Scholaticism controversy in Eastern Orthodox and Islam

[mardukm]

For anyone interested in a discussion on what the Latin Catholic Church actually teaches about Scholasticism, please see here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7937340#post7937340

I’ve seen some very fair presentations of the matter in this thread, and I want to thank my non-Catholic brethren for that. However, the principles of Scholasticism have actually been afforded some Magisterial clarifications, so we don’t need to speculate so much on what it might or might not mean.

I hope readers will take the time to look at the link above (p.s. it goes to page 10 of an existing thread. Just go down the page and you will find some Magisterial Catholic statements on the matter).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

So, to carry on from that particular thought, I think the Eastern Church would say the Latin Catholic Church has at times tried to do the second thing - contain God with philosophy. So, for example, insisting on the idea of transubstantiation (though not o much these days I think)

Strangely, when I was not yet Catholic, and I had the occasion to ask Latins about the teaching, the only response I ever got was “It means the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ.” Straight up response. No intellectualism.

The Catholic explanation is so simple and straightforward. Doesn’t it seem like that it is those who accuse the Latins of an improper intellectualism that do more intellectual gymnastics in their opposition to it?

or even building too much onto ideas like an economic view of the Atonement.

Can you explain this a bit more? The “Economy of salvation” is a very common notion among the Fathers. Can you please relate that phrase to your own “economic view of the Atonement?”

So taking these ideas that are a kind of scientific explanation of a mystery, or taking what is a sort of metaphor for a mystery and going beyond what we know through Scripture or tradition to build doctrines.

The Fathers did not shrink from using non-Traditional terminologies to combat the heretics (e.g. homoousion). Why should we shrink from it now, if the terminology perfectly fits the theological reality? Transubstantiaion - change in substance. Transubstantiation was not imposed out of the blue - it was imposed to combat a specific heresy, wasn’t it?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Contarini;7933908]Those definitions were articulated in the face of heresy. So, of course, was the Filioque initially.

The Universal Church does not need the Filioque to express the divinity of the Son. This is admitted by the Catholic Church in virtue of the fact that you don’t make Eastern Catholics use it. Why then do Western Christians still use the Filioque long after the local heresy it was originally designed to addressed has died out? Because Western Trinitarianism is theory-driven rather than apophatic. That’s the Eastern argument, and I think it holds water.

A new form of Arianism has come and gone, today it exists in non-catholic circles such as Mormonism, Jehovah witnesses to name a few claiming to christianity. In the West we still hold to the most ancient creed before the nicene creed by still reciting and professing the “Apostles Creed”. This credo predates any Nicene credo. Does one object to the west who still maintains the apostles creed? These two never contradict one another.

The “filioque” defeats any form of heresy objecting to the blessed Trinity. A theory cannot defeat any heresy. The Catholic faith in the Trinity clarified “not changed” is what separates the sheep from the wolves. Now and forever.

I’ve just finished reading Aquinas’s discussion of the Trinity in the Summa, and Aquinas exemplifies the Western approach as criticized by the East. His treatment is brilliant, but he tries to deduce Trinitarianism from certain logical principles, and in my opinion this just doesn’t work.

(Note: I know of course that Aquinas thought the Trinity was one of those things you needed revelation to know. But his general methodology leads him still to treat the Trinity as something that can be worked out symmetrically given certain principles.)

Edwin

What you raise here is common misconception between what is the Catholic faith, and what is theological discussion. St. Thomas Aquinas does not speak for the Catholic Church. This great theologian scholar is at liberty to deduce his Catholic Faith from theological study, argument and or reason. We don’t mix ones personal or private views as doctrine. Although their theological understandings may point to clarify and or define what is already believed, but they are never at liberty to change or add to the Catholic Faith.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Gabriel,

A new form of Arianism has come and gone, today it exists in non-catholic circles such as Mormonism, Jehovah witnesses to name a few claiming to christianity.

Actually, the filioque does not address Mormon and JW objections because for the most part they pay little to no attention to it and probably would not understand the significance of the terminology, since it is rather subtle to the modern mind. Actually I suspect that the filioque was a type of compromise formula designed to be more acceptable to the Arians as well as the Orthodox Catholics (but I am not convinced at this point).

The original ‘real’ Arians did have a form of the Mass, and they had a theology about the three persons of what we call the Trinity.

I don’t know if the Mormons and JW’s even recite the Creed in any form, but I would like anyone who belongs to those groups (or used to) to speak up on it.

If they do not use it, keeping the filioque in it is like point a gun in the wrong direction. Then again if it really was an effective tool to oppose Arianism those groups would simply not recite the offending part.

The real reason the filioque had any usefulness at all in sixth century Spain was because all of the Arian parishes and dioceses were now under the control of Catholic bishops and priests (following the conversion of king Reccared and the union Council of Toledo), and the private Arian holdouts had no place else to go, they had to listen to a repetition of the Creed at every Mass. Their parishes were not closed and their priests defrocked, as might have been expected. subsequent to a confession of faith their Mass was subjected to modifications and their priests were accepted by Chrismation.

So the filioque came, in a sense, too late, the battle against the Arian church was over. This had happened in Europe and the eastern Mediterranean before in a similar manner, but in those previous instances they did not see a need for any such interpolation in their Creed.

The filioque could not possibly work on fighting errors among Mormons and JW’s nor anyone else until you get control of their meeting houses and assembly halls and make them listen to it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;7939451]Hello Gabriel,
Actually, the filioque does not address Mormon and JW objections because for the most part they pay little to no attention to it and probably would not understand the significance of the terminology, since it is rather subtle to the modern mind. Actually I suspect that the filioque was a type of compromise formula designed to be more acceptable to the Arians as well as the Orthodox Catholics (but I am not convinced at this point).

The original ‘real’ Arians did have a form of the Mass, and they had a theology about the three persons of what we call the Trinity.

I don’t know if the Mormons and JW’s even recite the Creed in any form, but I would like anyone who belongs to those groups (or used to) to speak up on it.

Bloodshed was used in the East to rid out the Arians from Arian Emperor to Orthodox Emperor, in the West the profession of faith determined if you were Arian or Catholic, as you stated everthing on the outside of Arian mirrored the Catholic faith, except their profession of the Trinity.

Today, the Mormons and JW’s adopted a “form” of Arianism, in regards to the Blessed Trinity. Although they use the same terminology we do, they do not believe in the Blessed Trinity as Catholics do, this introduces an aspect to their Arian form of theology of who Jesus is, deriving from a form of denial of who Jesus is, such as Arianism.

To my knowledge neither Mormon, nor JW, have adopted the credo to their faith. They have adopted different theological views of who Jesus is, from the professed Creed.

The real reason the filioque had any usefulness at all in sixth century Spain was because all of the Arian parishes and dioceses were now under the control of Catholic bishops and priests (following the conversion of king Reccared and the union Council of Toledo), and the private Arian holdouts had no place else to go, they had to listen to a repetition of the Creed at every Mass. Their parishes were not closed and their priests defrocked, as might have been expected. subsequent to a confession of faith their Mass was subjected to modifications and their priests were accepted by Chrismation.

So the filioque came, in a sense, too late, the battle against the Arian church was over. This had happened all over Europe and the eastern Mediterranean before in a similar manner, but in those previous instances they did not see a need for any such interpolation in their Creed.

If you included the first part of this history you find the Eastern Arian powers attacking the West and removing all aspects of the Latin Church, before the Western Catholic secular powers gained control again from the Arians. What you consider “too late” or “any usefulness” of the filioque does not view this history with justice, when lives were taken and later in danger of death for it, when the Arians took over.

The filioque could not possibly work on fighting errors among Mormons and JW’s nor anyone else until you get control of their meeting houses and assembly halls and make them listen to it.

Sure it can. The problem is JW’s will excommunicate you from their kingdom halls and shame you and your family for reading or studying Catholic materials, the Mormons will not allow their closed communities to be open to hearing anything Catholic in the temples.

The filioque stands against their teachings of Jesus. Filioque does not work to help them in their errors, filioque calls them out from their errors of who God is.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, I had a visit from the JW lady in charge of visiting in my neighbourhood, who used to be Anglican, and she told me that they do not use the Creeds, because they do not believe in the Trinity and are unitarians and modalists. (She didn’t use those words, but that’s what she meant.)

I am quite sure that Mormons do not either, as they are not really trinitarians or even monotheists properly speaking, and don’t think Christ is co-eternal or co-equal with the Father.

 

[Bluegoat]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

Strangely, when I was not yet Catholic, and I had the occasion to ask Latins about the teaching, the only response I ever got was “It means the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ.” Straight up response. No intellectualism.

The Catholic explanation is so simple and straightforward. Doesn’t it seem like that it is those who accuse the Latins of an improper intellectualism that do more intellectual gymnastics in their opposition to it?

I have had Catholics tell me a lot of things about what Catholic doctrines really mean, and mostly they are just common-man explanations. (Not that this is a Catholic thing, it is true of most people that they have a simple, straight-forward, rather than a philosophical understanding of their religion.) I don’t think that is what transubstantiation has stood for in the history of the Church, and if it was we’d have has a lot fewer problems over it.

Can you explain this a bit more? The “Economy of salvation” is a very common notion among the Fathers. Can you please relate that phrase to your own “economic view of the Atonement?”

I don’t really mean the economy of salvation. I mean looking at the Cross and comparing it to an economic transaction, and then building a whole doctrine of indulgences, treasury of merit, and so on, and so on, around it. It builds up a whole edifice that we are supposedly acting on based on what is a metaphor (even if it’s God’s metaphor to some degree). Not just “we can pray for the dead, or somehow our works are effectual spiritually” but rather “if you do X you can actually check out a certain amount of merit that is in proprtion to that for yourself or another designated person”. THat transaction idea is what I mean by economic understanding of salvation.

The Fathers did not shrink from using non-Traditional terminologies to combat the heretics (e.g. homoousion). Why should we shrink from it now, if the terminology perfectly fits the theological reality? Transubstantiaion - change in substance. Transubstantiation was not imposed out of the blue - it was imposed to combat a specific heresy, wasn’t it?

Blessings,
Marduk

We can, but that is not the same as building whole hierarchies around the concepts. And just because we can, doesn’t mean we should if there is not a very good reason to do so - like a heretical movement.

 

[Hesychios]

If you included the first part of this history you find the Eastern Arian powers attacking the West and removing all aspects of the Latin Church, before the Western Catholic secular powers gained control again from the Arians.

That is not quite so.

I have never read anyone (until now) claim that the Arians removed all aspects of the Latin church in the lands they occupied. The two churches existed together in the west, the Arian church being usually the smaller, it being originally for the Germanic/Gothic overlords.

However, it wasn’t really one Catholic church in the west, that is a modern notion. The Mozarabic Catholic/Orthodox church was the local church of Spain, where this filique thing got started. They had their own liturgy, elected their own bishops and called their own councils. The church in Gaul was different, with yet another form of liturgy, electing their own bishops and it’s own councils. The North African church was a third, the Celtic church in the islands was a fourth, the Roman church in central Italy was still another.

The way it is often described people must imagine that everyone was using the EF and getting their bishops from the Pope, that didn’t happen until much later. The Latin rite church simply didn’t exist in the way people think of it today, it would be an anachronism to refer to the Christians of most of those locales as latin rite Christians. When the Arian Goths arrived in the west they encountered a population which was not fully converted and a Catholic/Orthodox church that was not centrally governed and not uniform in practice.

And I must repeat for emphasis, the Arians did not remove all aspects of the ‘Latin’ church, although they might have wished they could.

What you consider “too late” or “any usefulness” of the filioque does not view this history with justice, when lives were taken and later in danger of death for it, when the Arians took over.

The filioque was introduced into the Creed at Toledo at the union council of 589AD.

The king (Reccarred) had converted in 587AD. After two brief rebellions the Arian holdouts were subjugated by force, and the remaining Arian bishops renounced their heresy and attended the union Council at Toledo in 589, where among other things the filioque was added to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

In other words, the Arian church had dissolved itself and the bishops and priests had become Mozarabic Catholics before the filioque had been formally introduced. It simply wasn’t needed, Arianism was no longer an organized religion in Spain.

The filioque stands against their teachings of Jesus. Filioque does not work to help them in their errors, filioque calls them out from their errors of who God is.

I seriously doubt that most people even understand the significance of the appendix or why it was put there.

Anyone from one of these aforementioned groups who has the interest and the nerve to read the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed in it’s original form will have a concise exposition of the Catholic/Orthodox Faith. In it’s original form the Creed is such a contradiction to what they have been taught they wouldn’t even miss the filioque because it was never really needed in the past and is still not needed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;7940884]That is not quite so.

I have never read anyone (until now) claim that the Arians removed all aspects of the Latin church in the lands they occupied. The two churches existed together in the west, the Arian church being usually the smaller, it being originally for the Germanic/Gothic overlords.

It’s quite apparent that this history being focused on one view without the whole view in mind can be misleading. For one your Germanic/Gothic barbarians were evangelized by your Arian Eastern Emperor from Constantinople who supported the Eastern Church’s mission among the Goths. I am sure you remember the “little wolf” Ulfila. These same Goths served your Emperor in Constantinople and converted to your Emperors Arianism.

What you failed to mention here was that these Goths of Constantinople did not care about the difference between the Nicene Christians nor their Arian persuasions. The End result was they converted to Catholicism and adopted the Nicene Christianity.

What I may have not clarified to you? As I was including the big picture of this history which included Alaric and his Goths who spared no Latin church on their path of destruction, until peace was made according to the agreement of the conquerors. I must mention here, that ultimately Arianism gave the Goths an identity, yet they remained independent from both Rome and Constantinople during their invasion of the western territories in the name of Arianism.

However, it wasn’t really one Catholic church in the west, that is a modern notion.

No one that I know of holds to such a false notion that you mentioned here?

History reveals the Catholic Church evangelizing her enemies by loving them and converting the new territories from paganology to Christianity.

Your impression that all these aforementioned lived side by side in peace with the Catholic Church appears to be fiction at best from revealed history. When the Catholic church suffered much martyrdom to your supposed friendly neighbors (enemies) of the Catholic church.

The Mozarabic Catholic/Orthodox church was the local church of Spain, where this filique thing got started. They had their own liturgy, elected their own bishops and called their own councils. The church in Gaul was different, with yet another form of liturgy, electing their own bishops and it’s own councils. The North African church was a third, the Celtic church in the islands was a fourth, the Roman church in central Italy was still another.

And yet today these are in communion with the Roman Pope, I rest my case.

I don’t contest your history here, it’s impressive by the way, and we always learn details from your history, and I thank you for sharing your knowledge here.

I think you are forgetting the blood shed from the Catholic Church evangelizing these so called vacant and or unchristian territories and her enemies.

Because of the disposition realized in the Goths in regards to either Arianism or Nicene Christianity and ultimately the conversion of the Goths to the Nicene Christianity. Why filioque poses a problem for you in this part of history remains to be seen.

But I see no significance. Only to the Arian priests who converted the Goths,supported by their Arian Eastern Emperor, now to these the “filioque” poses a threat. I don’t view this history as you do by combining both the Arian priests and bishops supported by Constantinople and the Arian invasion by the Goths, for reasons I mentioned above.

Peace be with you

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Bluegoat

I have had Catholics tell me a lot of things about what Catholic doctrines really mean, and mostly they are just common-man explanations. (Not that this is a Catholic thing, it is true of most people that they have a simple, straight-forward, rather than a philosophical understanding of their religion.) I don’t think that is what transubstantiation has stood for in the history of the Church, and if it was we’d have has a lot fewer problems over it.

Transubstantiation was historically a response to those who denied the Real Presence by claiming that since there is no observable change, then there is no change at all. So the response I’ve been getting that the Bread and Wine changes into the Body and Blood of Christ actually does respresent the very essence of the historic Catholic position on the matter. But my curiosity is piqued as to what your own impression is as to what “transbustantiation has stood for in the history of the Church.” Please explain.

I don’t really mean the economy of salvation. I mean looking at the Cross and comparing it to an economic transaction, and then building a whole doctrine of indulgences, treasury of merit, and so on, and so on, around it. It builds up a whole edifice that we are supposedly acting on based on what is a metaphor (even if it’s God’s metaphor to some degree). Not just “we can pray for the dead, or somehow our works are effectual spiritually” but rather “if you do X you can actually check out a certain amount of merit that is in proprtion to that for yourself or another designated person”. THat transaction idea is what I mean by economic understanding of salvation.

The use of indulgences and merit is considered salutary by Magisterial teaching, not absolutely necessary. It’s not imposed, so I don’t see any problem with it if someone else gains some spiritual benefit from it. Since it is not necessary, I guess my impression is that your criticism is being made just for the sake of criticism, and not on any basis that can somehow affect the unity of the Church.

We can, but that is not the same as building whole hierarchies around the concepts.

What do you mean by “building whole hierarchies around the concepts?”

And just because we can, doesn’t mean we should if there is not a very good reason to do so - like a heretical movement.

I specifically proposed to you that Transubstantiaion came about as a response to a heresy, and your reponse is to claim that the Church should not define just because it can. I guess you don’t consider the denial of the Real Presence a heresy big enough to enjoin the definition of Transubstantiation.

The heretics were denying the Real Presence because they claimed that the Bread and Wine did not have any observable change. Nothing in the Eastern phrenoma can respond to that heresy. “Just believe it, it is a mystery” is useless. What would you have the Church do? It appears you would rather the Church do nothing on some pretended aphoristic principle. Aphorism is utterly useless in the face of heresy. When a response is needed, history shows the Church has always responded with the right use of rational arguments to confute the heretics. The Fathers never just sat around in a corner and twittled their thumbs muttering “that’s just a Mystery, so we’re not going to respond to you.”

I think your response here evinces a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason. If I have misinterpreted your intentions, please forgive me. But please offer an explanation for your response (if further explanation is necessary - if you actually do believe that denial of the Real Presence is not a heresy, then nothing more need be said).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Actually, the filioque does not address Mormon and JW objections because for the most part they pay little to no attention to it and probably would not understand the significance of the terminology, since it is rather subtle to the modern mind.

I think it would be important for the catechesis of converts from LDS and JW, so it would still be very relevant, since, from what I’ve seen, LCC catechesis is formally based on the Creed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[manualman]

The filioque could not possibly work on fighting errors among Mormons and JW’s nor anyone else until you get control of their meeting houses and assembly halls and make them listen to it.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Creed and its place in the liturgy and devotional practice.

An analogy possibly helps. Secret Service agents assigned to anti-counterfeiting work don’t primarily study forgeries to learn how to spot them, they study the REAL currency, it’s key details and characteristics. By doing that they are able to spot the forgeries, even if it is a new form not seen before. The Creed isn’t for converting the unbelievers, it is for nourishing and protecting the faithful against the introduction of error. Historically, the Church has reacted to virulent heresies with both offense and defense. Propertly instructing the faithful in the particular areas in which the predominating heresy has been making inroads helps them to spot false claims when they are made. Good defense. The offense takes other forms.

 

[dvdjs]

However, it wasn’t really one Catholic church in the west, that is a modern notion. …

Then there isn’t really one Eastern Orthodox Church today.

The king (Reccarred) had converted in 587AD. After two brief rebellions the Arian holdouts were subjugated by force, and the remaining Arian bishops renounced their heresy and attended the union Council at Toledo in 589, where among other things the filioque was added to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

In other words, the Arian church had dissolved itself and the bishops and priests had become Mozarabic Catholics before the filioque had been formally introduced. It simply wasn’t needed, Arianism was no longer an organized religion in Spain.

But those converted leaders understood the importance of combating lingering heretical Arian beliefs.

In it’s original form the Creed is such a contradiction to what they have been taught they wouldn’t even miss the filioque because it was never really needed in the past and is still not needed.

So you say, but those present at that time with obviously better awareness of the local situation thought otherwise.

 

[dvdjs]

The real reason the filioque had any usefulness at all in sixth century Spain was because all of the Arian parishes and dioceses were now under the control of Catholic bishops and priests (following the conversion of king Reccared and the union Council of Toledo), and the private Arian holdouts had no place else to go, they had to listen to a repetition of the Creed at every Mass. Their parishes were not closed and their priests defrocked, as might have been expected. subsequent to a confession of faith their Mass was subjected to modifications and their priests were accepted by Chrismation.

So the filioque came, in a sense, too late, the battle against the Arian church was over. This had happened in Europe and the eastern Mediterranean before in a similar manner, but in those previous instances they did not see a need for any such interpolation in their Creed.

Interesting conjecture. But those on the scene at that time disagree apparently saw the matter differently. But what did they know about the need to combat lingerng Arian heretical beliefs?