Eastern Catholic Vs. Eastern Orthodox

[Era Might]

I just wanted to pointed out a small addition to my previous post:

[quote]And I don't even have a problem with theologians asking the question whether they can be seen as general Councils, [b]as long as they only ask and do not state it as fact[/b].[/quote]
This is what I have a problem with. It's fine to ask the question. If we never asked questions, we would never have defined the faith. But it goes too far to say as a matter of fact that these Councils were not Ecumenical Councils, and that they do not require obedience from Eastern Catholics. The Church has acknowledged them as Ecumenical Councils, and the Fathers of the Councils themselves directed their teaching to the entire Church. The Popes have consistently recognized them as Ecumenical Councils. All Catholics must recognize them as Ecumenical Councils, because the Church does.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1339202' date='Jul 23 2007, 08:13 PM']Besides Eastern Catholics recognizing the authority of the Pope and being in full communion with Rome, are there any theological differences between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox?[/quote]
There are, and should be, no differences doctrinally, spiritually, or liturgically between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Personally, I subscribe to what is called the "Zoghby Initiative," which is a [i]Profession of Faith[/i] approved by the Melkite Catholic Holy Synod back in 1995:

[quote]1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.[/quote]
God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

Era Might,

The ongoing de-Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which has the full support of Rome, is going to cause problems for some members of the Latin Church, who sadly tend to identify being Catholic with being Latin.

God bless,
Todd

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1349779' date='Aug 4 2007, 07:21 PM']P.S. - The first person to call the later Western synods ecumenical was St. Robert Bellarmine, and he did so in his polemical works against Protestants.[/quote]
St. Robert Bellarmine wasn't born until 1542. The Ecumenical Council of Florence was held between 1438 and 1445, and called itself an Ecumenical Council:

[quote]Therefore we decree and declare, in every way and form as best we can, with the assent of the said emperor and patriarch and of all those in the present synod, that there exists a holy universal or ecumenical synod in this city of Ferrara, which is free and safe for all; and therefore it should be deemed and called such a synod by all, in which this holy business of union will be conducted without any quarrelsome contention but with all charity and, as we hope, will be brought by divine favour to a happy conclusion together with the other holy tasks for which the synod is known to have been instituted.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM[/url][/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1349799' date='Aug 4 2007, 05:38 PM']St. Robert Bellarmine wasn't born until 1542. The Ecumenical Council of Florence was held between 1438 and 1445, and called itself an Ecumenical Council:[/quote]
I'm talking about all the other synods, which were added merely because of the canons attached to them.

As an Eastern Catholic I do not consider any of the fourteen Latin synods as ecumenical.

Now, as far as the Council of Florence is concerned, it teaches error on the filioque, because it makes the Son a cause ([i]aitia[/i]) in the procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and so it involves a denial of the monarchy of the Father within the Godhead. Thus, Florence can never be accepted as truly ecumenical.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

Era,

Just to let you know, some of the sessions of the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, which call themselves ecumenical, are not accepted as such by the Roman Church. Interestingly, the same type of thing happened at the Council of Constance, where some of the sessions are accepted as authoritative and others are rejected. It is a far more complex issue than you are making it out to be.

God bless,
Todd

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1349679' date='Aug 4 2007, 04:24 PM']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).[/quote]
How does one examine the conscience before the Mystery of Repentence in light of this?

[abercius24]

[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]

These documents are political by their very nature and are not garnered with the seal of infallibility by any Catholic understanding. You should also remember this one document cannot measure up against the thousands of other documents supported by, not just the Pope, but all other Latin Bishops, that uniformly state the doctrines of all Ecumenical Councils are binding on the individual consciences of all faithful Catholics -- the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good example. One political document is not anywhere likely to overturn the Ordinary and Universal teachings of the Church, which are infallible by their very nature. Furthermore, if the Pope conceded on this issue with the Orthodox, he would have a lot of apologizing to do to all those dissident theologians over the last 40 years who were silenced and censured for teachings contrary to the doctrines of the more recent Ecumenical Councils. What you propose is highly unlikely and sounds more like diplomat-speak and less like doctrinal negotiation. Besides, the phrase "strong sense" does not necessarily negate the binding nature of the more recent Councils. It may simply be a statement that we Westerners recognize a general lack of communal fellowship in our Councils when the Eastern Orthodox are not present. We suffer from their absence in that we are denied their unique perspectives and insights. Such would be more of a humble recognition of our temporal need for communion with the East, not necessarily a denial of our ability to continue as the Universal Church with or without the Orthodox.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1349754' date='Aug 4 2007, 07:01 PM']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].[/quote]

Yes, we do have that common understanding of the first 7 Councils which helps us identify with the Eastern Orthodox more than we do with Western Protestants. But we also differ on the remaining Councils in that the West holds those doctrines as binding upon the faithful. Read that statement again with that in mind. You will not find Luther's infamous "sola" (alone) in the Pope's statement.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1349800' date='Aug 4 2007, 07:44 PM']Now, as far as the Council of Florence is concerned, it teaches error on the filioque, because it makes the Son a cause ([i]aitia[/i]) in the procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and so it involves a denial of the monarchy of the Father within the Godhead. Thus, Florence can never be accepted as truly ecumenical.[/quote]

Our understanding is that the Orthodox Church misinterprets what was declared by the Filioque. We see little if no difference between our understanding of the Filioque and yours. Its more an element of symantics. By the way, when the Scriptures mention the Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of Christ", do you not find those passages at odds with your understanding of the Filioque? Romans 8:9 uses both phrases interchangably:

"But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

How can Paul speak of Christ as claiming an ownership of the Holy Spirit similar to that of the Father if the Filioque is not correct?

(I hope this isn't too off topic. Sorry if it is.)

Steve S. -- Abercius24
CatholicQandA.com

Edited August 5, 2007 by abercius24