The Greek Orthodox Churches

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1787527' date='Feb 21 2009, 06:11 PM']Canonizations have, without a doubt, reserved to the Pope since 1634.[/quote]
In your Church that is true, but not in mine.

[Resurrexi]

Are you saying that your Church is not the Catholic Church?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1787536' date='Feb 21 2009, 06:25 PM']Are you saying that your Church is not the Catholic Church?[/quote]
The Church I belong to is one of the 23 self-governing Catholic Churches, and I believe that you too are a member of one of those 23 self-governing Catholic Churches.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='mortify' post='1787507' date='Feb 21 2009, 08:41 PM']I suggest you review Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3[/quote]
If I am contradicting Vatican I (I am not, I re-read and affirm everything said there), then all the popes of the First Millenium contradict Vatican I... and IF that were the case, then it would be Vatican I which had defected from the Catholic Faith, not I. I do not believe that it did so, I believe that its definition of the Petrine Authority is compatible with the way that authority was excercised during the First Millenium. His authority OUGHT not to be excercised ordinarily over the Eastern sui juris Churches... it CAN but it SHOULDN'T unless it is being done to guarantee the unity of the Church. This is how the Church operated in the first millenium, and this is how the Church would likely operate were there to be reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches... and towards that end, this is how the Church ought to operate towards the Eastern Catholic Churches so that the Eastern Orthodox see that ecclesiology in action and are willing to re-enter communion with Rome on such a principal.

[Aloysius]

[quote]We must explain and clarify [to the Eastern Orthodox] the topics that are obstacles to our full communion: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, Western Councils which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI), theological dogmas formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts (e.g., Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Theotokos, infallibility of the Pope of Rome).[/quote]
I think the words "theological dogmas formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts" needs ALSO to be applied to the councils, ie "Ecumenical Councils formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts"; in not accepting the dogmas formulated in that vocabulary and in those concepts, the East is not contradicting the substantial doctrine behind those dogmas; it is not saying "no, those are wrong", it is saying "it doesn't make sense to say things that way in our theological paradigm"... and I think that can be applied to the Ecumenical Councils while affirming them as true Ecumenical Councils... their phraseology is definitively Western because due to the circumstances of the Great Schism, the Western influence in those councils was unbalanced... but they remain Ecumenical because they were connected to the Primary Patriarch whose very ministry exists to be ecumenical; his ministry is by its nature ecumenical and "synods" connected to him are Ecumenical Councils... those which are worded in Western vocabulary and concepts do not need to be imported into Eastern theology in any way, their substance simply need to be affirmed to guarantee unity of belief in the Church.

the East seems to want to allow the Pope to be "first among equals" and "final arbiter" in their ecclesiology without attaching to the Pope's ministry any teeth... what is a final arbiter to guarantee the unity of the faith if he needn't be obeyed when he is asked to arbitrate? what is a Petrine ministry which guarantees unity if the office itself is not inherently ecumenical? are we to dismantel the ecumenical character of the Papacy which has made these past 14 councils ecumenical??? an ecumenical character which has created unity for, let's face it, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Christendom? can we really turn back and say that the past 14 councils which have been binding upon the majority of Christians in the whole world are not geeral councils??

frankly, it is clear by influence alone that the Eastern synods have been particular synods and that the Western "synods" have been general and far reaching. We ought not to import their phraseology or concepts into venerable Eastern theological traditions, but we cannot ignore their clear nature in history and chalk up councils which have been responsible for the biggest success of Christ's Church to "go therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" as being merely "particular western synods"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1787553' date='Feb 21 2009, 07:09 PM']I think the words "theological dogmas formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts" needs ALSO to be applied to the councils, ie "Ecumenical Councils formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts"; in not accepting the dogmas formulated in that vocabulary and in those concepts, the East is not contradicting the substantial doctrine behind those dogmas; it is not saying "no, those are wrong", it is saying "it doesn't make sense to say things that way in our theological paradigm"... and I think that can be applied to the Ecumenical Councils while affirming them as true Ecumenical Councils... their phraseology is definitively Western because due to the circumstances of the Great Schism, the Western influence in those councils was unbalanced... but they remain Ecumenical because they were connected to the Primary Patriarch whose very ministry exists to be ecumenical; his ministry is by its nature ecumenical and "synods" connected to him are Ecumenical Councils... those which are worded in Western vocabulary and concepts do not need to be imported into Eastern theology in any way, their substance simply need to be affirmed to guarantee unity of belief in the Church.[/quote]
Certainly the particular synods of the Western Church are binding upon Western Christians, but the point that the Melkite Patriach is making is that those same synods are not binding upon Eastern Christians. Thus, it is not about Eastern Catholics saying that this or that particular synod of the Western Church is heretical; rather, it is simply about recognizing the fact that those local synods do not apply to Eastern Christians because our tradition developed independently of the decrees issued by those local synods.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

(I think you caught me before my last edit, sorry)

I think these "synods" are by their nature Ecumenical Councils, though I consider their application to the Eastern Churches to be real but to have no teeth. they theoretically apply to all the sui juris churches as a guarantee of unity because that is what the Pope's ministry is necessarily: it is necessarily ecumenical and all councils connected to him are Ecumenical; they affect the whole Church, East and West, by guaranteeing unity.... but for all practical purposes they do not alter the Eastern theology because Eastern theology is not considered to go against them but rather to have different phraseology and conceptualization.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1787569' date='Feb 21 2009, 07:28 PM'](I think you caught me before my last edit, sorry)

I think these "synods" are by their nature Ecumenical Councils, though I consider their application to the Eastern Churches to be real but to have no teeth. they theoretically apply to all the sui juris churches as a guarantee of unity because that is what the Pope's ministry is necessarily: it is necessarily ecumenical and all councils connected to him are Ecumenical; they affect the whole Church, East and West, by guaranteeing unity.... but for all practical purposes they do not alter the Eastern theology because Eastern theology is not considered to go against them but rather to have different phraseology and conceptualization.[/quote]
I know that you believe that the 14 particular synods of the Latin Church are ecumenical, but the Melkite Patriarch, and by extension the Melkite Catholic Church, does not.

That said, various problems would result from trying to apply the decrees of the Western Councils to the Eastern Churches; for example, the [i]Decree on Justification[/i] from the Council of Trent, which was written in order to reply to the theories of the Protestant Reformers, formulates the doctrine of justification (itself a term that is rarely if ever used in the Eastern Churches) as a real transformation of man that is brought about by a "created" grace, i.e., by a justice that is not the justice "by which [God] Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just," but for the Eastern Fathers the process of [i]theosis[/i] (which is not merely a legal justification) is brought about by a real participation in God's own justice, i.e., in the uncreated energy of God's justice (along with all His other energies), by which He Himself is just and holy. Sadly, the Tridentine [i]Decree on Justification[/i] has reduced the process of salvation to Scholastic categories that are themselves based upon an Aristotelian system of causes and effects; while the Eastern Churches emphasize instead the reality of man's participation in the very uncreated energy of God's own being.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

and that happens to be a very good example of what I mean when I say that their application to the Eastern Churches is theoretically real but practically has no teeth... one need not import the wording or the concept to the Eastern Church, because the Eastern Church is not IN CONFLICT with the teaching... were the Eastern Church to begin to actively adopt a protestant understanding, they would then be in conflict with this Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church... but as they stand, they need not bother with the teaching because of its use of Western wording and concepts which cannot be imported into Eastern theology.

[Apotheoun]

As some of my Melkite friends would say: [i]if the theological formulations of a synod are applicable only in a particularist fashion, it follows that the synod itself, which formulated those decrees, is particular and not universal, whether people want to admit that or not[/i].

[Aloysius]

of course, if an Eastern Orthodox Church were to suddenly adopt the protestant view of justification, it would be anathema-ed by trent. It is that the positive doctrinal decrees are worded in such a Western fashion that they cannot be purely imported (though they are to be theoretically respected), but the negative condemnations are definitively universal and Ecumenically guaranteeing of the unity of the Church through the Petrine ministry.

I want to continue in this discussion with the justification example and add on another example as part of the discussion, things like these are perfect to illustrate my point about Trent's ecumenical nature:

Easterners, as I understand it, would not formulate doctrines about the Eucharist in terms of "transubstantiation" but leave it more to un-understandable mystery; this is fine, unless they begin to actually teach consubstatiation or transignification as their doctrine; then they would be anathema by trent.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1787621' date='Feb 21 2009, 08:13 PM']I want to continue in this discussion with the justification example and add on another example as part of the discussion, things like these are perfect to illustrate my point about Trent's ecumenical nature:

Easterners, as I understand it, would not formulate doctrines about the Eucharist in terms of "transubstantiation" but leave it more to un-understandable mystery; this is fine, unless they begin to actually teach consubstatiation or transignification as their doctrine; then they would be anathema by trent.[/quote]
It is interesting to note that Pope St. Gelasius in his treatise [i]De Duabus Naturis[/i] taught something that is incompatible with the later Western theory of transubstantiation, for as he said:

"Certainly the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing. On account of this and through the same 'we are made partakers of the divine nature' (2 Peter 1:4). And yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist." [Edward J. Kilmartin, [u]The Eucharist in the West[/u], page 41]

Now I sincerely doubt that anyone here at Phatmass wants to call Pope St. Gelasius a heretic, even though his teaching on the Eucharist contradicts the Scholastic categories of thought used at that Western Church Synod of Trent.

[Resurrexi]

I really think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are required to accept the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, including the way those teachings are stated, and modify their theology accordingly. Tthat is they do need to accept the word "transbustantiation" and not just believe "this is the Body of Christ but we don't know how it's the body of Christ". This makes perfect sense if you think about since the scientific method of theology (which is the highest science) relies on the Magisterium of the Church to decide whether a proposition is true or false. And if you think about it, it's a flawed argument to say that Eastern theology tends not to try to explain mysteries (insofar as is possible) because the Eastern bishops participated in the Council that taught that the Son is homoousion to the Father, rather than just saying that the Father and Son are both God but not explaining how this is true.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1787644' date='Feb 21 2009, 11:30 PM']It is interesting to note that Pope St. Gelasius in his treatise [i]De Duabus Naturis[/i] taught something that is incompatible with the later Western theory of transubstantiation, for as he said:

"Certainly the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing. On account of this and through the same 'we are made partakers of the divine nature' (2 Peter 1:4). And yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist." [Edward J. Kilmartin, [u]The Eucharist in the West[/u], page 41]

Now I sincerely doubt that anyone here at Phatmass wants to call Pope St. Gelasius a heretic, even though his teaching on the Eucharist contradicts the Scholastic categories of thought used at that Western Church Synod of Trent.[/quote]
A phrase issue, IMO, as Gelasius was not using Aristotelian terminology that Trent formulated in the scholastic tradition; what Gelasius was saying would be formulated in Aristotelian (Scholastic) terminology by replacing "substance" with "accidents". This seems counter-intuitive at first, of course, seeing as substance is the thing meant to change while accidents is the thing meant to remain. but it is not a far stretch that one would consider "substance" to refer to what Aristotle would call accidents if one is not an Aristotelian.

in common everyday speech, we often use the term "substance" to refer to what Aristotle would call accidents. people often think of something's substance as the way a thing acts to the world; for Gelasius to say the substance of bread and wine was there was for him to say "it still feels, tastes, and acts like bread and wine"

Gelasius is outside of the concept structure and phraseology of Trent, much the same way the Eastern Churches are outside that; but neither Gelasius nor Easterners contradict the doctrines of Trent.

this is why the phrases used by the Council are not to be imported into Eastern theology, but the anathema would still apply in the substance of the doctrine.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1787662' date='Feb 21 2009, 08:37 PM']A phrase issue, IMO, as Gelasius was not using Aristotelian terminology that Trent formulated in the scholastic tradition; what Gelasius was saying would be formulated in Aristotelian (Scholastic) terminology by replacing "substance" with "accidents". This seems counter-intuitive at first, of course, seeing as substance is the thing meant to change while accidents is the thing meant to remain. but it is not a far stretch that one would consider "substance" to refer to what Aristotle would call accidents if one is not an Aristotelian.

in common everyday speech, we often use the term "substance" to refer to what Aristotle would call accidents.

Gelasius is outside of the concept structure and phraseology of Trent, much the same way the Eastern Churches are outside that; but neither Gelasius nor Easterners contradict the doctrines of Trent.

this is why the phrases used by the Council are not to be imported into Eastern theology, but the anathema would still apply in the substance of the doctrine.[/quote]
As long as you do not apply this change of terms to the text I quoted (i.e., [i]De Duabus Naturis[/i]), because that would have the effect of turning St. Gelasius into a Nestorian (or worse a Docetist), which is the heresy he was arguing against in that particular treatise.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Apotheoun