The Greek Orthodox Churches

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1782160' date='Feb 15 2009, 08:56 PM']I am actually not aware of deficiencies in the teachings of the Ecumenical Council of the Church (except, [b]perhaps[/b], the section of the Decree for the Armenians that talks about the form of Holy Orders, but of course, that statement wasn't dogmatic).

How do you see that scholasticism contradicts Constantinople II?[/quote]
Because the Scholastics allowed for the natures to be separated in action and not merely in thought, for they failed to understand the teaching of the Council which said that the natures are united hypostatically and cannot be divided or mixed, but can only be contemplated distinctly [i]tei theoria monei[/i]. Moreover, natures do not act, and so any separation outside of the human mind is heretical because it posits the false notion that the person of the Word is not the agent of action, but that some other composite "person" or the two natures in separation are the agent of action.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1782163' date='Feb 15 2009, 08:57 PM']I was under the impression that Eastern liturgical books merely needed the recognition of the Eparch of the eparchy or Patriarch of the sui iuris Church.[/quote]
Liturgical translation do only require the Eparchial Council's approval, or that of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod in a Patriarchal Church, but the Ruthenian Recension, which is the source text that all the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Slavic Byzantine liturgical tradition use for their vernacular translations, was the work of scholars under the auspices of Rome, and the resulting recension was published by the Holy See in the 1940s. But I guess for you Rome does not know what it is doing on this issue.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1782160' date='Feb 15 2009, 08:56 PM']I am actually not aware of deficiencies in the teachings of the Ecumenical Council of the Church (except, [b]perhaps[/b], the section of the Decree for the Armenians that talks about the form of Holy Orders, but of course, that statement wasn't dogmatic).[/quote]
How convenient.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1782172' date='Feb 15 2009, 11:05 PM']Because the Scholastics allowed for the natures to be separated in action and not merely in thought, for they failed to understand the teaching of the Council which said that the natures are united hypostatically and cannot be divided or mixed, but can only be contemplated distinctly [i]tei theoria monei[/i]. Moreover, natures do not act, and so any separation outside of the human mind is heretical because it posits the false notion that the person of the Word is not the agent of action, but that some third composite "person" or the two natures in separation are the agent of action.[/quote]

You are certainly more educated on matters Christological than I am. Perhaps if I get a master's degree in scholastic theology, then we can debate this.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1782181' date='Feb 15 2009, 11:11 PM']Liturgical translation do only require the Eparchial Council's approval, or that of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod in a Patriarchal Church, but the Ruthenian Recension, which is the source text that all the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Slavic Byzantine liturgical tradition use for their vernacular translations, was the work of scholars under the auspices of Rome, and the resulting recension was published by the Holy See in the 1940s. But I guess for you Rome does not know what it is doing on this issue.[/quote]

Does the Ruthenian Recension, then, contain Photius' feast?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1782206' date='Feb 15 2009, 09:21 PM']Does the Ruthenian Recension, then, contain Photius' feast?[/quote]
Yes, and it contains other saint days that you do not like, and different Eastern Catholic Churches commemorate different Orthodox saints from the time after the great schism.

Ukrainians commemorate all the Orthodox saints prior to the Union of Brest (A.D. 1595), because they specifically specified that the typicon (and other books) not be changed upon entering into communion with Rome.

The Melkites commemorate Orthodox saints up to the time of their entering into communion with Rome in A.D. 1724.

And many of the Eastern Catholic Churches now commemorate saints like John Maximovitch, Seraphim of Sarov, and Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain.

Sadly for you, the days of things Latin being identified as Catholic in an exclusivist sense are over, but such is life.

[Resurrexi]

Simply because a a group of people venerate someone as a Saint does not make it appropriate to do so, however, as there have been in the past persons whom bishops have approved to be venerated as Saints by bishops other than the Pope who definitely shouldn't have been venerated as such:

[quote name='Catholic Encyclopedia article "Beatification and Canonization"']We have seen that for several centuries the bishops, in some places only the primates and patriarchs (August., Brevic. Collat. cum Donatistis, III, xiii, no 25 in P.L., XLIII, 628), could grant to martyrs and confessors public ecclesiastical honour; such honour, however, was always decreed only for the local territory over which the grantors held jurisdiction. Still, it was only the Bishop of Rome's acceptance of the cultus that made it universal, since he alone could permit or command in the Universal Church [Gonzalez Tellez, Comm. Perpet. in singulos textus libr. Decr. (III, xlv), in cap. i, De reliquiis et vener. Sanct.]. Abuses, however, crept into thisform of discipline, due as well to indiscretions of popular fervour as to the carelessness of some bishops in inquiring into the lives of those whom they permitted to be honoured as saints. Towards the close of the eleventh century the popes found it necessary to restrict episcopal authority on this point, and decreed that the virtues and miracles of persons proposed for public veneration should be examined in councils, more particularly in general councils. Urban II, Calixtus II, and Eugenius III followed this line of action. It happened, even after these decrees, that "[b]some, following the ways of the pagans and deceived by the fraud of the evil one, venerated as a saint a man who had been killed while intoxicated[/b]". Alexander III (1159-81) took occasion to prohibit his veneration in these words: "For the future you will not presume to pay him reverence, as, even though miracles were worked through him, it would not allow you to revere him as a saint unless with the authority of the Roman Church" (c. i, tit. cit., X. III, xlv).[/quote]

I would think then, that only if the veneration of a person has been approved by the Holy See (at least now, when such approval has mainly been restricted to Rome), that it would be impious to deem that person unworthy of veneration.

[Apotheoun]

The [i]sui juris[/i] Eastern Churches have the power to glorify their own saints.

As I said before, the old Catholic Encyclopedia is not the best source of information on things related to Eastern Catholicism, but then it really is not the best source of information for things related to Latin Catholicism either.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1782258' date='Feb 16 2009, 12:53 AM']Simply because a a group of people venerate someone as a Saint does not make it appropriate to do so, however, as there have been in the past persons whom bishops have approved to be venerated as Saints by bishops other than the Pope who definitely shouldn't have been venerated as such:



I would think then, that only if the veneration of a person has been approved by the Holy See (at least now, when such approval has mainly been restricted to Rome), that it would be impious to deem that person unworthy of veneration.[/quote]

So is there any particular reason you have for persistantly attacking the Byzantine Catholic Church? Just curious.

[Ziggamafu]

Wait...wait...back up: am I to understand that there is an implication here that the Eastern rites are not obliged to regard the previous 14 councils are infallible??? Wait...what?! Does Rome just turn a blind eye toward this, or...? Huh??

[Aloysius]

it's a really hazy issue these days, but I would hold that Eastern Catholics ought to hold them as infallible Ecumenical Councils without adopting their phraseology in formulating those truths nor considering their ordinary canons as necessarily applicable to them... to me, I think the disciplinary parts of those councils ought to be regarded as those of a Roman synod specific only to the Roman Church and the doctrinal parts of those councils as Ecumenical and thus infallible and universal, though practically not really utilizing their terminology... ie I could accept that in many points they will [b]seem[/b] to contradict said councils if they held them as true Ecumenical Councils in theory. I know Apotheoun will disagree with me on this; this is a matter that will likely continue to be contentious not just between Roman and Eastern Catholics, but among Eastern Catholics themselves as there are Eastern Catholics on both sides of the issue (some who only recognize the first 7 Councils as truly ecumenical, others who recognize them all)

in regards to the Charge of monophysitism against the scholastics, I tend to be quite wary of any charge of monophysitism against anyone; I mean, these days we are even told that Oriental Orthodox Churches are not truly monophysites by many people. I would like to see some quotes and references of the places where the scholastics seem monophysite to you; I consider myself fairly well versed in the Ecumenical Councils as well as in the scholastics (not an expert scholar by any means, but amateurly, I've read most of Aquinas' works and definitely read all the texts of all the Councils) and I've never even run accross this accusation against the scholastics let alone noticed it in my readings... perhaps you would say I misunderstand said Council as well, but I think it likely that you either misinterpret the full scope of what is condemned and allowed for by that Council or else misinterpret something the scholastics said... in any event, that's why I would like to see some quotes as to where exactly you think the scholastics are confusing their Christology here.

I wouldn't say this is inappropriate attacking of Byzantine Catholicism, the issue of Photius as a saint is a real contentious issue. To put it in context, it would almost be like Archbishop Lefebvre being canonized in the future (which I do not hold as an impossibility myself, though I recognize how amazingly contentious that would be).... a lot of people have really bitter feelings against the Archbishop for his schismatic actions; and there is huge ancient bitterness against Photius for the Great Schism... though Apo seems to think Photius died in communion with Rome which gives me great joy if it is true. I recognize both sides of this issue as understandable and the issue is sticky and hazy... and many of these issues Rome herself would be quite hesitant to even deal with.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1782483' date='Feb 16 2009, 11:46 AM']though Apo seems to think Photius died in communion with Rome which gives me great joy if it is true. I recognize both sides of this issue as understandable and the issue is sticky and hazy... and many of these issues Rome herself would be quite hesitant to even deal with.[/quote]
Yes, St. Photios died in communion with the Roman Church.

As far as the Western Synods are concerned, I do not accept them as ecumenical; instead, I hold that they are General Synods of the Western Church (cf. Pope Paul VI, [i]Letter on 7th centenary of the 6th General Council of Lyon[/i]), which are authoritative for Western Christians, while having no real impact the doctrinal or disciplinary life of the Eastern Churches.

[Aloysius]

I am very happy to hear that about Photius. There are some saints you recognize, however, that did die outside of communion with the Roman Church, no? These are obviously scandalous to Roman Catholics and likely will always be so.

I disagree with your assessment of those Ecumenical Councils, though I do consider Eastern theology very minimally if at all affected by them, I consider them to be fully infallible Ecumenical Councils binding (in different ways and degrees to the different Churches) on the whole Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1782483' date='Feb 16 2009, 11:46 AM']in regards to the Charge of monophysitism against the scholastics, I tend to be quite wary of any charge of monophysitism against anyone; I mean, these days we are even told that Oriental Orthodox Churches are not truly monophysites by many people. I would like to see some quotes and references of the places where the scholastics seem monophysite to you; I consider myself fairly well versed in the Ecumenical Councils as well as in the scholastics (not an expert scholar by any means, but amateurly, I've read most of Aquinas' works and definitely read all the texts of all the Councils) and I've never even run accross this accusation against the scholastics let alone noticed it in my readings... perhaps you would say I misunderstand said Council as well, but I think it likely that you either misinterpret the full scope of what is condemned and allowed for by that Council or else misinterpret something the scholastics said... in any event, that's why I would like to see some quotes as to where exactly you think the scholastics are confusing their Christology here.[/quote]
Eastern Christians reject certain aspects of the Scholastic formulations in connection with both Triadology and Christology, because they do not comport with the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The following is a list of a few of the Christological propositions put forward by Aquinas, which are rejected by Eastern Christians (this list is not exhaustive): [1] Aquinas holds that the person of Christ (i.e., the divine, eternal, and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos) is composite after His assumption of human nature from the Theotokos (cf. [i]Summa[/i], Tertia Pars, Q. 2, A. 4); [2] Aquinas believes that the Hypostatic Union is a created reality (cf. [i]Summa[/i], Tertia Pars, Q. 2, A. 7); and [3] Aquinas teaches that the union of the natures in the one person of Christ was caused by the power of the divine nature (cf. [i]Summa[/i], Tertia Pars, Q. 2, A. 12). Now, these three propositions do not exhaust the Eastern criticism of the Scholastic theory of the incarnation, but they suffice to highlight the differences in approach between the East and the medieval West. In addition to these Christological difficulties there are also Triadological difficulties in connection with the confusion of nature and person in the Scholastic theory of the Trinity.

In my next post I will highlight some of the differences between Scholastic philosophy and the Byzantine tradition, which has its foundational source in the doctrine of the Seven Great Councils.

[Ziggamafu]

Okay, guys...I'm no novice when it comes to theology or Church history - though I don't pretend to be "advanced", whatever that may mean - and I'm finding this conversation very troubling...especially since it is taking place between two of my favorite posters on the forum. Since I have such respect for you two, I'm not expressing disagreement until I've given you both the opportunity to teach me.

Apotheon: I need to know how you determine that it is not incumbent upon you, as a Catholic, to hold that the previous fourteen councils (with, perhaps, the exception of V2) have been infallible, having been ratified as ecumenical by the pope?

Aloysius: I need to know how you determine that it is not incumbent upon all Catholics (regardless of rite) to give full assent (rather than in "different ways and degrees") to the doctrines of infallible councils? How could any Catholic be less affected "if at all" than other Catholics in regards to the doctrinal teachings of ecumenical councils?

Edited February 16, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[Apotheoun]

My misgivings about the West's philosophically based doctrine of the Trinity are connected to the Sabellian modalism inherent in its reduction of the [i]hypostaseis[/i] to mere "relations of opposition" within the divine essence. Instead of a theory of "relational opposition" (n.b., there can be not opposition in God, because the Godhead is [i]adiastemic[/i]) the Eastern Fathers teach that the [i]hypostaseis[/i] of the Trinity are truly subsistent and distinct by their particular [i]hypostatic[/i] "mode of origin" ([i]tropos hyparxeos[/i]).

Let me put it this way, in the [i]Summa Theologica[/i] (Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1 and A. 2; and Q. 40, A. 1), St. Thomas denies that there is a real distinction between essence (or nature) and [i]hypostasis[/i]; thus, the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Father is identical with the divine essence (or nature), and the same holds with the [i]hypostaseis[/i] of the Son and the Spirit. As a consequence, the essence of God is the Father, but since the Son and the Spirit possesses the same divine essence as the Father, it follows that they are both the Father as well, since the divine essence is identical with the [i]hypostatic[/i] property of paternity. That being said, the subsistent reality of the Father is also undermined, because He possesses the divine essence too, and since the divine essence is held in the Scholastic theory to be identical with the [i]hypostaseis[/i] of the Son and the Spirit, it follows that the Father is also the Son, while He is simultaneously the Spirit; and so, the triad of divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] collapses into a monad.

As Christopher Hughes puts it in his critique of the Scholastic theory of the Trinity:

"Surely if (a) the essence of x = the essence of y, and (b) the essence of x = x, and the essence of y = y, it follows as the night does the day that x = y. And Aquinas maintains both that the divine persons are not distinct from their essences, and that they all have the same essence." [Christopher Hughes, [u]On a Complex Theory of a Simple God[/u], (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), page192]

In other words, the Father (x) is the Son (y), and the Son is the Father, and the same holds in relation to the Spirit. Now it should be noted that the first point (a) of Aquinas' theory conforms to the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, but that the second point (b) does not; in fact, the second point conforms to the teaching of Sabellius and not to the theological doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Moreover, the Scholastic error on this issue is confirmed by what St. Basil the Great said in [i]Letter 236[/i], where he called those who fail to distinguish between essence (or nature) and [i]hypostasis[/i] in God, "Sabellians"; for as St. Basil said, "On the other hand those who identify essence ([i]ousian[/i]) or substance and [i]hypostasis[/i] are compelled to confess only three [i]prosopa[/i], and, in their hesitation to speak of three [i]hypostaseis[/i], are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses his notions, yet, by asserting that the same [i]hypostasis[/i] changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish [i]prosopa[/i]." [St. Basil, [i]Letter 236[/i]] The Scholastics, in certain sense, are even more modalistic than Sabellius, because Sabellius could at least admit that there are [i]prosopic[/i] distinctions in God, while the Scholastic theory of divine simplicity does not admit of any real distinctions ([i]pragmatika diakriseis[/i]), because the Scholastics saw all real distinctions as necessarily dialectical in nature.