Consecration, Epiklesis Or Both?

[Apotheoun]

StThomasMore,

We follow different theological traditions, and so, we will never agree on this topic.

The anaphora of Addai and Mari does not contain the words of institution, but it is still valid. Here endeth the lesson.

God bless.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1414114' date='Nov 4 2007, 12:07 PM']StThomasMore,

We follow different theological traditions, and so, we will never agree on this topic.

The anaphora of Addai and Mari does not contain the words of institution, but it is still valid. Here endeth the lesson.

God bless.[/quote]

Regardless of the theological tradition one follows, he is never allowed to deny a doctrine taught by Holy Mother Church.

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Catholics follow the teaching of Holy Church, but we do not confuse the teaching of particular synods of the Latin Church with the binding teaching of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

[Apotheoun]

[b]I posted this information before in the [i]Question and Answers[/i] section here at Phatmass:[/b]



In order to highlight some of the distinctive features of Eastern Catholic theology, I thought I would add to what Laudate_Dominum said in his response.

Now, it has been pointed out already that East and West differ over the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and this difference really is of only minor importance, but as Jungman explained in his [i]magnum opus[/i] on the Roman liturgy, the West only began using unleavened bread in the 9th century (cf. Jungman, [u]Mass of the Roman Rite[/u], 2:33-34), and so the older practice of the Church is to use leavened bread.

That being said, some of the differences between East and West concern practical matters (i.e., customs), while other differences are centered upon theological issues. In this post I will mainly concern myself with the theological differences (except for the first point):

(1) Westerners and Easterners make the sign of the cross somewhat differently, with Easterners making the sign from forehead to the center of the torso, and then from right shoulder to left shoulder. The West began making the sign of the cross ending on the right shoulder beginning at some point around the 12th to 13th century.

(2) The use of the [i]filioque[/i] in the creed. The creed as it was originally written did not include the [i]filioque[/i], but the West added the [i]filioque[/i] to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed beginning in Spain around the 7th century, with the [i]filioque[/i] finally being added at Rome itself at some point during the early part of the 11th century.

(3) The East holds that grace is uncreated, while the West holds that grace is created. In the East grace is divine energy ([i]energia[/i]), which means that grace is God Himself as He exists for us, that is, as He exists outside of His incommunicable essence ([i]ousia[/i]).

(4) East and West view the Trinity somewhat differently. The West tends to follow St. Thomas Aquinas and the Augustinian tradition, which looks upon the persons ([i]hypostases[/i]) of the Trinity as mere relations within the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), and which holds that it is the unity of the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) itself that establishes the fact that there is only one God. While the East holds that the three divine persons ([i]hypostases[/i]) are really distinct from each other, not because of their relations [i]per se[/i], but because of their origins. Thus, the person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the Father is distinct from the person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the Son and the person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the Spirit, because the Father is the unoriginate cause of all divinity, while the Son is eternally generated by the Father, and the Holy Spirit is eternally projected from the Father alone as sole personal ([i]hypostatic[/i]) cause of divinity. In other words, the person (hypostasis) of the Father is unbegotten, and the person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the Son is begotten by the Father, and the person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit is spirated by the Father alone through procession. Consequently, in the theology of the East there is only one God because there is only one Father from whom all Godhead originates.

(5) In the West, God is held to be pure act ([i]actus purus[/i]), and as such there are no real distinctions within the Godhead, because even the three divine persons (hypostases) are only distinct in relation to each other, and not to the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]). Thus, in Western theology essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) are identical in God (cf. [u]Summa Theologica[/u], Prima Pars, Q. 39, art. 1); while in Eastern theology, essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) are really distinct from each other. Moreover, in addition to the real distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) in Eastern triadology, it is held that the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) itself is completely unknowable, because God, in His essence ([i]ousia[/i]), is [i]hyperousios[/i] and [i]hypertheos[/i]. As a consequence, God does not reveal Himself in His essence ([i]ousia[/i]); instead, He reveals Himself tri-hypostatically through His uncreated energies.

(6) From what has been said in point number five above, it becomes clear that the West and the East understand the divine simplicity differently. The West holds that in God there are no real distinctions between, what it calls, His [i]attributes[/i] and His essence ([i]ousia[/i]), thus all of the divine attributes are identical with the divine essence. While in the East, divine simplicity is understood as the co-inherence ([i]perichoresis[/i]) of the divine essence in the multiplicity of God's uncreated energies; and so, each energy is distinct from every other energy (e.g., the divine will is distinct from divine love, which is distinct from truth, which is distinct from mercy, which is distinct from justice, etc.), but the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) is present as a whole in each one of the distinct energies. This means that the divine essence is indivisibly divided among the personalized ([i]enhypostatic[/i]) energies of the three divine persons ([i]hypostases[/i]). A note of clarification is necessary at this point, because although the uncreated energies correspond in some sense to what the West calls [i]attributes[/i], to identify these two terms (attributes and energies) can lead to theological confusion. In the West the divine attributes are normally held to be distinct only in a noetic sense, that is, they are held to be distinct merely mentally (i.e., in the mind); and that is why the East avoids this term when referring to God's uncreated energies, because that would undermine the real distinction that exists between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and energy ([i]energia[/i]) in God, reducing it to an epistemic distinction. Moreover, to reduce the distinction between the divine essence and the uncreated divine energies to something that is merely epistemic leads to major theological problems in connection with the doctrine of divinization ([i]theosis[/i]).

(7) As indicated above, the East makes a further distinction, without a separation, in the Godhead, between the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and the uncreated divine energies. The divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) is completely incommunicable and transcendent, and as such it is beyond essence ([i]hyperousios[/i]); consequently it cannot be known, not now or even in the eschaton. God is revealed only in His uncreated energies, which flow out from the three divine persons ([i]hypostases[/i]) as a gift to man. Moreover, it is only by his participation in the divine energies that man can truly possess an experiential knowledge of God, an experience that can be understood in two ways: first, at the level of nature by the sustaining of man's created existence; and second, at the level of the supernatural through the elevation of man's being into the life and glory of the Triune God.

(8) The East holds that divinization ([i]theosis[/i]) is brought about by an ontological participation in God's uncreated energies, and that through the divine energies man truly participates in the divine life and glory. The uncreated energies are God as He exists outside of His incomprehensible essence ([i]ousia[/i]), and so the divine energies are distinct from the divine essence, but without being separated from it.

(9) The Eastern understanding of predestination also differs from that of the West. The East holds that all men at the level of nature are predestined to redemption through the incarnation of the Son of God. In other words, through the incarnation of the eternal Logos all of nature has been freed from corruption and the dissolution into non-existence brought about by Adam's fall from grace, and has been given the gift of redemption to everlasting existence. But salvation, on the other hand, concerns the integration of the human person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) with his natural virtues through the power of God's uncreated energies and the activity of his own created free will. Salvation requires that a man enact his will through grace in doing good and avoiding evil. If a man lives a good life through the power of his will restored by grace, he may enter into the beatific vision, but if he fails to integrate his natural virtues into his person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), he damns himself. Thus, in Eastern theology predestination is the universal redemption of all men and of the whole of creation itself from corruption and non-existence, while salvation involves the integration of man's natural virtues with his personal ([i]hypostatic[/i]) existence through the power of God's uncreated energies and his own free will.

Taken from: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=34879&st=0&p=652378&#entry652378"]East and West, Latin and Byzantine[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[b]Below are some additional differences:[/b]



(1) In the Eastern Churches married men can be ordained to both the diaconate and the priesthood; but like the Latin Church, only celibate men can be consecrated as bishops.

(2) In Byzantine sacramental theology the priest is the minister of the sacrament of matrimony (i.e., crowning), and so his blessing is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. This also means that a deacon cannot officiate at an Eastern Catholic wedding.

(3) In Eastern theology the bread and wine of the Eucharist are held to be consecrated into the body and blood of Christ by the prayer of epiclesis.

(4) Because the Eastern Churches use the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament they have a somewhat larger canon of scripture than the Latin Church. As an example, the Byzantine Church recites the "Prayer of Manasseh" as scripture during Great Compline.

(5) In the Eastern Churches icons are always two dimensional images, and so one will rarely if ever see statuary in an Eastern Church.

Taken from: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=34879&st=0&p=654484&#entry654484"]East and West, Latin and Byzantine[/url]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1414126' date='Nov 4 2007, 02:09 PM'](4) Because the Eastern Churches use the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament they have a somewhat larger canon of scripture than the Latin Church. As an example, the Byzantine Church recites the "Prayer of Manasseh" as scripture during Great Compline.

Taken from: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=34879&st=0&p=654484&#entry654484"]East and West, Latin and Byzantine[/url][/quote]

What books are included that the Latin Church does not use? I thought the canon was pretty much set, but? How can a univerisal Church have different canon's?

I asked this earlier in the thread too, but why aren't the Eastern Catholic Churches bound to the later councils? Could one be a good standing Eastern Catholic and reject things such as Papal Infallibility or the Marian Dogmas?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1414120' date='Nov 4 2007, 12:21 PM']Eastern Catholics follow the teaching of Holy Church, but we do not confuse the teaching of particular synods of the Latin Church with the binding teaching of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.[/quote]

There have been twenty-one Oecumenical Councils, the doctrines of which bind all members of the Universal Church in matters of faith and morals.

I'd like to respond to the points made in Apotheoun's re-post from the Q and A board with the teachings of the Church, but at the moment I don't have the time.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1414172' date='Nov 4 2007, 04:02 PM']How can a univerisal Church have different canon's?

I asked this earlier in the thread too, but why aren't the Eastern Catholic Churches bound to the later councils? Could one be a good standing Eastern Catholic and reject things such as Papal Infallibility or the Marian Dogmas?[/quote]

There is but one Biblical Canon which was recored at the Council of Florence (at which, btw, the East was present and which the East signed to) and was dogmatically defined at the Council of Trent.

All Catholics, including those of the Eastern Churchs are bound by all the Oecumenical Councils.

No Catholic can reject Papal Infallibility or the Marian Dogmas.

[journeyman]

Maybe this memory is not in context for this thread:

Didn't John Paul II say the Church needed both lungs, that of the East and of the West?


[quote]In the perspective of our renewed post-Jubilee pilgrimage, I look with great hope to the Eastern Churches, and I pray for a full return to that exchange of gifts which enriched the Church of the first millennium. May the memory of the time when the Church breathed with "both lungs" spur Christians of East and West to walk together in unity of faith and with respect for legitimate diversity, accepting and sustaining each other as members of the one Body of Christ.
[i]Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte [/i][/quote]


Perhaps it is just my reading, but there seems to be a certain lack of charity in portions of this discussion. These portions reminded me of why Bishop Emile De Smedt of Bruges made certain comments at the first session of Vatican II - comments critical of the preliminary schema for the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium - for among other things, clericalism and juridicism.

Is the source of all power and initiative in the Church the clergy? Is not the Church to be "the loving mother of all" (John XXIII) rather than a legalistic pettifogger?

Churches in communion with Rome, even if they were not participants at the Council of Trent, deserve respect for maintaining the faith through the sacraments and apostolic succession. That their rites and rubrics don't match those of Rome, word for word, are part of the legitimate diversity of the Church.

[quote]For not even unto us, the faithful, hath been committed entire certainty and exactness. Wherefore Paul also said, (ch. xiii. 9.) "We know in part, and we prophesy in part: for now we see in a mirror darkly; but then face to face."
For this cause he saith, "We speak wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God fore-ordained before the worlds unto our glory. Hidden:" that is, that no one of the powers above hath learnt it before us; neither do the many know it now.
[i]St John Chrysostom - Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily VII[/i][/quote]

[Resurrexi]

It's not the fact that they weren't participants at Trent or the other post-Nicæa II Ecumenical Councils which is horrible, it's the fact that many don't accept them as Ecumenical.

[rkwright]

I did some research into the Ravenna Document quote earlier.

I think some representations in this thread are not quiet accurate.
(1) The Ravenna Document does not, in my limited understanding, have binding power upon Catholics.
(2) The Ravenna Document does not say in such certain term that councils should be disregarded. (para. 45)

This thread wasn't meant for debate on the issues, but I think there were a number of spin off threads based on comments in this thread.
Read about the document and debate surrounding it here:
[url="http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/258123/fpart/1"]http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.p.../258123/fpart/1[/url]

[Apotheoun]

The question raised in paragraph 45 of the Ravenna document, which is a document that was approved by Cardinal Kasper as the representative of the Holy See, does not mean that the Orthodox are open to accepting either Vatican I or Vatican II as ecumenical, because they have in fact already rejected the ecumenicity of those councils, and Rome has accepted that fact. Instead, the question is concerned with how Roman Catholics, not Byzantine Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, will reinterpret those particular synods of the Latin Church, i.e., in order to conform them to the teaching of the undivided Church of the first millennium.

That said, I do not -- as an Eastern Catholic -- accept any of the fourteen Latin Councils as ecumenical, nor will I ever do so, because to do so would involve embracing things contrary to divine revelation as it has been lived and formulated in the East since the first millennium.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Apotheoun