The Singularity of Truth in light of Eastern and Western Theological Expressions.

  • Thread starter Thread starter East_and_West
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

East_and_West

Guest
There are various philosophical concepts of truth that have developed over the centuries such as subjectivism, kantianism, relativism, and objectivism. It is my understanding that the Christian view of truth is that of Objectivism. We understand that the truth is singular, that contradicting statements cannot both be true. We often express the most foundational axiom of obectivism in the law of non-contradiction: A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same relationship. We apply this principle to theology all time. For example, we say that Christ cannot be God and not God at the same time and in the same relationship. He can be both God and man, but not in the same relationship. The resolution to this is that he has two natures and thus the law of non-contradiction is upheld. We also say that the Catholic faith is true. We acknowledge that it cannot be true and not true. We say that God created the universe, acknowledging that he could not have created and not created the universe. This goes on ad infinitum.
My point is the following. Although we uphold this idea of non-contradiction all the time, we seem to deny it by our actions with regard to the differences between Eastern and Western theology. We blurr the distinctions or use fancy words to cover up the fact that our theologies simply cannot both be true or valid all the time because these theologies create genuine contradictions.
One example can be seen in our differing views of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the west we most certainly profess as truth the filioque, the concept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in a single act of Spiration. Yet the East denies this outright, arguing that such a teaching destroys the monarchy of the Father. In attempt to establish a show of unity between East and West on this matter, we the fudge the truth a bit and blurr the distinctions, saying, “Well they are just different ways of describing the same truth.” But let’s be honest. Are they really different expressions of the same truth? If we apply the concept of the singularity of truth either the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son, Proceeds from the Father alone, or proceeds from neither. Assuming both versions of the Nicene Creed are true when they declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are left two options: The filioque is true or false. From the Eastern prospective that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, the following corollary should be derived by deduction: The filioque is false and Western Christianity is in error on this matter. From the Western prospective that the filioque is true the following corollary should be derived by deduction: the denial of the filioque is an error and, thus, by extension Eastern Christianity is in error on this matter.
This seems to be the most honest position to take, given the fact that truth is singular. If this is the case, can we really claim to profess the same faith? (Note: I am not denying any one’s Catholicity, simply pointing out what is at least an apparent contradiction between Eastern and Western Catholicism.)
 
This is what ecumenical activity is attempting to remedy “now and ever and unto ages of ages”.
 
East_and_West said:
Assuming both versions of the Nicene Creed are true when they declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are left two options: The filioque is true or false. From the Eastern prospective that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, the following corollary should be derived by deduction: The filioque is false and Western Christianity is in error on this matter. From the Western prospective that the filioque is true the following corollary should be derived by deduction: the denial of the filioque is an error and, thus, by extension Eastern Christianity is in error on this matter.
This seems to be the most honest position to take, given the fact that truth is singular. If this is the case, can we really claim to profess the same faith? (Note: I am not denying any one’s Catholicity, simply pointing out what is at least an apparent contradiction between Eastern and Western Catholicism.)
Click to expand...
I suggest you take that up with the Vatican, they appear to have been able to come to grips with it - guess they should have consulted you first, so they could have reached a truly Catholic conclusion.

I find myself very unsure that there is continued value to posting in a purportedly pan-Catholic environ where one’s time and effort must be devoted to defending the Catholicity of my Church, my Patriarch, my hierarchy, my clergy, and my co-religionists, as well as those of my Sister Churches, to those of another Catholic Church - theoretically also a Sister - who are hellbent on being more Catholic than the Pope. Especially, since in doing so, they are intent on disparaging, denigrating, dismissing, or devaluing my faith, regardless of how much protestation is offered that they are “not denying any one’s Catholicity”.

Much credit goes: to Yeshua and Jimmy, who could easily hide behind the westernization so prevalent in their own Church and leave we Byzantines out to dry; to Ghosty who, his ethnicity and his choice of worship aside, has not the vested interest in this that requires him to put out effort on our behalf; to Laka and Rony, who have put forth efforts and arguments beyond their years; and perhaps most especially to our Orthodox brothers - in particular Michael, Mickey, Isa, Mgy, and Bishop Basil - who have put aside their own issues with us and regularly rallied to us. They, I’m certain, like me, are overwhelmed by a Latin attitude toward the East which surpasses in its rancor and uninhibited hostility anything witnessed in quite some time.

Clearly, the world has not come anywhere near as far along as what I had imagined or hoped. Whatever issues the Latins have with our Orthodox brethren pale when one considers that some Latins posting here can’t reconcile themselves to being of one communion with fellow Catholics.
 
Irish_Melkite said:
I suggest you take that up with the Vatican, they appear to have been able to come to grips with it - guess they should have consulted you first, so they could have reached a truly Catholic conclusion.

I find myself very unsure that there is continued value to posting in a purportedly pan-Catholic environ where one’s time and effort must be devoted to defending the Catholicity of my Church, my Patriarch, my hierarchy, my clergy, and my co-religionists, as well as those of my Sister Churches, to those of another Catholic Church - theoretically also a Sister - who are hellbent on being more Catholic than the Pope. Especially, since in doing so, they are intent on disparaging, denigrating, dismissing, or devaluing my faith, regardless of how much protestation is offered that they are “not denying any one’s Catholicity”.

Much credit goes: to Yeshua and Jimmy, who could easily hide behind the westernization so prevalent in their own Church and leave we Byzantines out to dry; to Ghosty who, his ethnicity and his choice of worship aside, has not the vested interest in this that requires him to put out effort on our behalf; to Laka and Rony, who have put forth efforts and arguments beyond their years; and perhaps most especially to our Orthodox brothers - in particular Michael, Mickey, Isa, Mgy, and Bishop Basil - who have put aside their own issues with us and regularly rallied to us. They, I’m certain, like me, are overwhelmed by a Latin attitude toward the East which surpasses in its rancor and uninhibited hostility anything witnessed in quite some time.

Clearly, the world has not come anywhere near as far along as what I had imagined or hoped. Whatever issues the Latins have with our Orthodox brethren pale when one considers that some Latins posting here can’t reconcile themselves to being of one communion with fellow Catholics.
Click to expand...
Neil, I am not even arguing about who is right and who is wrong anymore. It just appears to me that the Catholic Church is a complete mess with the East and the West professing differing faiths. I read an article on a Armenian Catholic web page about how Vatican I is not a real council and how the west is in error. At this point I have no idea what to think about the Church. We cannot believe to contradicting truths. Christianity cannot be true, the Chruch cannot be established by Christ if we are being told to accept that the Body of Christ is divided and that the Church can speak out of both ends its mouth. The Vatican is filled with double speak on the matter. I read all of these Eastern websites asserting that the west is in error. To whom shall we go?
 
East_and_West said:
We cannot believe contradicting truths. …To whom shall we go?
Click to expand...
When I read this thread, I keep thinking about the story about the blind men trying to definitively describe an elephant, when they are touching only one part of it. Is an elephant like a wall, a rope, a snake, or a large leaf?
 
mariyka said:
When I read this thread, I keep thinking about the story about the blind men trying to definitively describe an elephant, when they are touching only one part of it. Is an elephant like a wall, a rope, a snake, or a large leaf?
Click to expand...
This stll does not resolve the fact that we are not supposed to be blind. Christ came to give us the fullness of revelation. He is the image of the invisible God.
 
East_and_West said:
I read an article on a Armenian Catholic web page about how Vatican I is not a real council and how the west is in error.
Click to expand...
E&W,

I’m curious - sadly, there are relatively few Armenian Catholic websites and that statement is strong for expression by an Armenian Catholic. Can you give me a link to the site on which you read that?

Many years,

Neil
 
East_and_West said:
There are various philosophical concepts of truth that have developed over the centuries such as subjectivism, kantianism, relativism, and objectivism. It is my understanding that the Christian view of truth is that of Objectivism. We understand that the truth is singular, that contradicting statements cannot both be true. We often express the most foundational axiom of obectivism in the law of non-contradiction: A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same relationship. We apply this principle to theology all time. For example, we say that Christ cannot be God and not God at the same time and in the same relationship. He can be both God and man, but not in the same relationship. The resolution to this is that he has two natures and thus the law of non-contradiction is upheld. We also say that the Catholic faith is true. We acknowledge that it cannot be true and not true. We say that God created the universe, acknowledging that he could not have created and not created the universe. This goes on ad infinitum.
My point is the following. Although we uphold this idea of non-contradiction all the time, we seem to deny it by our actions with regard to the differences between Eastern and Western theology. We blurr the distinctions or use fancy words to cover up the fact that our theologies simply cannot both be true or valid all the time because these theologies create genuine contradictions.
One example can be seen in our differing views of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the west we most certainly profess as truth the filioque, the concept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in a single act of Spiration. Yet the East denies this outright, arguing that such a teaching destroys the monarchy of the Father. In attempt to establish a show of unity between East and West on this matter, we the fudge the truth a bit and blurr the distinctions, saying, “Well they are just different ways of describing the same truth.” But let’s be honest. Are they really different expressions of the same truth? If we apply the concept of the singularity of truth either the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son, Proceeds from the Father alone, or proceeds from neither. Assuming both versions of the Nicene Creed are true when they declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are left two options: The filioque is true or false. From the Eastern prospective that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, the following corollary should be derived by deduction: The filioque is false and Western Christianity is in error on this matter. From the Western prospective that the filioque is true the following corollary should be derived by deduction: the denial of the filioque is an error and, thus, by extension Eastern Christianity is in error on this matter.
This seems to be the most honest position to take, given the fact that truth is singular. If this is the case, can we really claim to profess the same faith? (Note: I am not denying any one’s Catholicity, simply pointing out what is at least an apparent contradiction between Eastern and Western Catholicism.)
Click to expand...
I know of no Eastern Catholic Church that denies the filioque. “and the Son” can easily mean two things:1- A yields B and C; or 2 - A yields B which yields C. Both meanings are perfectly applicable to the phrase. So there is ambiguity in the language. The second version is the Catholic version - the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The monarchy of the Father is not denied in any way. See Florence.

I note that the mere statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father - WITHOUT MENTION OF THE SON - does not address (let alone deny!!!) the issue of the Filioque - IT IS SILENT!!

The positions are not inconsistent. At Florence they were clearly clarified. I would be interested where any official statement by any of the Eastern Catholic Churches denies the Filioque - because I do not believe such exists. The Eastern Churches are every bit as Catholic as the Latin church - and certainly Rome has no issue with that.

This “may” be an issue for the Orthodox (don’t want to go there) - but I agree with Neil - it’s not an issue with, and is offensive to, our Eastern Catholic brethren.
 
johnnykins said:
I know of no Eastern Catholic Church that denies the filioque. “and the Son” can easily mean two things:1- A yields B and C; or 2 - A yields B which yields C. Both meanings are perfectly applicable to the phrase. So there is ambiguity in the language. The second version is the Catholic version - the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The monarchy of the Father is not denied in any way. See Florence.

I note that the mere statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father - WITHOUT MENTION OF THE SON - does not address (let alone deny!!!) the issue of the Filioque - IT IS SILENT!!

The positions are not inconsistent. At Florence they were clearly clarified. I would be interested where any official statement by any of the Eastern Catholic Churches denies the Filioque - because I do not believe such exists. The Eastern Churches are every bit as Catholic as the Latin church - and certainly Rome has no issue with that.

This “may” be an issue for the Orthodox (don’t want to go there) - but I agree with Neil - it’s not an issue with, and is offensive to, our Eastern Catholic brethren.
Click to expand...
Sorry - described #1 erroneously - it should be A and B yield C. This is NOT the Catholic understanding. As noted above #2 is the Catholic understanding - and does not deny the monarchy of the Father.

I just cannot believe this is an issue for Catholics - East, West, North or South.
 
johnnykins said:
Sorry - described #1 erroneously - it should be A and B yield C. This is NOT the Catholic understanding. As noted above #2 is the Catholic understanding - and does not deny the monarchy of the Father.

I just cannot believe this is an issue for Catholics - East, West, North or South.
Click to expand...
Was it a legitimate addition being originally added outside of an ecumenical council? Perhaps it was kept out by centuries of popes for a reason…
 
Alexius said:
Was it a legitimate addition being originally added outside of an ecumenical council? Perhaps it was kept out by centuries of popes for a reason…
Click to expand...
Regardless of the answer, you must admit that the legitimacy of adding it to the Creed outside of an Ecumenical Council is a different matter than the legitimacy of the teaching itself. 🙂

I myself became convinced of the “filioque” by reading the Eastern Fathers who taught it, which include such luminaries as St. Athanasius and St. Gregory of Nyssa, and those who defended it (even its addition to the Creed) such as St. Maximos the Confessor. While arguments against the filioque on theological grounds arose much later in the East, I believe they generally had a more polemic character rather than representing a full carrying on of Tradition. Arguments against its addition to the Creed can’t enter into the theological arena without condemning almost all of the ancient Fathers, East and West, who wrote about the Trinity.

Later polemics and straw-men don’t change the substance of the Faith, so in general I see no reason to assert that the East and West have different Faiths on this matter unless one side buys too heavily into its partisan polemics. Again this leaves aside the question of whether or not it was properly added to the Creed (I personally feel that it is fine as the addition of a local Church, as most ancient Churches have/had their own variations on the Nicene Creed). 🙂

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Regardless of the answer, you must admit that the legitimacy of adding it to the Creed outside of an Ecumenical Council is a different matter than the legitimacy of the teaching itself. 🙂

I myself became convinced of the “filioque” by reading the Eastern Fathers who taught it, which include such luminaries as St. Athanasius and St. Gregory of Nyssa, and those who defended it (even its addition to the Creed) such as St. Maximos the Confessor. While arguments against the filioque on theological grounds arose much later in the East, I believe they generally had a more polemic character rather than representing a full carrying on of Tradition. Arguments against its addition to the Creed can’t enter into the theological arena without condemning almost all of the ancient Fathers, East and West, who wrote about the Trinity.

Later polemics and straw-men don’t change the substance of the Faith, so in general I see no reason to assert that the East and West have different Faiths on this matter unless one side buys too heavily into its partisan polemics. Again this leaves aside the question of whether or not it was properly added to the Creed (I personally feel that it is fine as the addition of a local Church, as most ancient Churches have/had their own variations on the Nicene Creed). 🙂

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
I’m not denying it’s theological orthodoxy, per se, but I do struggle with the legitimacy of the addition itself. At a minimum, it was foolish to add it without the Universal Church’s approval…
 
Alexius said:
I’m not denying it’s theological orthodoxy, per se, but I do struggle with the legitimacy of the addition itself. At a minimum, it was foolish to add it without the Universal Church’s approval…
Click to expand...
That’s a fair struggle to have, IMHO. Obviously I’ve settled the struggle for myself, but I believe such a struggle is legitimate. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
 
Irish_Melkite said:
I find myself very unsure that there is continued value to posting in a purportedly pan-Catholic environ where one’s time and effort must be devoted to defending the Catholicity of my Church, my Patriarch, my hierarchy, my clergy, and my co-religionists, as well as those of my Sister Churches, to those of another Catholic Church - theoretically also a Sister - who are hellbent on being more Catholic than the Pope. Especially, since in doing so, they are intent on disparaging, denigrating, dismissing, or devaluing my faith, regardless of how much protestation is offered that they are “not denying any one’s Catholicity”.

Much credit goes: to Yeshua and Jimmy, who could easily hide behind the westernization so prevalent in their own Church and leave we Byzantines out to dry; to Ghosty who, his ethnicity and his choice of worship aside, has not the vested interest in this that requires him to put out effort on our behalf; to Laka and Rony, who have put forth efforts and arguments beyond their years; and perhaps most especially to our Orthodox brothers - in particular Michael, Mickey, Isa, Mgy, and Bishop Basil - who have put aside their own issues with us and regularly rallied to us. They, I’m certain, like me, are overwhelmed by a Latin attitude toward the East which surpasses in its rancor and uninhibited hostility anything witnessed in quite some time.

Clearly, the world has not come anywhere near as far along as what I had imagined or hoped. Whatever issues the Latins have with our Orthodox brethren pale when one considers that some Latins posting here can’t reconcile themselves to being of one communion with fellow Catholics.
Click to expand...
I would like to concur with Neil on every point he has made (except for thanking myself, that’s silly :p).

I will no longer be posting on CAF, and I do ask forgiveness for derailing this thread. It only seemed appropriate that I would join in Neil’s truths to tell this sub-forum that I am leaving.

I would sincerely like to thank all those who hold an honest and charitable pursuit for this forum, however rare, no matter if one is on the side of the Tiber or Phanar. For me, this place has simply become too much, as it is becoming increasing difficult to read the words posted here and reconcile with that fact that these are professed Christians. It is no longer just a matter of too many Latinized Easterners or rampant disrespectful Latins. Curious that the problems of disrespect and uncharitable treatment haven’t seemed to have left…

In short, I simply can not participate in a place that is hostile to my Catholicism.

Peace and God Bless, always, and prayers please.
 
I will refrain from participating here at CA and will weather the storm with my Eastern brethern…

james
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top