east and west and marriage

[Era Might]

Jeff,

I can agree with the analogy, with a caveat: Neither driving age is intrinsically necessary for either state. California and Maryland could easily switch the driving ages, and it wouldn't matter, because the driving age is just a particular way to actualize driving safety.

It's not a question of which driving age is correct. Because one state acknowledges a lower driving age, the other state must logically accept the fact that their higher driving age is one of internal form, rather than any intrinisic necessity of driving. The higher driving age is necessary in one state only because that is how driving safety is carried out there.

If the higher-aged state claimed that 18 was the only age possible for driving, and they don't care what anyone else says, they would be blind and wrong, because the reality is different elsewhere. Their situation must be harmonized with reality, that it IS possible to drive at a different age, they just choose not to. When they recognize that, there is no discord, because it is simply a matter of living out the same Sacrament in a different way, rather than holding two contradictory beliefs on what constitutes a valid Sacrament.

[Aloysius]

I tried to post this last page but my internet wasn't working... bare with me if it's a little old:

to say something is different theologically is different than saying doctrinally, because "doctrine" connotes the teaching of the Church, and in regards to what the Church teaches she is absolutely consistant and anyone not in conformity with all doctrine the Church teaches is in error.

however, theology and theological viewpoint et cetera are more about the teaching and understanding of individuals and communities which always must be within the framework of the Church's doctrine. it is not incorrect to refer to these as 'doctrinal differences' in that someone in the east thus offers differing 'teachings' though the teaching of the Church must be held by all.

since doctrine means teaching, it is generally viewed to refer to the teaching of the church. since theology means the study of God, theological perspectives generally refer to the understanding and teaching of the students of the Church.

defined in this manner there should be no doctrinal difference between the East and West. That is where everyone was having a problem with Apotheoun saying we hold different things doctrinally.

anyway, then to the filoque... as far as my latin understanding was, the filoque never meant that the son was the origin of the Holy Spirit. I have never been led to believe this in any of the stuff I've read here in the west. I always understood "proceeds from the Father and the Son" to be synonymous to "proceeds from the Father through the Son", as in we could view Christ as sending the Holy Spirit just as we could view the Father sending the Holy Spirit, but the Father is ultimately the eternal origin, as the Holy Spirit is created by the Father begetting the Son.

perhaps there is something in the west I missed... but I never saw it taught that the Son was somehow a cause of the Holy Spirit. I always interpretted it quite differently.

the marriage part is still a problematic question I think. I understand the differing theological perspective, but how can someone's theological perspective ONLY APPLY to those within their sui juris church?

does the East admit valid marriages in the West? If so, how does the East think those marriages come about, by the priest or the couple?

[Apotheoun]

The Byzantine and other Eastern Churches do have different doctrinal understandings of the mysteries of the faith, and as a member of a sui juris Eastern Church I am bound by those doctrinal positions. As Vatican II itself said, "Those who by reason of their office or apostolic ministry have frequent dealings with the Eastern Churches or their faithful should be instructed as their office demands in the theoretical and practical knowledge of the rites, discipline, doctrine, history and character of the members of the Eastern Churches." [Second Vatican Council, [u]Orientalium Ecclesiarum[/u], no. 6] The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches do have different doctrinal teachings than the Roman Church, and rather than pretend that we do not, or worse yet force the Eastern Churches to accept doctrinal teachings contrary to their own legitimate traditions, Westerners should instead become aquatinted with the differences. Since the Holy See itself does not have a problem with these differences, it would be good for the average Westerner to be comfortable with them too.

For example, the Eastern Churches have a doctrine of grace as uncreated divine energy, and the West does not, but that does not mean that Byzantine Catholics must abandon the doctrine of divine energy, which is fundamental to understanding the Triadology of the Byzantine Church, and be forced to accept the Scholastic notion of grace as created. The same holds with the [i]filioque[/i], for the Vatican itself has stated that the normative version of the Nicene creed, i.e., that which is binding upon the whole Church, is the creed without the [i]filioque[/i]. As the Vatican's own clarification on the [i]filioque[/i] states: "The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church." The [i]filioque[/i] is a theologoumenon peculiar to the Latin Church, and as such it is not binding upon Eastern Catholics.

Eastern and Western doctrinal teaching does not have to coincide in every particular for there to be communion between the Latin Church and the various Eastern Churches, and to insist that it does, simply ensures that there will never be communion with the Orthodox East.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Era Might']The Church of Rome defines orthodoxy. Ubi Petri, ibi Ecclesia. Eastern (or Western) traditions are not idols to be worshipped, they are guides to our life of faith. As I said above, the Church has rejected propositions from East and West. Such is the nature of a living Magisterium. It is idolotrous to hold on to a Father because he's from the East. The Fathers do not speak for God. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does.[/quote]
I still don't quite understand how it is that either the Western or Eastern Church isn't right about this, and the other wrong. I just wanted to preface this by saying that.

Era Might, I think your understanding of the Church is flawed. The Church of Rome is not the Universal Church; rather, the Bishop of Rome is the Universal Pastor. That may not seem like much of a difference, but it's actually a pretty important one. The Universal Church is made up of all of the particular Churches which are in union with the Holy See, and their universal witness is the universal magisterium of the Church -- not simply the witness of the Church of Rome. Your assertion that the Church of Rome is "the Church" makes it seem as if the bishops of the particular Churches are no more than the pope's altar boys, and that's simply not Catholic ecclesiology. The Eastern Catholic Churches are whole and valid Churches unto themselves, not just the bastard children of Rome -- but you are treating them like the latter, not the former.

I would also point out that your elevation of scholasticism above patristics -- which is exactly what you have consistently done throughout this thread -- is inconsistent with [i]the Western Church's[/i] theology since the Second Vatican Council. Like it or not, the Second Vatican Council killed scholasticism in favor of [i]ressourcement[/i], a return to the sources of the Church -- sources like, for instance, patristics. Scholasticism is now dead and buried. The current pope has been throughout his theological career one of the sharpest critics of scholasticism, and one of the leading pioneers of the postconciliar [i]ressourcement[/i] movement. The time of scholasticism has passed, thank God, and the Church will be far better off for it.

[Era Might]

The problem is not when there are differences between Eastern and Western theology, because there are a lot of theological concepts the Church has yet to speak on (you cite the question of "energies"; in the West, such a case can be seen in the Thomist vs. Molinist debates).

The issue at hand, however, is not a matter where the Church has no established understanding. The Catholic Church formally and infallibly accepts the form of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that does not require the blessing of a priest. This, de facto, rules out any theological proposition which would argue the absolute necessity of a priestly blessing for the validity of a marriage.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are not renegades. They are bound to the Church's authentic Magisterium as much as anyone else. In matters on which the Church has not spoken, they are free to speculate, as are Catholics of the Latin Church.

[Era Might]

[quote]The Church of Rome is not the Universal Church[/quote]

I didn't say it was. I said the Church of Rome, as a particular Church, is the mother and mistress of all other particular Churches. Her authentic Magisterium is universally binding.

[quote]I would also point out that your elevation of scholasticism above patristics -- which is exactly what you have consistently done throughout this thread -- is inconsistent with the Western Church's theology since the Second Vatican Council.[/quote]

I have not said a word about Scholasticism. What I have done is upheld the Church's understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, that it does not require absolutely the blessing of a priest. If true, this proposition would be a direct attack on the validity of Latin marriages, which make up 99% of Catholic marriages throughout the world.

Furthermore, I do not worship Patristics or Scholasticism. Both are subject to the Church's living Magisterium. Eastern Catholics are free to formulate the Catholic faith in an Eastern fashion, and speculate when there is no word from the Church. What they are not free to do is reject the doctrinal faith of the Catholic Church.

[quote]Scholasticism is now dead and buried. [/quote]

This statement is so beyond the pale it's not worth a response. The Magisterium, strictly speaking, has no system of theology. Theologians are free to work within whatever bounds they see fit, whether it is Scholasticism, Byzantine theology, or otherwise.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:47 PM']The problem is not when there are differences between Eastern and Western theology, because there are a lot of theological concepts the Church has yet to speak on (you cite the question of "energies"; in the West, such a case can be seen in the Thomist vs. Molinist debates).

The issue at hand, however, is not a matter where the Church has no established understanding. The Catholic Church formally and infallibly accepts the form of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that does not require the blessing of a priest. This, de facto, rules out any theological proposition which would argue the absolute necessity of a priestly blessing for the validity of a marriage.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are not renegades. They are bound to the Church's authentic Magisterium as much as anyone else. In matters on which the Church has not spoken, they are free to speculate, as are Catholics of the Latin Church.
[right][snapback]716037[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Vatican II itself recognizes differences of doctrine between East and West, as the quotation I provided shows, so this is a moot point.

As for the so-called definitive nature of the Scholastic understanding of the sacrament of marriage without a priest officiating as the minister of the sacrament, that teaching only arose in the medieval West, and has never been accepted by the East, either Orthodox or Catholic.

As a Byzantine Catholic I am bound to the doctrinal position of my [i]sui juris[/i] Church, and as I said before, the reaffirmation of the Byzantine doctrinal tradition by the Eastern Catholic Churches may be uncomfortable for some Westerners, but the de-latinization of the Eastern Churches will continue regardless of the desires of some in the West, and moreover, it progresses with Papal approval.

[Era Might]

[quote]As a Byzantine Catholic I am bound to the doctrinal position of my sui juris Church[/quote]

A local Church cannot set up a parallell and contradictory Magisterium to the Universal Church. The Church of Rome, in its authentic Magisterium, speaks for the universal Church, to which all Catholics of any particular Church owe their assent.

Let's get down to the bottom of this.

Do you accept the validity of Latin marriages? Yes or no?

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:06 PM']A local Church cannot set up a parallell and contradictory Magisterium to the Universal Church. The Church of Rome, in its authentic Magisterium, speaks for the universal Church, to which all Catholics of any particular Church owe their assent.
[right][snapback]716085[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There is no contradiction, since the Popes have accepted these differences as legitimate.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:06 PM']Let's get down to the bottom of this.

Do you accept the validity of Latin marriages? Yes or no?
[right][snapback]716085[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Where have I ever said that Latin marriages are invalid? I don't believe that I have, but I have insisted that I am bound by the doctrine of my [i]sui juris[/i] Church, and so I have refused to submit to a Scholastic understanding of the sacrament of marriage, that is all. Of course, you are bound by the doctrinal teaching of your [i]sui juris[/i] Church, and you should hold to it, but please refrain from trying to impose it on others.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:15 PM']Where have I ever said that Latin marriages are invalid?  I don't believe that I have, but I have insisted that I am bound by the doctrine of my [i]sui juris[/i] Church, and so I have refused to submit to a Scholastic understanding of the sacrament of marriage, that is all.  Of course, you are bound by the doctrinal teaching of your [i]sui juris[/i] Church, and you should hold to it, but please refrain from trying to impose it on others.
[right][snapback]716100[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


theres been alot of reading into things today, don't gt too worked up about it.

[Era Might]

[quote]Where have I ever said that Latin marriages are invalid? I don't believe that I have[/quote]

Ok. But I didn't ask you what you haven't said. I asked what you believe.

Do you accept, without question, the validity of Latin marriages?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:17 PM']Ok. But I didn't ask you what you haven't said. I asked what you believe.

Do you accept, without question, the validity of Latin marriages?
[right][snapback]716106[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, clearly I believe the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, and that is why I changed [i]sui juris[/i] Churches and became Byzantine in the first place; and of course my change of Church was approved by the proper authorities in both the Latin and Byzantine hierarchies.

As far as your question is concerned, I accept anything that my Eparch accepts.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:21 PM']Well, clearly I believe the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, and that is why I changed [i]sui juris[/i] Churches and became Byzantine in the first place; and of course my change of Church was approved by the proper authorities in both the Latin and Byzantine hierarchies.
[right][snapback]716114[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


How do you go about doing that anyway simply petition the respective bishops?

[Era Might]

You still didn't answer my question.

Do you accept, without hesitation, the validity of Latin marriages?