Eastern Catholic Vs. Eastern Orthodox

[Era Might]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1345976' date='Aug 1 2007, 01:01 AM']But is there not a basis in Eastern Tradition to accept only those councils? A tradition that the Eastern Churches are told to keep?

Do you think that the statement "the general councils of the Western Church do not reflect the theological and spiritual tradition of the Byzantine Church" is a false one then?

I've found that other Eastern Catholics on that particular forum share Apotheoun's point of view, and not being an Eastern Catholic myself I cannot discern truth or folly.[/quote]
The Church has authority to define the faith, and to settle theological speculation. Right now, for example, there is a discussion in the West on the subject of predestination, between Thomists and Molinists. They are free to disagree, but if the Church were to make a judgment on this matter, they would have to adjust their theology to conform to the teaching of the Church. The teaching of the Church extends to all Catholics, whether they are Eastern or Western. The question is not whether the teaching of the Church reflects our theology, but whether our theology reflects the teaching of the Church.

The Church has encouraged Eastern Catholics to be fully Eastern, but that doesn't mean they can believe anything just because it's Eastern. The theological traditions of the East are always subject to the teaching of the Church, as are the theological traditions of the West.

The Church has never stated that the last fourteen Ecumenical Councils are binding on Catholics of the West only (except, of course, where they deal with discipline). There can be discussion about how the teaching of the Councils are to be expressed in the East, but to say that they are not binding on Eastern Catholics is incorrect. When they define the faith, they are teaching for the entire Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1345347' date='Jul 31 2007, 11:16 AM']I am curious and concerned about the concept of mortal and venial sins being absent in eastern tradition. They view all sin as missing the mark, although I have seen the term serious applied to sin. [. . .][/quote]
Byzantine theologians do not make a distinction between mortal and venial sin in the same way that the Scholastics of the West do; instead, in the Eastern doctrinal tradition a man sins mortally when he fails to repent from his evil deeds (see Nicaea II, canon 5).

[abercius24]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1344637' date='Jul 30 2007, 06:06 PM']I would make a distinction between "theology" and "doctrine." There is no one specific theology in the Church, although all theology is informed and grounded in the same doctrine. There is a wide diversity of theology within the West as well as the East. The celibacy of Priests is a good example, because it is based on two different theologies of the Priesthood. In the East, I believe there is a distinction between Priest and Bishop where the latter is understood in more monastic terms, and so he cannot be married. In the West, we do not make this distinction between Priest and Bishop, although we do make a similar distinction between Priest and Deacon (and so deacons are allowed to marry). It's not really a doctrinal difference, we still believe in the same Sacrament of Holy Orders, but it is expressed and lived differently according to our respective theologies. I think an important difference between Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is that such differences should be understood in a complementary way rather than a contradictory way. Whereas an Orthodox Christian might not (although he might) recognize the validity of the Western view, an Eastern Catholic must accept the validity of the Western view, and not set up a dichotomy where there is a rupture between East and West. This is also true of Western Catholics, who should not impose anything that the Church does not. And of course, if there is a doctrinal judgment from the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, then it is binding on all Catholics of East and West, although it may have different expressions and nuances when synthesized with other aspects of Eastern and Western theology.[/quote]

Era is totally on the money here. All doctrines that are clarified by Ecumenical Council are expressions of the Universal and Extraordinary Magesterium, and are therefore binding upon ALL the faithful -- whether they be East or West. There is no room to negotiate this point. If the East applies that rule to the first 7 councils, they must also apply it to all following councils.

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1345821' date='Jul 31 2007, 10:26 PM']So an excerpt from [url="http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/116783#Post116783"]Byz Cath forums[/url]

I find Apotheoun, whom I trust greatly in matters concerning Eastern Catholicism, that "as an Eastern Catholic I do not accept the formulations of the fourteen Latin Church councils, and I do not believe that I have to accept them, nor will the Eastern Orthodox ever be required to accept them. Clearly, the general councils of the Western Church do not reflect the theological and spiritual tradition of the Byzantine Church, and as a consequence the formulations made by those councils cannot be imposed upon Eastern Christians.

Nevertheless, as I said above, I believe that Latin Catholics are obliged to accept the decisions of their Church's particular synods; and so, unlike my Eastern Orthodox brothers, I refuse to call those Latin councils heretical; instead, I simply see them as expressions of the Latin theological tradition."

So it would seem to me this would support that the Original 7 councils are of significance to an Eastern Catholic tradition, whereas the councils afterward would not be?[/quote]

It is quite insulting to some of the other Eastern Rites when that one fellow states all Ecumenical Councils beyond the first seven are solely expressions of the Western Church. He is acting as though there have never been representatives of the Eastern Rite at those Councils, when in fact there were. The Marionites and a few other smaller Rites never separated themselves from the West. Though the East has been severed significantly with the schism, we have always had a union with at least a few Churches in the East. They have no problem agreeing with the doctrines dictated by all Ecumenical Councils. We cannot be ONE Church if we cannot have a solid basis for knowing what Christ and the Apostles have given for us to believe. We must be built upon the Rock.

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1345347' date='Jul 31 2007, 01:16 PM']I am curious and concerned about the concept of mortal and venial sins being absent in eastern tradition. They view all sin as missing the mark, although I have seen the term serious applied to sin. It is generally stated that the west takes a more legalistic approach to sin trying to paint things in black and white, where the underlying requirements for a particular sin to be mortal can often make it gray depending on the situation.

Whereas, from what I have read and heard from the East sin is painted in a gray light and the focus is on spiritual growth so that it may become black and white.

I understand that one cannot look at eastern theology and allow that to be seen as a contradiction of western theology, however I feel that it may help me to come to a fuller understanding of the doctrines of the Church when I look at both side by side.

I have heard and read of differing approaches to confession, sin, original sin, salvation outside the church, and doctrines of Mary. Again I do not see these as contradictory approaches, but I feel that viewing both together helps one understand the Catholic Churches teachings to a fuller extent and perhaps corrects errors in thinking.

Of course I want to be sure that I am getting the correct information before I make any concrete conclusions.[/quote]

I think the difference here is one of presentation. The "gray area" can be found in both Eastern and Western theology. We (the West) teach the moral rule from its most strict form, then apply mitigating factors afterwards. The Eastern Rites teach both the moral rule and related mitigating factors all in one thought. For example, we teach Masturbation is a grave sin, which can be mortal if the three requirements are met (full knowledge, full consent, grave matter). But, we follow up by recognizing mitigating factors, such as addiction, psychological malady, past sexual abuse, etc. Because we don't know just how much those mitigating factors would lessen a classification of a sin as mortal, we do have a "grey area" that must be sorted out between the sinner and God. The Eastern Rites, on the other hand, would say that Masturbation is a sin that can substantially effect ones spiritual growth if one allows the sin to dominate their lives and/or lead them away from frequenting the sacraments. The teachings are basically the same. The Western Church tries to emphasize the calling to perfection, but still recognizes that many grave sins may not be mortal given the circumstances. The Eastern Church tries to emphasize forward progress in righteousness, recognizing that we are starting from the bottom and working our way up by way of the sacraments. They find no need to specifically recognize mitigating factors since those would be reflected in how detrimental the sin is to one's spiritual growth. The West has a focus on personal accountability, whereas the East has a focus on encouragement.

Some other differences between East and West: The East does not practice Eucharistic Adoration, nor do they regularly keep the Eucharist in a tabernacle. They also practice "intiction" during Communion, meaning the priest dips the Sacred Host into the Sacred Chalice before offering it to the communicant. Western theology is presented in an Aristotelian manner (based on the principles taught by Aristotle, the Greek philosopher). This is mainly due to the fact that our most influential doctors of theology (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) were taught the faith from that perspective. We teach things in a "perfect scenario" first, then apply exceptions and clarifications afterwards (a more legal manner, if you will). Eastern theology attempts to teach the faith in its most simple form so that "speculation" and "conjecture" may not cloud one's understanding of the faith.

Steve S. -- Abercius24
CatholicQandA.com

Edited August 4, 2007 by abercius24

[Apotheoun]

From the Melkite Catholic Church's own website:

[quote]8. How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
[indent]a. Seven Ecumenical Councils[/indent]

9. Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
[indent]a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox[/indent][/quote]
[url="http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm#GRADES%207-12"]Melkite Catechetical Challenge Questions - Grades 7 through 12[/url]

[Era Might]

That is incorrect. By that reasoning, Chalcedon could not be recognized as an Ecumenical Council since the Oriental Orthodox did not accept it.

The universal Church continues to exist even though there are particular Churches and ecclesial communities living apart from her. She remains always the universal Church, and she can never cease to be the universal Church. This was the clarification of the recent document from the Holy See, which affirmed that the Church spoken of in the creed truly "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

Pope John XXIII explicitly designated the Second Vatican Council as an Ecumenical Council at his opening address, and also referred to the previous 13 Councils as Ecumenical Councils

[quote]Today, Venerable Brethren, is a day of joy for Mother Church: through God's most kindly providence the longed-for day has dawned for the solemn opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, here at Saint Peter's shrine. And Mary, God's Virgin Mother, on this feast day of her noble motherhood, gives it her gracious protection.

A positive proof of the Catholic Church's vitality is furnished by every single council held in the long course of the centuries—by the twenty ecumenical councils as well as by the many thousands of memorable regional and provincial ones emblazoned on the scroll of history.[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1349725' date='Aug 4 2007, 04:06 PM']Era is totally on the money here. All doctrines that are clarified by Ecumenical Council are expressions of the Universal and Extraordinary Magesterium, and are therefore binding upon ALL the faithful -- whether they be East or West. There is no room to negotiate this point. If the East applies that rule to the first 7 councils, they must also apply it to all following councils.[/quote]
Interestingly, small excerpts of the working document (discussed last year in Belgrade) of the official Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have been released (due to an objection made by the Russian delegation), and the document says that: "an [i]Ecumenical Council[/i] in the strong sense became impossible," but "both Churches continued to hold [i]general[/i] councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople" [[i]The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Conciliarity and Authority in the Church[/i], paragraph 45].

Apparently Rome is willing to negotiate on this issue, while some members of the lay faithful in the Roman Church are not.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1349736' date='Aug 4 2007, 04:25 PM']That is incorrect. By that reasoning, Chalcedon could not be recognized as an Ecumenical Council since the Oriental Orthodox did not accept it.

The universal Church continues to exist even though there are particular Churches and ecclesial communities living apart from her. She remains always the universal Church, and she can never cease to be the universal Church. This was the clarification of the recent document from the Vatican, which affirmed that the Church spoken of in the creed truly "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

Pope John XXIII explicitly designated the Second Vatican Council as an Ecumenical Council at his opening address, and also referred to the previous 13 Councils as Ecumenical Councils[/quote]
Well, do you really care what the Oriental Orthodox think about Chalcedon? After all, in the past they held that Pope Leo openly taught heresy in his tome delivered at the council, while the Eastern Orthodox revere him as a God-inspired Church Father.

Besides, more recent scholarship from the joint commission for dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church has shown that the Miaphysites actually do teach the same thing as the Chalcedonians in connection with the incarnation.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1349739' date='Aug 4 2007, 06:29 PM']Interestingly, small excerpts of the working document (discussed last year in Belgrade) of the official Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have been released (due to an objection made by the Russian delegation), and the document says that: "an [i]Ecumenical Council[/i] in the strong sense became impossible," but "both Churches continued to hold [i]general[/i] councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople" [[i]The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Conciliarity and Authority in the Church[/i], paragraph 45].

Apparently Rome is willing to negotiate on this issue, while some members of the lay faithful in the Roman Church are not.[/quote]
A theological commission is not the Magisterium. If someone is not going to accept the Second Vatican Council and its predecessors as Ecumenical Councils, then they are contradicting the understanding of the Church that they are Ecumenical Councils. If you look at the citation footnotes of Church documents, for example, they refer to the Second Vatican Council as the "Second Vatican Ecumenical Council." Pope John XXIII expressly stated that it was an Ecumenical Council when it started, and Pope Paul VI also stated that it was an Ecumenical Council when it ended:

[quote]While we close the ecumenical council, we are honoring Mary Most Holy, the mother of Christ, and consequently, as we declared on another occasion, the mother of God and our spiritual mother.

[url="http://www.vatican.net/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19651208_epilogo-concilio-immacolata_en.html"]http://www.vatican.net/holy_father/paul_vi...acolata_en.html[/url][/quote]
[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1349744' date='Aug 4 2007, 06:35 PM']Well, do you really care what the Oriental Orthodox think about Chalcedon? After all, in the past they held that Pope Leo openly taught heresy in his tome delivered at the council, while the Eastern Orthodox revere him as a God-inspired Church Father.[/quote]
My point is that the rejection of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox did not affect the status of the Council as an Ecumenical Council. The Church continued to exist even without the full communion of those particular Churches. The same has been true since the separation of most of the East from the West. The universal Church continues to subsist in the Catholic Church, and the separation of the particular Eastern Churches do not affect her authority to call Ecumenical Councils, and she has called fourteen of them since the separation.

[Apotheoun]

The Catholic participants at the international commission (including the co-chairman Cardinal Kasper) have been appointed by Rome. In other words, they officially represent the Roman Magisterium in the talks, which are meant to restore communion between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1349749' date='Aug 4 2007, 04:46 PM']My point is that the rejection of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox did not affect the status of the Council as an Ecumenical Council. The Church continued to exist even without the full communion of those particular Churches. The same has been true since the separation of most of the East from the West. The universal Church continues to subsist in the Catholic Church, and the separation of the particular Eastern Churches do not affect her authority to call Ecumenical Councils, and she has called fourteen of them since the separation.[/quote]
I know what your point is, but I do not think that Rome agrees with you. The Pope himself, while visiting the Ecumenical Patriarch, spoke about the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and said that "Orthodox and Catholics alike acknowledge [them] as authoritative for the faith and discipline of the Church" [Pope Benedict XVI, [i]Address of the Holy Father at the Patriarchal Cathedral of Saint George in the Phanar[/i], 29 November 2006].

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1349751' date='Aug 4 2007, 06:50 PM']The Catholic participants at the international commission (including the co-chairman Cardinal Kasper) have been appointed by Rome. In other words, they officially represent the Roman Magisterium in the talks, which are meant to restore communion between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church.[/quote]
Even if there are representatives of the Church in the commission, the documents of the commission are not part of the Magisterium. The representatives are members of the commission to explore questions of theology on behalf of the Church; but the teaching of the Church is distinct from theological speculation. Church teaching is authoritative and universal, whereas theology is speculative and is only the opinion of the theologians who propose it, who are always in obedience to the final judgment of the Church.

If the Church would ever teach that they were not Ecumenical Councils, then I would obey without question. And I don't even have a problem with theologians asking the question whether they can be seen as general Councils, as long as they only ask and do not state it as fact. But every public teaching of the Church acknowledges them as Ecumenical Councils, and so all Catholics must accept them as Ecumenical Councils.

[Apotheoun]

The commission speaks for and represents the Roman Magisterium in these talks, just as the Orthodox members of the commission truly speak for their Churches, otherwise the talks are completely pointless.

I -- of course -- trust that Pope Benedict knows what he is doing.

[Era Might]

Pope Benedict has also recognized the Second Vatican Council as an Ecumenical Council. For example:

[quote]The Fathers of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, pointed out that ''not everything automatically becomes permissible between hostile parties once war has regrettably commenced''.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20051213_xxxix-world-day-peace_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...y-peace_en.html[/url][/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1349759' date='Aug 4 2007, 05:08 PM']If the Church would ever teach that they were not Ecumenical Councils, then I would obey without question. And I don't even have a problem with theologians asking the question whether they can be seen as general Councils. But every public teaching of the Church acknowledges them as Ecumenical Councils, and so all Catholics must accept them as Ecumenical Councils.[/quote]
Your comment pleases me greatly.

That said, the Eastern Catholic Churches -- like the Melkites -- teach that the Western synods held after the 11th century are not ecumenical in the true sense of that word, and that is why we do not feel obliged to follow them. Nevertheless, Latin Catholics are bound to accept the synods of their particular Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1349769' date='Aug 4 2007, 05:15 PM']Pope Benedict has also recognized the Second Vatican Council as an Ecumenical Council. For example:[/quote]
Well, perhaps he is being duplicitous, but I sincerely doubt that.

Simply calling a general council of the West ecumenical does not make it ecumenical, any more than Easterners calling the Palamite Councils of the 14th century ecumenical makes them ecumenical.

P.S. - The first person to call the later Western synods ecumenical was St. Robert Bellarmine (and of course he was never a Pope), and he did so in his polemical works against Protestants.