The Creed

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894139' date='Jun 17 2009, 01:18 AM']I was intentionally over-the-top rhetorical, you know.[/quote]
Yes, I know, and that is why I used one of my favorite smileys

[Patrick]

As I'm sitting here watching (and deriving some benefit from) the back and forth, I'm asking myself, why is this still going on? This is a hamster wheel that will just keep going and going...

But, allow me to make an observation, if you will -- to "kibitz in on the game" to use a go (board game) term.

Why does Apotheoun continue to argue his points that Roman councils are not normative and therefore not binding on him? Because that is what is allowing his Melkite church to stay in Communion with Rome. He has a vested interest in it, because his Catholicism is predicated upon it, or at least supported by it. Were Roman local councils to become binding upon Melkites, Melkites would have to alter their theology, and things would become much more difficult for them. It is helpful if Apotheoun can get Western Catholics to acknowledge the de-Latinization process, and indeed the respect that the Pope has for the Eastern Patriarchates. Resurrexi, you will not be able to change his mind, and he has too much legitimate support. The de-Latinization is happening, and its movements are supported by the highest levels in your Church, whether you like it or not. You just can't accept it.

Why does Resurrexi continue to argue his points, when it seems clear that Apotheoun won't give in? I think this is telling:

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1889753' date='Jun 13 2009, 01:22 PM']I'm opposed to the extreme de-Latinization which rejects the teachings of Florence, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc.[/quote]

Resurrexi is in a bind. His Roman (local?) councils tell him that the Roman councils are normative across Christendom. Yet, that's not how the Eastern Patriarchates are being treated. For Magisterium to be displaced, and Latin pre-eminence to become seemingly (from his perspective) lessened from something Universal to something local would seem tantamount to religious relativism. How could something be true for Apotheoun and not for me, and vice versa?

The de-Latinization process seems to be something of a paradox in relation to universality of Roman councils. And indeed, Easterners and Westerners handle paradox differently.

My guess is that Resurrexi, in his rigid key-texting (of Roman councils) rationalism, will continue to argue against de-Latinization because it doesn't fit. It makes things messy. It is a slippery slope to relativism. And he can't handle the paradox, in something of a Cartesian fix, reducing to something of a simultaneous true/false error loop. Being young contributes to the fix.

And Apotheoun will continue, where appropriate to continue, understandably, to express the nature of His Church's validity out of self defense (because indeed, Resurrexi, you really do seem to be on the offensive against the legitimacy of his Church and its differing theological stance, recognized by your hierarchy but not you). Paradoxes don't bother Easterners so much. We delight in them. It means that something deeper is going on and we're getting closer to the Truth.

But this paradox, and the issues around it, and the reactions against it, will be important for some time yet.

That's my two cents, anyway, with my admittedly limited exposure on it thus far.

Very educational to watch, by the way. I've enjoyed it greatly.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894138' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:18 AM']That Greek phrase cannot be added to the creed because when taken in connection with the word "ekporeuomenon" they would be heretical.[/quote]

The following is the dogmatic definition on the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in English:
"In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration." (Denzinger 691)

The official Latin text of the definition:
"In nomine igitur Sanctae Trinitatis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, hoc sacro universali approbante Florentino Concilio, diffinimus, ut haec fidei veritas ab omnibus Christianis credatur et suscipiatur, sicque omnes profiteantur, quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternaliter est, et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit."

The official Greek text of the definition, transliterated into the Latin alphabet, (I'm not amazing at transliterating Greek, so I apologize for any errors):
"En to onomati toinun tes agias Triados, tou Patros kai tou Uiou kae tou Agiou Pneumatos, tautes tes ieras kai oikoumenikes tes en Florenteia epipsephizomenes sunodou drizomen, ina aute e tes pisteos aletheia upo pantos tes christianos pisteutheie te kai apodechtheie, kau outo pantes omologosin, oti to Pneuma to Agion ek tou Patros kau tou Uiou aidios esti, kai ten eautou ousian kai to uparktikon auton einai echei ek tou Patros ama kai tou Uiou, kai ex amphoteron aidios os apo mias arches kai monadikes proboles ekporeuetai." ([i]Decress of the Ecumenical Councils[/i], Vol. I, p. 526)

It is defined that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from both [the Father and the Son]". The Greek word here used for [i]proceeds[/i] is [i]ekporeuetai[/i].

Are you accusing Pope Eugene IV and the fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Florence of heresy?

Edited June 17, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1894149' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:49 AM'](because indeed, Resurrexi, you really do seem to be on the offensive against the legitimacy of his Church and its differing theological stance, recognized by your hierarchy but not you).[/quote]

The current Pope does not, in fact, accept the so-called "Melkite position" that the last fourteen ecumenical councils were not really ecumenical.

In documents, both as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as Pope, he has recognized these councils as ecumenical. (cf. Pope Benedict XVI, [i]Sacramentum caritatis[/i], 3)

What is more, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger even stated that the "celebration of an ecumenical council" is an example of a [i]sententia definitive tenenda[/i], and that if anyone denied a [i]sententia definitive tenenda[/i], he "would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church." (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, [i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Conculding Formula of the [/i]Professio Fidei, 11; Ibid., 6)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894158' date='Jun 17 2009, 02:52 AM']The current Pope does not, in fact, accept the so-called "Melkite position" that the last fourteen ecumenical councils were not really ecumenical.

In documents, both as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as Pope, he has recognized these councils as ecumenical. (cf. Pope Benedict XVI, [i]Sacramentum caritatis[/i], 3)

What is more, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger even stated that the "celebration of an ecumenical council" is an example of a [i]sententia definitive tenenda[/i], and that if anyone denied a [i]sententia definitive tenenda[/i], he "would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church." (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, [i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Conculding Formula of the [/i]Professio Fidei, 11; Ibid., 6)[/quote]
He has a right to his own opinion.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='Jun 17 2009, 02:52 AM' post='1894158']
The current Pope does not, in fact, accept the so-called "Melkite position" that the last fourteen ecumenical councils were not really ecumenical.

Ah, so that's really what's at issue here, then. That the de-Latinization process has not yet officially embraced the full extent to which Apotheoun is expressing it, namely in acknowledging the local character of the 2nd millenium councils.

Apotheoun, your argument on this was that the Pope didn't say anything to correct the Melkites when visiting them recently, yes? An argument of the Pope's approval from his silence?

Edited June 17, 2009 by Patrick

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1894282' date='Jun 17 2009, 09:08 AM']Apotheoun, your argument on this was that the Pope didn't say anything to correct the Melkites when visiting them recently, yes? An argument of the Pope's approval from his silence?[/quote]
Yes, if the issue is as vitally important to the Pope as Resurrexi asserts, then the Pope should quite simply threaten to break communion with the Melkite Catholic Church over the issue, but -- for whatever reason -- the Pope has not seen fit to do that.

I know it is not something that Western Catholics like to hear, but Eastern Catholics -- by and large -- have a different understanding of the role of the pope in the Church.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894292' date='Jun 17 2009, 09:24 AM']Yes, if the issue is as vitally important to the Pope as Resurrexi asserts, then the Pope should quite simply threaten to break communion with the Melkite Catholic Church over the issue, but -- for whatever reason -- the Pope has not seen fit to do that.

I know it is not something that Western Catholics like to hear, but Eastern Catholics -- by and large -- have a different understanding of the role of the pope in the Church.[/quote]

Would you both agree, then, that this is an issue that needs clarification from the Roman hierarchy, and that any disagreement over this issue will need to be delayed until such a time that clarification is issued?

I'm not saying this because I'm annoyed with the disagreement. I'm curious as to what both sides of this disagreement can agree to, since it mirrors Orthodox relations with Rome.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

of one essence and of one substance and one in being all meant the same thing at time when all of this was defined so what are we arguing about? The way others understand terms changes over time. Think of how the term "person" was used at the time when things were defined by councils. Obviously we don't mean that there are three gods sitting in heaven so that we are polygamists but that they are three persons in One God. Yet, in society and english person would mean such a thing, a distinct individual/being from those around. I don't think this requires a definition from hierarchy but rather greater learning on our own parts and realize. I always assume that I am wrong and that somewhere in 2000 yrs of teaching there is an answer. I mean what is ecclesiastes says "there is nothing new under the sun." I assume my questions have been asked and answered before I just need to find them.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894211' date='Jun 17 2009, 08:17 AM']He has a right to his own opinion.[/quote]

He didn't issue those documents as a private theologian, but as the Head of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition and as Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

[quote name='Patrick' post='1894376' date='Jun 17 2009, 01:34 PM']Would you both agree, then, that this is an issue that needs clarification from the Roman hierarchy, and that any disagreement over this issue will need to be delayed until such a time that clarification is issued?[/quote]

Rome has been unhesitatingly clear on the issue, though a clarification that the Florence, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc. are ecumenical would be helpful.

That said, the Eastern Churches are relatively small compared to the Latin Church, and the Melkite Church (the only sui iuris Church whose patriarch advocates the radical view that Florence, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc. are not ecumenical) is even smaller. I doubt that the issue will be addressed any time soon, since the Latin Church has much worse problems.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' post='1894471' date='Jun 17 2009, 01:44 PM']of one essence and of one substance and one in being all meant the same thing at time when all of this was defined so what are we arguing about? The way others understand terms changes over time. Think of how the term "person" was used at the time when things were defined by councils. Obviously we don't mean that there are three gods sitting in heaven so that we are polygamists but that they are three persons in One God. Yet, in society and english person would mean such a thing, a distinct individual/being from those around. I don't think this requires a definition from hierarchy but rather greater learning on our own parts and realize. I always assume that I am wrong and that somewhere in 2000 yrs of teaching there is an answer. I mean what is ecclesiastes says "there is nothing new under the sun." I assume my questions have been asked and answered before I just need to find them.[/quote]
Actually, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the terms that you have mentioned do not mean the same thing in Eastern Triadological or Christological theology, or in the Greek language, which is the original and normative language of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed:

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1889168' date='Jun 12 2009, 01:55 PM'][size=3]Being ([i]einai[/i]) and essence ([i]ousia[/i]) are not related in the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, whose influence in Eastern Triadology is foundational for understanding the Nicene teaching on God; instead, being ([i]einai[/i]) is related to energy ([i]energeia[/i]), and so the use of that English word, i.e., [i]being[/i], is inappropriate in the creed. That said, the word [i]substance[/i] is also inappropriate in English translations, because -- as you [i.e., Resurrexi] noted in your post -- it is related to [i]hypostasis[/i] and this would give the creed a quasi-Sabellian meaning.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (A.D. 381) is an intentionally modified form of the original Nicene Creed (A.D. 325), because the Greek words [i]ousia[/i] and [i]hypostasis[/i], which had been synonymous for the pagan Greeks, were no longer -- by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council -- taken to mean the same thing within the Christian theological tradition.

Essence ([i]ousia[/i]) is beyond being, and that is why it is -- and will always be -- unknowable to creatures.[/size][/quote]

See also the thread: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"][b][u]God as Unknowable[/u][/b][/url]

Edited June 17, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

Ok, I'm out of ideas. From my POV, you two either have to agree to disagree (which seems kind of odd, given that it's a rather important issue), or you'll have to agree to wait until further definition. Or, you can continue this indefinitely. Because your positions as they are right now seem irreconcilable.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1894549' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:44 PM']Ok, I'm out of ideas. From my POV, you two either have to agree to disagree (which seems kind of odd, given that it's a rather important issue), or you'll have to agree to wait until further definition. Or, you can continue this indefinitely. Because your positions as they are right now seem irreconcilable.[/quote]
It's pretty evident that we already do that (i.e., agree to disagree).

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1894549' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:44 PM']Ok, I'm out of ideas. From my POV, you two either have to agree to disagree (which seems kind of odd, given that it's a rather important issue), or you'll have to agree to wait until further definition. Or, you can continue this indefinitely. Because your positions as they are right now seem irreconcilable.[/quote]

I'm fine with continuing this indefinitely.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894553' date='Jun 17 2009, 03:48 PM']I'm fine with continuing this indefinitely.

[/quote]
Yes, it increases our post counts, although Resurrexi is but a babe in that regard, even if you count his other screen name.