Why be an Eastern Catholic and not an Orthodox Christian?

[mardukm]

Caricature #1 “Instead of being therapeutic, it is more intellectual and emotional in character.” False. If one reads the link provided by brother Mickey, the author defines “therapeutic” as “transformation and divinization by grace.” Yet even Protestants understand that this is the historic teaching of Latin Catholicism. This author has utterly no knowledge of Latin Catholicism. I should also point out that he seems pretty ignorant of Protestantism as well, because not all Protestants hold to the “salvation by mere Faith” heresy. Methodists, Disciplines of Christ, Pentecostals and others have a “therapeutic” approach to soteriology, as well.

Caricature #2 Western theology is based on rational thought. False. Western theology is based completely on Revelation, not rational thought. A Magisterial Catholic source asserts: “There are, Venerable brethren, certain men of outstanding learning, who admit that religion is by far the most remarkable gift given to men by God and who, nevertheless, greatly exalt human reason and consider it of such great worth that they foolishly think it is equal in value to religion itself. Hence, in their vain opinion, the theological disciplines are to be handled in the same way as the philosophical. But the former studies rest upon the dogmas of Faith, and there is nothing more sure and more stable than Faith – whereas the latter are evolved and explained by human reason, and there is nothing more uncertain than reason, seeing that it varies according to different mental capacities…” Singulari Quadam (1854), Pope Pius IX.

Caricature #3 Scholastic theology tried to understand logically the Revelation of God and conform to philosophical methodology. False. The only purpose of orthodox Catholic Scholasticism was to demonstrate that Faith and Reason are in agreement with each other. It’s use of logic to “prove” the existence of God is not for the purpose of proving the existence of God per se, but merely for the end of demonstrating that Faith and Reason cannot be opposed to each other because Reason itself is from God. In other words, the use of Reason to “prove” the existence of God is to refute the claim of unorthodox Rationalists that it is irrational to believe in God. As Pope Pius IX had asserted, the purpose of Reason is to “vindicate and defend a large number of the truths which faith also proposes for belief…However, we can never allow a disregard of all right order. We cannot allow reason to trespass on the domain of faith and cause confusion; for the limits beyond which reason of itself never has gone or can go are quite certain and well known by everybody.”

Caricature #4 ** The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavoured to prove His existence by logical arguments and rational categories.**
False. Orthodox Catholic Scholasticism has never sought to “prove the existence of God.” As the Father of orthodox Catholic Scholasticism taught in his Summa, “Divine Revelation is required for the proper understanding of ALL truths of God, even those which philosophy teaches. For without revelation man could not know quickly and accurately the naturally knowable truths of God …Therefore, philosophy is not enough for man, divine revelation is required.” The author of this article falsely (purposefully or not, only God can know) claims that Latin Catholic Scholasticism makes Reason the basis for Faith, but that is the exact opposite of what orthodox Catholic Scholasticism actually is.

Caricature #5 ** In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, faith is God revealing Himself to man. **
Exactly as the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches. A Magisterial Catholic source asserts: “Because man depends entirely on God as his Creator and Lord and because created reason is wholly subordinate to uncreated Truth, we are obliged to render by faith a full submission of intellect and will to God when He makes a Revelation.” Constitution on Faith, First Vatican Council.

Caricature #6 ** We accept faith by hearing it not so that we can understand it rationally, but so that we can cleanse our hearts, attain to faith by theoria* and experience the Revelation of God.**
This is exactly what the Latin Catholic Church teaches, as well. In fact, theoria (the vision of God) is a dogma of the Catholic Faith. So the author is wrong to set the Orthodox understanding of the Faith on this point as any different or opposed to the Latin Catholic understanding. As the First Vatican Council dogmatically taught: “Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church asserts to be a supernatural virtue. By that Faith, with the inspiration and help of God’s Grace, we believe, that what He has revealed is true – NOT because its intrinsic truth is seen with the natural light of reason – but because of the authority of God Who reveals it.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Caricature #7 ** Natural truths can be proven philosophically, like the truth of the Existence of God ** False. Orthodox Latin Catholic Scholasticism has never attempted to use philosophy to “prove” the existence of God. It has only ever taught that Reason at best complements Divine Truth. In opposition to the false claim of the author, as already noted, St. Thomas taught that even Natural Truths about God require Revelation, because Reason alone is never enough when it comes to Truths about God. St. Thomas’ teaching was dogmatically affirmed by the First Vatican Council in these words: “It is OWING TO Divine Revelation, assuredly, that even those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with certitude and with no trace of error.”

Caricature #8 ** Scholasticism linked theology very closely with philosophy, even more so with metaphysics.** False. As already indicated, the gift of orthodox Latin Catholic Scholasticism to the Church was to show that Faith and Reason can coexist and can agree with each other. It made no supposed link as if to make Faith dependant on Reason. To repeat, as St. Thomas taught, and affirmed by Vatican 1, it is rather Reason that depends on Revelation.

Caricature #9 ** Scholasticism is held accountable for much of the tragic situation created in the West with respect to faith and faith issues.** Really? Is this the same Scholasticism that influenced the Council of Jerusalem when it refuted the Protestant heresies in Eastern Orthodox lands? Today, you will find EO who criticize the Council of Jerusalem for being “too Latin,” when in fact it was only by borrowing from the scholastic phrenoma of the Latin Catholic Church that it could successfully combat Protestantism.

Caricature #10 ** The Holy Fathers teach that natural and metaphysical categories do not exist but speak rather of the created and uncreated… However, it is not my intent to expound further on this.** What is the basis for claiming that “natural” and “metaphysical” categories are any different from “created” and “uncreated?” How convenient that the author does not feel he should “expound further” on the matter. Most likely, it is because he simply cannot, since, like most of his other statements, they are just hollow claims with no substance.

Caricature #11 Theologians of the West during the Middle Ages considered scholastic theology to be a further development of the teaching of the Holy Fathers. Does the author offer any statement from any scholastic theologian of the Middle Ages for this claim? No.

Caricature #12 ** and from this point on, there begins the teaching of the Franks that scholastic theology is superior to that of the Holy Fathers. Consequently, Scholastics, who are occupied with reason, consider themselves superior to the Holy Fathers of the Church.** Does the author offer any Catholic source for this statement? No.

Caricature #13 ** They also believe that human knowledge, an offspring of reason, is loftier than Revelation and experience.** Does the author offer any Catholic source for this statement? Once again, no. In direct opposition to his false claims, see the quotes from Pope Pius IX in refutation of Caricatures #2 and #3 above.

Latin Catholic Scholasticism went through its trials in the Middle Ages. There were extreme positions, and during the time of Barlaam, such extremes still existed. But the Latin Catholic Magisterium stayed the middle, orthodox ground. The old Catholic Encyclopedia concisely explains this:
“John Scotus Eriugena, in the ninth century, by his doctrine that all truth is a theophany, or showing forth of God, tried to elevate philosophy to the rank of theology, and identify the two in a species of theosophy. Abelard, in the twelfth century, tried to bring theology down to the level of philosophy, and identify both in a Rationalistic system. The greatest of the Scholastics in the thirteenth century, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, solved the problem for all time, so far as Christian speculation is concerned, by showing that the two are distinct sciences, and yet that they agree. They are distinct, he teaches, because, while philosophy relies on reason alone, theology uses the truths derived from revelation, and also because there are some truths, the mysteries of Faith, which lie completely outside the domain of philosophy and belong to theology. They agree, and must agree, because God is the author of all truth, and it is impossible to think that He would teach in the natural order anything that contradicts what He teaches in the supernatural order. The recognition of these principles is one of the crowning achievements of Scholasticism. It is one of the characteristics that mark it off from the Patristic era, in which the same principles were, so to speak, in solution, and not crystallized in definite expression. It is the trait which differentiates Scholasticism from Averroism…”

I wonder how many EO or non-Catholics who read the actual position of the Catholic Church as shown above are willing to correct their misunderstanding of Scholasticism? It is indeed a different phrenoma than what the East employs, but it is nevertheless fully orthodox. And I wonder how many EO or non-Catholics are willing to correct their own brethren when they hear fellow non-Catholics repeat the utterly baseless and worthless caricatures that the author of this essay from Orthodoxinfo.org has proposed?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Some additional thoughts: Scholasticism was more than a reliance on Aristotle; it attempted to reconcile and integrate classical philosophy with theology.

I can agree that Scholasticism tried to reconcile philosophy and theology. However, as demonstrated by the quotes from the authoritative Latin Catholic sources I provided, Scholasticism was never about “integrating” philosophy and theology. The Catholic sources indicate that orthodox Scholasticism as represented by St. Thomas Aquinas always understood philosophy and theology to be TWO DISTINCTLY SEPARATE DISCIPLINES.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Barlaam’s views - that we cannot really know Who the Holy Spirit is exactly (an outgrowth of which is agnosticism), that the ancient Greek philosophers are superior to the Prophets and the Apostles (since reason is above the vision of the Apostles), that the light of the Transfiguration is something which is created and can be undone, that the hesychastic way of life (i.e. the purification of the heart and the unceasing noetic prayer) is not essential - are views which express a scholastic and, subsequently, a secularised point of view of theology. Saint Gregory Palamas foresaw the danger that these views held for Orthodoxy and through the power and energy of the Most Holy Spirit and the experience which he himself had acquired as a successor to the Holy Fathers, he confronted this great danger and preserved unadulterated the Orthodox Faith and Tradition.

The problem here is that none of these things actually involve Scholasticism. Scholasticism is simply the belief that reason, subjected to Divine Revelation and purified by Grace, can express certain truths in an orderly and objective way, as opposed to merely arguing from authority and emotional persuasion. Moreover it is a methodology, not a collection of doctrines.

Scholasticism doesn’t “teach” anything, just as the scientific method doesn’t “teach” anything. All of the great Eastern Fathers dipped their toes into scholasticism to a greater or lesser degree, especially St. John of Damascus who was a Scholastic par excellence (despite not fitting into the historical category of Scholasticism). It is just that it was in the West where the Faithful finally got the better of the secularists in the use of reasonable arguments, and so it was there that Scholasticism took on its most obvious form.

The point of Scholasticism when it comes to things like the proof of God has nothing to do with saying that reason can reach Divinity without Grace or Faith, but rather that reason, being created by God, can only point to God and not away from from Him when properly ordered by Grace and Divine Revelation. The objective proofs of God are meant as a devotional demonstration that the universe itself is ordered towards Divine Revelation, not as a means to side-step mystical devotion or understanding.

Mardukm did an excellent job of presenting the actual Scholastic perspective and approach, I just wanted to throw this out there because “Scholastic” seems to be used in these polemical articles to mean any nebulous, negative conception the author happens to find useful for their particular argument, and has nothing to do with a real definition of the actual methodology. The fact that all those concepts of Barlaam’s are subsumed under “Scholasticism” is a perfect example of the author apparently not having any firm grasp on what Scholasticism actually is, especially since none of those ideas were shared by any Latin Scholastics that I’ve ever encountered.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

The problem here is that none of these things actually involve Scholasticism. Scholasticism is simply the belief that reason, subjected to Divine Revelation and purified by Grace, can express certain truths in an orderly and objective way, as opposed to merely arguing from authority and emotional persuasion. Moreover it is a methodology, not a collection of doctrines.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree that scholasticism is a methodology, not a doctrine or collection of doctrines. My question is then: What if the methodology does not work for you the way that it is said to work? I’m not going to argue that “purified reason” can’t or doesn’t do what the scholastic method supposes that it does (primarily because I do not know what “reason subjected to Divine Revelation and purified by Grace” means/is; how is it different than regular reason?), but I will say that for me, my own theological and philosophical training (under the Dominicans, if that makes any difference) did not “express truths in an orderly and objective way”, or at least I did not experience any sort of certain truth in a way that made me embrace this approach as being appropriate or even all that conducive to spiritual growth. I am not out to get scholasticism. I guess I just don’t understand it.

 

[5Loaves]

Huston Smith put it best: Catholicism tends to emphasize doctrinal development, Orthodoxy tends to stress continuity.

Anyone who thinks the Catholic Church doesn’t stress/emphasize continuity is clearly unfamiliar with the reality of the Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree that scholasticism is a methodology, not a doctrine or collection of doctrines. My question is then: What if the methodology does not work for you the way that it is said to work?…but I will say that for me, my own theological and philosophical training (under the Dominicans, if that makes any difference) did not “express truths in an orderly and objective way”, or at least I did not experience any sort of certain truth in a way that made me embrace this approach as being appropriate or even all that conducive to spiritual growth. I am not out to get scholasticism. I guess I just don’t understand it.

I believe that is the beauty of Catholicism. A particular theological and spiritual phrenoma is not the basis of our unity as Catholics, but rather the Faith itself, regardless of theological trappings and expressions of spirituality. It takes work, but when two groups with different theological outlooks are able to come together in agreement because of a mutually recognized common Faith, then and there does the fullness of unity bear its greatest fruit. This is something that Catholics and Oriental Orthodox share in common. Our Churches are able to look beyond theological trappings, and find a common bond in the Faith that underlies our respective theologies. It is also the reason why there can be unity between Armenian Apostolics and Coptic Orthodox, or between Latin and Eastern Catholics, despite the differences in outlook on leavened and unleavened bread. There are other examples, but I won’t belabor the point.

I know you have expressed derision at this type of outlook in the past. If you join Oriental Orthodoxy, be prepared to encounter it there, as well.

I’m not going to argue that “purified reason” can’t or doesn’t do what the scholastic method supposes that it does (primarily because I do not know what “reason subjected to Divine Revelation and purified by Grace” means/is; how is it different than regular reason?)

“Reason subjected to Divine Revelation” very simply means that it is Divine Revelation that holds precedence for Latin Catholics, not Reason. Reason serves to support Divine Revelation, not the other way around, as all the Fathers of the early Church have taught us. Here is a Coptic Orthodox source that explains that Reason is merely a tool to increase Faith: suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1417&catid=655 (Btw, who is this “St. Augustine” mentioned by that website? I’ve never heard of him.)

“Faith purified by Grace” — well, do you really need an explanation of this most basic Christian concept?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Mardukm,

I believe that is the beauty of Catholicism. A particular phrenoma is not the basis of our unity as Catholics, but rather the Faith itself, regardless of theological trappings.

I would find it odd if what you’ve described as the beauty of Catholicism was not also applicable to the EO and the OO. Also, I’m a little confused as to what you are suggesting with the “regardless of the theological trappings” bit. Can you clarify that, please?

“Reason subjected to Divine Revelation” very simply means that it is Divine Revelation that holds precedence for Latin Catholics, not Reason. Reason serves to support Divine Revelation, not the other way around, as all the Fathers of the early Church have taught us.

I see.

Here is a Coptic Orthodox source that explains that Reason is merely a tool to increase Faith: suscopts.org/q&a/index.ph…1417&catid=655 (Btw, who is this “St. Augustine” mentioned by that website? I’ve never heard of him.)

As I’ve already written, St. Augustine is apparently recognized as a saint in the Coptic Orthodox church. I see no problem with this, so long as it does not lead to the kind of errors that the Latins have embraced in relation to him (their understanding of original sin, for instance).

“Faith purified by Grace” — well, do you really need an explanation of this most basic Christian concept?

Come on, man. That’s not what I wrote. I don’t know what “reason purified by grace” is. I didn’t write “faith”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I would find it odd if what you’ve described as the beauty of Catholicism was not also applicable to the EO and the OO.

I find the Catholic Church to be the perfect sign and evidence of – well – Catholicity. It is only in Catholicism that you will find communion among ALL Traditions that existed when the Church was still united in the first millenium. It is in Catholicism that the Church is truly whole. The OO, because it has more than one Tradition in its Communion, and has a phrenoma that can accept more than one Tradition, also evinces the mark of Catholicity, but not as perfectly as the Catholic Churches, IMO. The EO have only one Tradition, and because of that, I don’t really see it as having the mark of Catholicity (though it is certainly Orthodox). Though I see sure signs of the mark of Catholicity in individual members within the EOC communion, I see more signs of uniatism (trying to impose the Eastern phrenoma on other Churches).

Also, I’m a little confused as to what you are suggesting with the “regardless of the theological trappings” bit. Can you clarify that, please?

I’m referring to the idea that theology as such is man’s attempt to understand God. Theology will always be limited because of that. Theology is not the Faith itself, but is the expression of Faith. We need to look beyond those expressions, and search for our common Faith. True unity lies in that, not in any sort of uniatism.

As HH Pope Shenoute (Coptic) and HH Pope Paul VI (of blessed memory) affirmed together:
With sincerity and urgency we recall that true charity, rooted in total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for each one’s Traditions, is an essential element of this search for perfect communion.

HH’s Vasken I (Armenian Apostolic) and Paul VI:
This unity cannot be realized unless everyone, pastors and faithful, really strive to know each other. (Notice the difference between this attitude and the one you find at a website like Orthodoxinfo.org)

HH’s Mar Ignatius Jacob (Syriac Orthodox) and Paul VI:
Progress has already been made…in agreement that there is no difference in the faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become really man, even if over the centuries difficulties have arisen out of the different theological expressions by which this faith was expressed.

Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan (of blessed memory; Armenian Apostolic):
Pegging down Orthodoxy to the authority of Councils and to the fixity of theological propositions issued by them, and judging orthodoxy or otherwise of a section of the Church on the basis of its acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, has failed to produce unity in the Church, and most probably will continued to do so…On the other hand, when we take a Council dealing with doctrinal matters as a teaching organ rather than a legislative organ of the Church, and focus our attention on the insights contained in its expositions, then the desired consensus will be possible to produce…

HH’s Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas (Syriac Orthodox) and JP2 (of thrice-blessed memory):
The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter.

Agreement between the Malankara Orthodox and the Catholic Churches:
It is this faith which we both confess. Its content is the same in both communions; in formulating that content in the course of history, however, differences have arisen, in terminology and emphasis. We are convinced that these differences are such as can co-exist in the same communion and therefore need not and should not divide us,

These are quotes I could think of off hand.

(their understanding of original sin, for instance).

Can you please specify a bit more?

“Reason purified by grace” is.

That was cerebral non-event. I actually sensed something was off and I was gazing at the screen for several minutes - but I couldn’t figure it out. So I sent it off.

Anyway, “reason purified by Grace” means the human intellect/Reason moved by Grace. As St. Athanasius teaches us, man’s use of reason was diminished because of the Fall. So Reason alone, as taught by the Catholic Magisterium (see my quotes above) is never sufficient on its own to come to a knowledge of God, even natural knowledge.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I find the Orthodox reluctance to declare new dogma very attractive and encouraging.

 

[Mickey]

I may be wrong here, but Augustine does not seem to be as widely read in the East and the Orient as he is in the West, either historically or currently.

I have noticed this also.

 

[Mickey]

Have you ever read treatises by supporters of the Toll House doctrine in EO’xy?

Doctrine? LOL! Talk about polemics!
I find it rather interesting that the toll house canard is always offered when you become a bit disturbed.

 

[Mickey]

Some additional thoughts: Scholasticism was more than a reliance on Aristotle; it attempted to reconcile and integrate classical philosophy with theology. While Barlaam may not have based his arguments on Aristotle, it was his rationalist, philosophical approach to Christian theology that bore similarities to the scholasticism taking place in the West. I find agreement with Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) when he writes:

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx

The East has had its share of rationalists. Arius and the Origenists, for example, along with Barlaam, may be suggested. The West for its part has had its anti-scholastics (e.g. St. Bernard of Clairvaux). I do not think one can clearly cut a scholastic West versus mystical East picture; but I do think the West, especially since the rise of humanism and the Enlightenment, has tended more toward this rationalistic approach (where it appears in the East, it’s usually from the influence of the West–as with the 19th century nihilists of Russia). Unfortunately, at the time of the Renaissance, many scholars in the East helped fuel rationalism in the West (e.g. Pletho).

Great post!

 

[Mickey]

“Instead of being therapeutic, it is more intellectual and emotional in character.”

True----in my experience of 38 years as a Roman Catholic in multiple Churches—and true with almost every RC member I speak with.

Western theology is based on rational thought.

True. And Western scholasticism has continued to evolve.

Scholastic theology tried to understand logically the Revelation of God and conform to philosophical methodology.

True. This feeds into the apophatic vs cataphatic debate.

**The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavoured to prove His existence by logical arguments and rational categories. **

see above.

 

[Mickey]

This is something that Catholics and Oriental Orthodox share in common. Our Churches are able to look beyond theological trappings, and find a common bond in the Faith that underlies our respective theologies.

Yet the Coptic Orthodox look at Roman Catholic Churches (East and West) as heterodox.

 

[Mickey]

faithnet.org.uk/Theology/aquinas.htm
Aquinas’ theological method, as already mentioned, was largely Aristotelian in character. Following Aristotle (referred to by Aquinas as the philosopher) he taught that philosophy is based on data available to everyone. Theology is based on revelation (the Bible) and logical deduction (reason) from revelation. An example of his use of philosophy in theological discourse is his famous ‘Five Ways’ which are an attempt to prove (or justify) God’s existence on the basis of what can be known from the world. His justification for his ‘proofs’ is that the existence of God is not evident to people but must be proved and the basis of these ‘proofs’ could be found in the created order - the ‘fingerprints of God’ (Romans 1:20). An example of one such ‘proof’ is The Cosmological Argument. Using Aristotle’s pre-Christian notion of an unmoved mover he reasoned that one could argue back from the things we see in the world around us to a first cause or Great Designer - God (see also The Design Argument). However, his arguments (or proofs) have been criticised by many (notably Immanuel Kant) for assuming the a priori existence of that he is seeking to prove exists (in this case God - although it should be noted that Aquinas rejected Anslem’s Ontological Argument). Furthermore, that it is the Christian God who is the ‘first cause’ (or Grand Architect of the universe) is not evident on the basis of ‘natural theology’ alone but requires an additional ‘leap of faith’ based on the revelation of the Bible. Aquinas’ statements concerning ‘natural theology’ were condemned by the University of Paris in 1277. Scholars such as Dunns Scotus and William of Ockham also criticised him for not recognising that at times reason and revelation contradict each other.

 

[Harpazo]

Yet the Coptic Orthodox look at Roman Catholic Churches (East and West) as heterodox.

Well, they don’t REALLY mean that.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mickey]

Moreover it is a methodology, not a collection of doctrines.

Scholasticism is a term used to designate both a method and a system. It expresses a point of view. I believe it leads to the innovation of doctrine. It is a system which attempts to explain what cannot be explained. It is a method and a tool that has been used to approach God with mind and philosophy—but the only way to approach God is through purification of the nous and the ascetic life.

 

[Mickey]

I am not out to get scholasticism. I guess I just don’t understand it.

Good point. Perhaps there is someone who can debunk scholasticism by using scholasticism.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Anyone who thinks the Catholic Church doesn’t stress/emphasize continuity is clearly unfamiliar with the reality of the Catholic Church.

Context my friend. Smith is a scholar of comparative religion. When compared to each other, which side stresses development more Catholicism or Orthodoxy? When compared, which side stresses development less, and therefore, continuity more? To understand Huston Smith, you must understand the academic approach that comparative religious scholars take.

So of course Catholicism does stress continuity. He’s not saying they don’t.