp forcing a very precise and highly connotative construction on a group of Romans trying to make sense of Essence/Energies-Created/Uncreated-Grace, etc and you have the Orientals all on the sidelines enjoying their
The short version: Romans must be very-very-very careful when saying that “the Catholic Church said…” because one formulation is merely one leg of the elephant - you have to experience the whole animal before you can say you understand it, never-mind condemning people who are in communion with you because they wish to maintain their theological patrimony along with all the smells and bells. The farther away from the sources of the Faith you move, building upon your own limited languages, the easier it is to alienate those with whom you share the same Faith.
J
jimkhong
Guest
The way I understand you is that you see yourself faithful to the same doctrine as the Bishop of Rome as in the meaning and intentions he proclaims and not necessarily with the words he used. Because words are often contextualised by the training, experience, culture and mind-set of the person speaking and the person hearing them.
Therefore you would consider that only the words used are applicable to Western Catholicism but the doctrine the words are seeking to express are applicable to all of Catholicism.
Sorry if this is complex but this is the way Latin background people will understand.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
I’m not making this a personal attack on you, jimkhong, but this is exactly how the Latins always misunderstand. It’s not how we’re somehow inherently simpler and need a less scholastic explanation… to be quite frank, Eastern Catholics are generally better catechized. The idea is we don’t need our beliefs being dictated in Latin formula and then when we express it in our own theologically consistent terminology we’re told we’re unorthodox, and that we somehow need to be brought into line with another Church, despite that fact we’re told we have equal dignity and authority amongst ourselves - hence why you can’t direct a dogma’s wording at the Latin Church, and then foist it on everyone else.
Please reread what Denho said about a hypothetical Constantinoplian Bishop of Rome who imposed a Palamas dogma.
J
jimkhong
Guest
My phrasing was intended to determine whether I have understood it correctly, not to phrase a doctrine in a manner acceptable to both. This forum has been very instructive for me as there are no Eastern Catholics in my country (I suspect there must be some Syro-Malabarese but I haven’t met them). Through this forum, I have been able to further my understanding of the way the Eastern mind approach doctrines, communion, etc, both via this thread as well as other threads where I posted questions and members have so charitably helped my education.
Correct me if I am wrong, what I learned in my 3 weeks on this forum - the Eastern mind do not seek to define doctrines in the way Latin Catholics do. In many ways, I think the Eastern mind is more ready to leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide understanding of the faith. The Eastern churches also do not fear that a lack of uniformity will led to a disintegration of the Church and as such is better able to tolerate what the Latins see as ‘loose language’.
Although I am a Latin-Rite Catholic, I look forward to a day when we have our own rite or rites in Asia. We too have differences between the culture in Rome and our home culture. We too need to understand what our culture and experience has to say about ecclesiology and the like, while still staying in communion with the wider Church. In the course of this forum, I came to the realisation how much the Latinness of the Church has come to form the way I think. My attempt to phrase my understanding and my need to do so was an example. But there will be others after me who will search our roots and be the new apologists for the Church to our culture in the language and philosophy of our culture and not that of Rome.
D
Denho
Guest
Well Asia could re-adopt the East Syriac liturgy it nourished for a few centuries.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
Very true. The Chinese stone tablets with Syriac words have always amazed me; I think there’s even one at the Met.Well Asia could re-adopt the East Syriac liturgy it nourished for a few centuries.
M
malphono
Guest
Well Asia could re-adopt the East Syriac liturgy it nourished for a few centuries.
I’ve unsubscribed from this absolutely pointless thread, but in parting, I’ll toss in my final :twocents: if I may:
I think it would be far more apropos to say that “Asia could re-adopt the East Syriac liturgy **which nourished it **for a few centuries”
At the same time, let me add, inscriptions on the Great Wall and whatnot notwithstanding, it seems to me the Eddesene model is not quite right for Eastern Asia. If it had been, it would have held on, but as we all know, it didn’t. Not in praxis not in theology.
If there is really such an interest, (and I’m not sure there actually is), I would think it far better to adapt the Roman praxis. One huge problem in East Asia, though, is that it’s multi-cultural, and that means it’s not a “one size fits all” solution. Theologically? Eastern and/or Oriental thought patterns work well enough in what is now Kerala, but I don’t think they are quite so well adapted to East Asia. Again, if they had been, at least some vestiges of the Assyrian Church would likely have survived.
A
AdvanceAlways
Guest
This made a lot of sense, particularly in light of the Immaculate Conception. I still don’t quite get how it would relate to infallibility though. I understand that there are differing theological viewpoints on original sin, and the Theotokos, I completely understand that. The fact that there are EC churches named “Immaculate Conception” weirds me out. I just don’t understand though, how we are a united Church, if something like how we view the Pope doesn’t even unite us all as Catholic.We believe union with the Bishop of Rome is, all in all, a good thing impelling towards the unity desired by our Lord. Schism for schism’s sake is not something to aim for.
What we disagree about is “the dogma of the Catholic religion.” If this is to mean the truly catholic sense of the term, then we do not reject anything. If one means “the particular expression of the Roman Church, formulated as such” then no, I do not think that can ever be realistic.
There are so many reasons why one particular expression is not suitable in another tradition.
Let’s take an ancient and very concrete example for a go:
The Church of the East utilizes a vocabulary in East Syriac (a language with a vocabulary far smaller than that of Greek, Latin, or even Coptic). The Greeks imposed the ousia-prosopon-hypostasis distinctions without any regard for how those terms would be understood and applied across the Churches. The Church of the East was accustomed to speaking of those distinctions as kyana-qnoma-parsopa. Some Greek theologians translated “qnoma” as a synonym for “person,” which is an acceptable translation in particular contexts. The East Syriacs maintained, as was their custom, in Christ there are two qnome, it seemed to say to the Greeks that there are two Persons in Christ, which is the textbook definition of Nestorianism that the Council of Ephesus anathematized. When you actually look at the Syriac, however, you will see that that “person” and qnoma are not exactly 1-to-1 synonyms. Qnoma was understood, in a Christological sense, to be “an instantiation of a nature.”
Here you have two completely separate traditions, with two completely valid vocabularies, but they are incomprehensible to one another because x in Syriac does not mean y in Greek - it just means x in Syriac. You have to find a way to respect the actual meaning when attempting to reconcile two divergent languages (theological and actual).
The Latin Church can formulate a doctrine, say transubstantiation, and that is all well and good. That will be an acceptable explanation in a Latin context, with Latin speakers, schooled in scholasticism and classical rhetoric, and that is all wonderful. Please now let them try to explain accidents, substances, form, matter, etc to a Syriac speaker who thinks theologically in poetry, typology, and symbolism (and who has not been immersed into the tradition of Aristotle).
We are not saying that the “Catholic Church” is incapable of developing doctrine. What we are saying is that it does no one any good when they formulate said doctrine in incredibly technical scholastic vocabulary that cannot be expressed in another tradition easily. These problems then compound on one another. The Latin Church insisted on its particular expression of “Original Sin” (which conveys the same truth as Ancestral Sin in the Constantinopolitan tradition but with different emphasis and verbiage). Then the Latin Church decided to define the Immaculate Conception using the language shackled to their particular understanding of Original Sin. This multiplies the problem because now you have a dogma entirely engrossed and inexorably tied to an expression that is foreign to all of the other Churches. The Immaculate Conception attempts to speak of a truth (the unique and amazing holiness of the Virgin) but finds itself incapable of reconciling itself with those traditions that speak of the consequences of Adam’s sin in a different light.
Lets say, hypothetically, a Greek Patriarch fond of Palamas was elected to the See of Rome and he decided he was going to proclaim the Dogma of the Essence-Energy Distinction for the Universal Church. How would the people of the Latin Church feel when a completely foreign terminology and paradigm was now enjoined on them to embrace under pain of damnation? The street goes both ways. Now you have a Constantinopolitan camp forcing a very precise and highly connotative construction on a group of Romans trying to make sense of Essence/Energies-Created/Uncreated-Grace, etc and you have the Orientals all on the sidelines enjoying their
The short version: Romans must be very-very-very careful when saying that “the Catholic Church said…” because one formulation is merely one leg of the elephant - you have to experience the whole animal before you can say you understand it, never-mind condemning people who are in communion with you because they wish to maintain their theological patrimony along with all the smells and bells. The farther away from the sources of the Faith you move, building upon your own limited languages, the easier it is to alienate those with whom you share the same Faith.
D
Denho
Guest
Pope Benedict and even John Paul II both expressed willingness to reasses how the Petrine ministry is to be expressed. If the mode of expression is nonnegotiable then why were these two popes (and it looks like Francis has something similar in mind - what it is, who knows?) so explicit in their view that the essence of the Papacy is something that can be distilled from the first 1000 years of Christianity.
I’ve said this many times - every doctrine and dogma must be viewed and expressed in a hermeneutic of what has been received from the founding of the Church. Dogma does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot grow it in a Petrine dish. It must arise out of, and be lived, in light of what has come before.
The Latin Church has developed a hermeneutic of discontinuity with the Papacy for a while now and it is finally (perhaps) trying to reexamine its foundations.
On a similar note, if it takes 200 years for the hermeneutic of rupture at Vatican I to be snuffed out I shudder at how long it will take to fix Vatican II’s hermeneutic of rupture.
A
Aramis
Guest
There are OCA parishes with the same name. The understanding of the term differs.
A
AdvanceAlways
Guest
So what then should we make of those of us who believe that the dogma is quite clear? Are we in error? Are those who are trying to either ignore or downplay dogma correct and those of us who follow what the council said in error? Is this not an “easternization” of the Church? If the Vatican tomorrow said they were wrong at Vatican I, do you not believe that this would lead to the greatest schism since 1054?Pope Benedict and even John Paul II both expressed willingness to reasses how the Petrine ministry is to be expressed. If the mode of expression is nonnegotiable then why were these two popes (and it looks like Francis has something similar in mind - what it is, who knows?) so explicit in their view that the essence of the Papacy is something that can be distilled from the first 1000 years of Christianity.
I’ve said this many times - every doctrine and dogma must be viewed and expressed in a hermeneutic of what has been received from the founding of the Church. Dogma does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot grow it in a Petrine dish. It must arise out of, and be lived, in light of what has come before.
The Latin Church has developed a hermeneutic of discontinuity with the Papacy for a while now and it is finally (perhaps) trying to reexamine its foundations.
On a similar note, if it takes 200 years for the hermeneutic of rupture at Vatican I to be snuffed out I shudder at how long it will take to fix Vatican II’s hermeneutic of rupture.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Hermeneutic of rupture at Vatican I? We believe Papal infallibility, and the validity of both faith and reason which was the other main thing taught at Vatican I, have always been true through Christian history. The hermeneutic of rupture which must be healed and replaced by a hermeneutic of continuity is in those who regard these teachings as innovations. Same thing with the teachings of Vatican II.Pope Benedict and even John Paul II both expressed willingness to reasses how the Petrine ministry is to be expressed. If the mode of expression is nonnegotiable then why were these two popes (and it looks like Francis has something similar in mind - what it is, who knows?) so explicit in their view that the essence of the Papacy is something that can be distilled from the first 1000 years of Christianity.
I’ve said this many times - every doctrine and dogma must be viewed and expressed in a hermeneutic of what has been received from the founding of the Church. Dogma does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot grow it in a Petrine dish. It must arise out of, and be lived, in light of what has come before.
The Latin Church has developed a hermeneutic of discontinuity with the Papacy for a while now and it is finally (perhaps) trying to reexamine its foundations.
On a similar note, if it takes 200 years for the hermeneutic of rupture at Vatican I to be snuffed out I shudder at how long it will take to fix Vatican II’s hermeneutic of rupture.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Most of this sounds fine with me. My concern is whether any given dogma, say the Immaculate Conception, is actually rejected and regarded as false because of its Western language, or if it is accepted as true and binding on all Catholics but is interpreted and explained in the East with Eastern language and emphasis (for instance, “Ancestral Sin” instead of “Original Sin” if that is preferred and really accurate).We believe union with the Bishop of Rome is, all in all, a good thing impelling towards the unity desired by our Lord. Schism for schism’s sake is not something to aim for.
What we disagree about is “the dogma of the Catholic religion.” If this is to mean the truly catholic sense of the term, then we do not reject anything. If one means “the particular expression of the Roman Church, formulated as such” then no, I do not think that can ever be realistic.
There are so many reasons why one particular expression is not suitable in another tradition.
Let’s take an ancient and very concrete example for a go:
The Church of the East utilizes a vocabulary in East Syriac (a language with a vocabulary far smaller than that of Greek, Latin, or even Coptic). The Greeks imposed the ousia-prosopon-hypostasis distinctions without any regard for how those terms would be understood and applied across the Churches. The Church of the East was accustomed to speaking of those distinctions as kyana-qnoma-parsopa. Some Greek theologians translated “qnoma” as a synonym for “person,” which is an acceptable translation in particular contexts. The East Syriacs maintained, as was their custom, in Christ there are two qnome, it seemed to say to the Greeks that there are two Persons in Christ, which is the textbook definition of Nestorianism that the Council of Ephesus anathematized. When you actually look at the Syriac, however, you will see that that “person” and qnoma are not exactly 1-to-1 synonyms. Qnoma was understood, in a Christological sense, to be “an instantiation of a nature.”
Here you have two completely separate traditions, with two completely valid vocabularies, but they are incomprehensible to one another because x in Syriac does not mean y in Greek - it just means x in Syriac. You have to find a way to respect the actual meaning when attempting to reconcile two divergent languages (theological and actual).
The Latin Church can formulate a doctrine, say transubstantiation, and that is all well and good. That will be an acceptable explanation in a Latin context, with Latin speakers, schooled in scholasticism and classical rhetoric, and that is all wonderful. Please now let them try to explain accidents, substances, form, matter, etc to a Syriac speaker who thinks theologically in poetry, typology, and symbolism (and who has not been immersed into the tradition of Aristotle).
We are not saying that the “Catholic Church” is incapable of developing doctrine. What we are saying is that it does no one any good when they formulate said doctrine in incredibly technical scholastic vocabulary that cannot be expressed in another tradition easily. These problems then compound on one another. The Latin Church insisted on its particular expression of “Original Sin” (which conveys the same truth as Ancestral Sin in the Constantinopolitan tradition but with different emphasis and verbiage). Then the Latin Church decided to define the Immaculate Conception using the language shackled to their particular understanding of Original Sin. This multiplies the problem because now you have a dogma entirely engrossed and inexorably tied to an expression that is foreign to all of the other Churches. The Immaculate Conception attempts to speak of a truth (the unique and amazing holiness of the Virgin) but finds itself incapable of reconciling itself with those traditions that speak of the consequences of Adam’s sin in a different light.
Lets say, hypothetically, a Greek Patriarch fond of Palamas was elected to the See of Rome and he decided he was going to proclaim the Dogma of the Essence-Energy Distinction for the Universal Church. How would the people of the Latin Church feel when a completely foreign terminology and paradigm was now enjoined on them to embrace under pain of damnation? The street goes both ways. Now you have a Constantinopolitan camp forcing a very precise and highly connotative construction on a group of Romans trying to make sense of Essence/Energies-Created/Uncreated-Grace, etc and you have the Orientals all on the sidelines enjoying their
The short version: Romans must be very-very-very careful when saying that “the Catholic Church said…” because one formulation is merely one leg of the elephant - you have to experience the whole animal before you can say you understand it, never-mind condemning people who are in communion with you because they wish to maintain their theological patrimony along with all the smells and bells. The farther away from the sources of the Faith you move, building upon your own limited languages, the easier it is to alienate those with whom you share the same Faith.
In other words your language about it being irreconcilable with Eastern theological traditions is what concerns me. Surely the dogma must be reconcilable with the traditions or else either the dogma or the Eastern traditions it seems to conflict with must be false.
In your hypothetical scenario, which of course I don’t think will ever happen, I as a Latin Catholic would feel it my duty to first assent to the newly proclaimed dogma and then to seek to find an understanding of it through the Western/Aristotelian intellectual tradition. In the end if a reconciliation turned out not to be possible it would have to be one aspect of Western theology that would have to be abandoned rather than the Catholic dogma.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
I think people who try to equate Ancestral and Original Sin so as to make the Immaculate Conception permissible generally do not understand the variant ontological roots and their effects of both ideas.
I will also say people who quote St. Ephrem, Doctor of the Church, to “prove” the IC understand nothing of his work and are quoting snip bits out of context.
A
AdvanceAlways
Guest
How then should we reconcile the situation? I’m actually far more sympathetic with the Eastern concept of ancestral sin (and many ideas in general, Latin Thomism really doesn’t do anything for me). Ultimately though, as it stands today, the IC is dogma as is papal infallibility. What would your proposed solution be? It makes no sense to have a universal Church if we begin saying Dogma A applies only to the Latins, the rest of you don’t have to believe it. That strikes me as extreme relativism. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut here, I do appreciate it.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Well that’s up to you folks to figure out, not me, thankfully. Incidentally I edited (expanded) my post after you responded. Sorry.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
Well I mean for an ecumenical council I haven’t ever really read much about the Eastern participation in Vatican I (specifically the Eastern Churches in union with Rome). As far as I’m concerned it might as well be an internal matter of obedience and discipline for the Latin Church.
Quite frankly I don’t think these issues will be resolved anytime soon for one reason,as I mentioned before. It seems Latins do not understand the difference between a theologoumena and divine truth. If one contests the average Latin on something as simple as In Persona Christi, the “consecration” (as opposed to ordination) of bishops, etc. it makes them a heretic. If such peripheral items are considered essential, how can we even approach a topic that Latins are not even willing to entertain the idea that it is wrong to dogmatize a theologoumenon? It’s essentially a false dialogue, “we’ll agree to talk to you about doctrinal differences between our equal Churches… the only condition is we’ll establish all the working definitions and our idea will be ultimately right. Why? Because we called ‘dibs’ in VI.”
Quite frankly I don’t think these issues will be resolved anytime soon for one reason,as I mentioned before. It seems Latins do not understand the difference between a theologoumena and divine truth. If one contests the average Latin on something as simple as In Persona Christi, the “consecration” (as opposed to ordination) of bishops, etc. it makes them a heretic. If such peripheral items are considered essential, how can we even approach a topic that Latins are not even willing to entertain the idea that it is wrong to dogmatize a theologoumenon? It’s essentially a false dialogue, “we’ll agree to talk to you about doctrinal differences between our equal Churches… the only condition is we’ll establish all the working definitions and our idea will be ultimately right. Why? Because we called ‘dibs’ in VI.”
- Status