Theologoumenon

[Peter_J]

This question is for anyone, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

What is your approach to “theologoumenon”, particularly as it relates to ecumenism?

To try and help the discussion get started, I’ll post four quotes that I think pertain (either directly or indirectly) to “theologoumenon”. (I’ll let the quotes speak for themselves, only I want to point out that I don’t claim them to be any kind of representation of different possible views. They are simply quotes that I can think of off the top of my head.)

The first is from the preface of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity (emphasis added):

…

 So far as I know, these were my only motives, and I should be very glad if people  would not  draw fanciful  inferences  from my silence on certain disputed matters.

 For example, such silence need not mean that I myself am sitting on the fence. Sometimes I  am.  There are questions  at issue between Christians to which I do not think I have the answer. There are some  to which I may never know the answer: if I asked them, even in a better world, I might (for all I know) be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: "What is that to thee?  Follow  thou Me."  But there  are  other questions as  to which I  am definitely on one side of  the  fence, and yet  say nothing.  For I was  not writing to  expound  something I  could  call "my  religion," but to expound "mere" Christianity, which is  what it is  and was what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.

 Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting  the Virgin Birth of Christ.  But surely my reason  for not doing so  is obvious? To say more would take  me  at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this. The Roman  Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour  that attaches to  all sincere  religious belief, but (very naturally) with  the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake.

 It is very difficult so to dissent from them  that you will  not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic. And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this  subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of  all  Monotheism whatever.  To radical  Protestants  it  seems  that  the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is  imperilled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear something worse than a heretic-an idolater, a Pagan. If  any topic  could be relied upon to wreck a book about "mere" Christianity-if any topic makes  utterly unprofitable reading for  those who do not yet  believe that the Virgin's son is God-surely this is it.

 Oddly  enough, you cannot  even  conclude, from my silence on  disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of  the things Christians are  disagreed  about  is  the importance of  their  disagreements. **When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is  usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point "really matters" and the other replies: "Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential."**

The next is a snippet from the opening post of the thread Original Sin: Differences b/w RC and EO

May the Good Lord forgive me for staring a thread which can only end in horrendous and uncharitable arguments…

For a while now, I have been wondering about the precise difference between the view of original sin taught by the Catholic Church and that of the Orthodox Church.

I know that there are some differences, and I have seen many Eastern Orthodox posters cite the Roman beliefs pertaining to original sin as a “post-schism heresy” which led to other heresies such as the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

As with all of the doctrinal disputes between the Catholic and Orthodox Church, It seems to me that both churches teach the exact same essentials, and that the disagreement is over issues of translations, linguistics, and semantics (terms dont translate from one language to the other, or seem heretical when they do, etc).

The next is a snippet from the OP of the thread Assumption Vs. Dormition (subtitled “Part II of my ‘Wait… there’s really no difference’ series”)

So, it seems to me after this study, that the Assumption and the Dormition do NOT exclude eachother from being true. What i see is that in the Eastern tradition, the Dormition was more strictyl defined than in the west: in both east and west, it was dogma that the Blessed Virgin, the Theotokos, was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. In the East, they taught details concerning how long after her death she was risen, etc, while in the west, they did not view that information as central, instead focusing wholly on the point that she was assumed.

When the Assumption was defined as Dogma, Pope Pius XII intentionally did NOT define it as dogma that she did not first die. Indeed, the early fathers say that she did die, and Catholics can be proven to agree with this because we recognize her tomb. Some Catholics say Mary could not die because she was free of original sin; however, this need not be true, because Jesus was likewise free, but he died a natural, very human, death.

Therefore, I believe that the Dogmas of the Assumption and the Dormition are one and the same.

The final quotation is a post from the On the Fence thread

I think what I am about to post may insult some people, and I ask for forgiveness right now. But I feel I really need to express it.

Contrary to popular belief, there is a lot of Mystery in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, particularly the Latin Church, really has not made that many dogmatic pronouncements about the Faith. There is a LOT of theologoumenon in the Latin Church.

Having said that, here’s the part which I think may insult some individuals: I think some Easterns/Orientals who feel frustrated at some of the theologoumenon in the Latin Church are not being true to their heritage of apophatic spirituality and theology. I TOO often hear the argument: “Why doesn’t the Pope make that more clear? What use is the Pope if he can’t settle this issue?”

My response would be “Well, why should he?” It is so inconsistent and hypocritical to accuse the Catholic Church (especially the Latin Church) of too much dogmatism, and then turn around and argue that they need MORE dogma.

But I do sense often that some Eastern/Oriental Catholics go Orthodox because of their frustration with Western theologoumenon. For instance, I’ve heard EC’s complain of the idea of purgatorial fire, or the idea of guilt being passed on in original sin, or that Mary never died, etc, etc., etc. My viewpoint is that since I am not required to believe any of that, it really does not concern me, and thus it does not bother me. I have no business as an Oriental Catholic complaining about what goes on in the Western Church, as long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs on me. So why, I always wonder, do I TOO often hear Eastern and Oriental Catholics want to impose their own theologies and beliefs on the Westerns, to the point that if the Westerns don’t accept their points of view, then they run off to the Orthodox Church?

Since I was not born and bred Catholic, I have never really been exposed to the tensions between Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholics. In that light, I admit I may not really have a right to judge the feelings of my fellow Eastern/Oriental Catholics and their frustrations with the Western Catholics. But I do feel obligated to call my fellow Easterns and Orientals to consistency.

I would ask my fellow Easterns and Orientals to try to be more discerning between Latin theologoumena and the actual offical teachings of the Catholic Church.

Please note I am writing this with respect to theologoumena. I do recognize that there are Western dogmas that are a cause of genuine uneasiness and tension- though of course I believe these dogmas properly understood can be presented in a manner that is not incompatible with the Eastern or Oriental Traditions.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. I should have (in case anyone cares) that “Original Sin: Differences b/w RC and EO” and “Assumption Vs. Dormition” are threads on the Non-Catholic Religions Forum, and “On the Fence” is a thread on the Eastern Catholicism Forum.

I imagine some examples could also be found on e.g. the Apologetics Forum (but I’m not curious enough to spend half-an-hour looking for them ).

 

[Peter_J]

Contrary to popular belief, there is a lot of Mystery in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, particularly the Latin Church, really has not made that many dogmatic pronouncements about the Faith. There is a LOT of theologoumenon in the Latin Church.

Having said that, here’s the part which I think may insult some individuals: I think some Easterns/Orientals who feel frustrated at some of the theologoumenon in the Latin Church are not being true to their heritage of apophatic spirituality and theology. I TOO often hear the argument: “Why doesn’t the Pope make that more clear? What use is the Pope if he can’t settle this issue?”

My response would be “Well, why should he?” It is so inconsistent and hypocritical to accuse the Catholic Church (especially the Latin Church) of too much dogmatism, and then turn around and argue that they need MORE dogma.

But I do sense often that some Eastern/Oriental Catholics go Orthodox because of their frustration with Western theologoumenon . For instance, I’ve heard EC’s complain of the idea of purgatorial fire, or the idea of guilt being passed on in original sin, or that Mary never died, etc, etc., etc. My viewpoint is that since I am not required to believe any of that, it really does not concern me, and thus it does not bother me. I have no business as an Oriental Catholic complaining about what goes on in the Western Church, as long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs on me. So why, I always wonder, do I TOO often hear Eastern and Oriental Catholics want to impose their own theologies and beliefs on the Westerns, to the point that if the Westerns don’t accept their points of view, then they run off to the Orthodox Church?

Since I was not born and bred Catholic, I have never really been exposed to the tensions between Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholics. In that light, I admit I may not really have a right to judge the feelings of my fellow Eastern/Oriental Catholics and their frustrations with the Western Catholics. But I do feel obligated to call my fellow Easterns and Orientals to consistency.

I would ask my fellow Easterns and Orientals to try to be more discerning between Latin theologoumena and the actual offical teachings of the Catholic Church.

Please note I am writing this with respect to theologoumena. I do recognize that there are Western dogmas that are a cause of genuine uneasiness and tension- though of course I believe these dogmas properly understood can be presented in a manner that is not incompatible with the Eastern or Oriental Traditions.

Not to monopolize the thread, but I wonder if this could be considered a (if you will) friendlier, more ecumenical version of Roma locuta, causa finita (“Rome has spoken, the matter is settled”). Namely: If Rome dogmatically defines X or Y, then the East may or may not have good reason to complain; but if Rome calls X or Y a valid theologoumenon, no one can call X or Y heretical.

 

[Ruthie]

Peter, what is a theologoumenon?

Thanks,

Ruthie

 

[RC_Matt]

Not to monopolize the thread, but I wonder if this could be considered a (if you will) friendlier, more ecumenical version of Roma locuta, causa finita (“Rome has spoken, the matter is settled”). Namely: If Rome dogmatically defines X or Y, then the East may or may not have good reason to complain; but if Rome calls X or Y a valid theologoumenon, no one can call X or Y heretical.

As long as none of the distinct parties have unilaterally defined their interpretation of an issue as dogma, a dogmatic heresy cannot technically exist. Problems that arise from differing theologoumena are essentially political in nature and those, in effect, can be every bit as divisive as doctrinal issues.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter, what is a theologoumenon?

Thanks,

Ruthie

I would define it as “acceptable theological opinion”.

Note that the C.S. Lewis quote, although not using the word, refers to it indirectly, e.g. when he says “One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements” – i.e. Christians disagree about which theological questions can brook differing opinions. (BTW I included the C.S. Lewis quote, in part, because I think it makes an interesting contrast with the other quotes, most notably the Mardukm quote.)

Hope that helps.

 

[Peter_J]

This one is also related indirectly:

If you believe in the real presence, which is the core of Catholicism, why not be Catholic? What is the major reason why you are not Catholic?

(That was in response to an Anglican who mentioned believing that the Eucharist is the Real Presence.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I would define it as “acceptable theological opinion”.

Note that the C.S. Lewis quote, although not using the word, refers to it indirectly, e.g. when he says “One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements” – i.e. Christians disagree about which theological questions can brook differing opinions. (BTW I included the C.S. Lewis quote, in part, because I think it makes an interesting contrast with the other quotes, most notably the Mardukm quote.)

Hope that helps.

I think the dogmatic principle has changed faith in Christ from Good News to extremely bad news . So it’s interesting that Newman could not imagine a Christianity was not dogmatic ​

When the Church imposes obligations on Catholics to believe certain things as dogmas, then tells the Eastern Rites & the Orthodox they do not have to believe them, what is the RC pew-dweller to think ? When the CC doesn’t take its own dogma seriously, why should anyone else ?

Its ecclesiology is a joke: Latin-Rite Catholics can’t be in more than one Church, but Byzantine-Rite Catholics can: they can double as Orthodox. Why ? And why should we care two hoots for the Church when it speaks with a forked tongue & double standards ?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think the dogmatic principle has changed faith in Christ from Good News to extremely bad news . So it’s interesting that Newman could not imagine a Christianity was not dogmatic ​

When the Church imposes obligations on Catholics to believe certain things as dogmas, then tells the Eastern Rites & the Orthodox they do not have to believe them, what is the RC pew-dweller to think ? When the CC doesn’t take its own dogma seriously, why should anyone else ?

Its ecclesiology is a joke: Latin-Rite Catholics can’t be in more than one Church, but Byzantine-Rite Catholics can: they can double as Orthodox. Why ? And why should we care two hoots for the Church when it speaks with a forked tongue & double standards ?

This, of course, is the feeling of most Orthodox on the matter.

 

[Peter_J]

I think the dogmatic principle has changed faith in Christ from Good News to extremely bad news . So it’s interesting that Newman could not imagine a Christianity was not dogmatic ​

I’m not familiar with the particular Newman quote you’re referring to, but taking it together with the many other things I’ve read from Newman, I would say that he’s wasn’t “gung-ho” about defining new dogmas (as I pointed out in the Cardinal Newman vindicated thread, he opposed Papal Infallibility being dogmatically defined). I would read “Newman could not imagine a Christianity was not dogmatic” as meaning that he couldn’t imagine a Christianity with no dogmas at all (as distinct from a Christianity with significantly fewer dogmas).

When the Church imposes obligations on Catholics to believe certain things as dogmas, then tells the Eastern Rites & the Orthodox they do not have to believe them, what is the RC pew-dweller to think ? When the CC doesn’t take its own dogma seriously, why should anyone else ?

Here, too, I would refer you to what I said on the Newman thread.

 

[Peter_J]

… This is a private prayer, a devotion to Mary, whom the Pope has adopted as his spiritual mother. It is not part of the Sacred Tradition, and is not binding upon believers. If you don’t want to pray the prayer, don’t. No problem. If the Pope wants to pray it, why criticize his prayer life? He is not teaching ex-cathedra!

Actually, I see it more the other way around. Namely, when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra, he really can’t be criticized.

P.S. Don’t get me wrong: even when he’s not teaching ex cathedra, I’m still reluctant to criticize him.