The Greek Orthodox Churches

[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.

[Aloysius]

[quote]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?[/quote]

basically because the formulations are often uniquely roman and often scholastic in nature; ie, I consider the stuff they say to be binding upon the whole Church but not the way they say it; it is my opinion that often something formulated according to Eastern theology may seem to be at face value contradictory of something taught by one of the Ecumenical Councils which were dominated mostly by Latins because of the Great Schism but that in substance it agrees with that which was infallibly taught by those councils.

as Apotheoun has already noted, Pope Paul VI himself has referred to some of these councils as particular western synods (though he did so to a Council which is really considered of minimal importance to the history of the Church, I doubt he would be so liberal in minimalizing the Ecumenical nature of say, the Second Vatican Council)... these things in relation to the West and East (which is being de-latinized) seem to be in a bit of ecclesiological flux; Rome tends to turn a blind eye to Eastern Catholic charecterizations of the last 14 councils...

[Apotheoun]

The following Triadological and Christological (and even Soteriological) problems arise from the failure to make the necessary distinctions between essence ([i]ousia[/i]), energy ([i]energeia[/i]), and person ([i]hypostasis[/i]):

(1) The failure to make a distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) in the Trinity leads to Sabellian modalism, because if the divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] are identified with the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), one necessarily confounds the persons of the Trinity. In other words, if the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Father is the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), it follows that the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) is the [i]hypostatic[/i] characteristic of "paternity," now since the Son also possesses the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which – because of a failure to distinguish between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] – is identical with the [i]hypostatic[/i] property of paternity, it follows that the Son possesses paternity, and, as a consequence, He is the Father. The same holds with each of the [i]hypostaseis[/i] in the Trinity, because if the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and Sonship are identical, it follows that the Father, who possesses the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), is also the Son, etc.

(2) The failure to make a distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and energy ([i]energeia[/i]) in Triadology – depending upon the particular case – leads to Arianism or Eunomianism, because there is no distinction between the generation of the Son, which is natural to the Father, and the creation of the world, which is an act of the divine will and energy ([i]energeia[/i]). Arius held that the divine energy (and in particular the divine will) is identical with the divine essence, and in doing this, he concluded that the Son is a product of the Father's will, and as such the Logos (Son) is a creature and cannot be very God of very God. Now, in order to avoid this error, St. Athanasios made a distinction between the divine energy ([i]energeia[/i]) and power ([i]dynamis[/i]) – including the divine will – and the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) or nature ([i]physis[/i]). That being said, in St. Athanasios' theology the Son is generated by the Father, and generation (and procession as well) is a [i]hypostatic[/i] act natural to the Father, which cannot be reduced to an act of the divine will, and as a consequence of this, the Son is [i]homoousios[/i] with the Father, i.e., the Son is not a creature. The Cappadocian Fathers – building upon the theology of St. Athanasios – made this same distinction in order to refute the heresy of Eunomius, who taught that the Son was a product of the divine energy ([i]energeia[/i]) of the Father, and because He was "willed" by the Father into existence, the Son was a created being. Responding to this heresy, the Cappadocians – like St. Athanasios before them – taught that the Son was generated by the Father, and not created through an act of the divine will and energy ([i]energeia[/i]), and so, for the Cappadocians, the Son is fully divine and [i]homoousios[/i] with the Father. These same doctrinal distinctions were applied by the Cappadocian Fathers to the Holy Spirit, who derives His [i]hypostatic[/i] origin from the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Father, and not through the divine will and energy ([i]energeia[/i]), but by an act natural to the Father. Thus, the Spirit is not a creature, but is fully divine and uncreated.

The distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and energy ([i]energeia[/i]) also helps the Cappadocian Fathers to avoid the heresy of pantheism, because the world is a product of the divine will and energy ([i]energeia[/i]), and not of the divine essence (or nature), which means that it is created, i.e., it comes into being out of nothing through an act of the will of God. Now, to fail to make this distinction leads to difficulties in distinguishing the [i]hypostatic[/i] origin of the Son and the Spirit, from the creation of the world.

(3) The failure to make a distinction between [i]hypostasis[/i] and the [i]enhypostatic[/i] energies causes confusion in connection with the gifts of the Spirit given through the sacraments. First it needs to be noted that two [i]hypostaseis[/i] can never be one subsistence, and so there cannot be a "blending" of the created [i]hypostasis[/i] of man with the uncreated [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Holy Spirit. Second, one [i]hypostasis[/i] cannot participate in another [i]hypostasis[/i], because to be a [i]hypostasis[/i] involves – of its very nature – being a distinct subsistence. Thus, salvation involves man's participation in the [i]enhypostatic[/i] energies of the Trinity, and not in the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) itself (which would involve the heresy of pantheism) nor in the [i]hypostasis[/i] of any one of the three divine [i]hypostaseis[/i].

(4) Only the Son and Spirit can be [i]homoousios[/i] with the Father, and to hold any other position on this matter by its very nature involves the heresy of pantheism. Man, even after he has been deified by grace, remains [i]heteroousios[/i] in relation to the Trinity, and nothing can change that, because – as St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out – there is an essential gap between the uncreated and the created, and so salvation does not involve an essential or a [i]hypostatic[/i] change in man; instead, it involves a real participation in the uncreated divine energies. The divine energies unidirectionally transgress the [i]adiastemic[/i] boundary between created and uncreated essence, giving man a real participation in God's uncreated life and glory, but not in the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) itself, which always remains transcendent. As St. Basil said in reference to man's ability to know and participate in the divine, "The operations [[i]energeiai[/i]] are various, and the essence [[i]ousia[/i]] simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations [[i]energeiai[/i]], but do not undertake to approach near to His essence [[i]ousia[/i]]. His operations [[i]energeiai[/i]] come down to us, but His essence [[i]ousia[/i]] remains beyond our reach." [St. Basil, [i]Letter 234[/i], no. 1]

(5) The failure to make a distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] in Christology can – depending upon the case – lead to Nestorianism or Monophysitism and Monothelitism.

Thus, if one posits the idea that [i]hypostasis[/i] and essence ([i]ousia[/i]) are identical, it follows that because Christ has both a human nature and a divine nature He would also be two [i]hypostaseis[/i], and this of course is the heresy of Nestorius. In opposition to this idea the Church at Chalcedon taught that Christ is one divine [i]hypostasis[/i] in two natures, and – as a result of this teaching – it follows that essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] cannot be identical as Aquinas teaches in the [i]Summa[/i] (cf. Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1).

Now, as I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, one [i]hypostasis[/i] cannot participate in another [i]hypostasis[/i], because that would involve the destruction of one or both of the [i]hypostaseis[/i], or the "creation" of some kind of hybrid [i]hypostasis[/i]. But in the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, the Holy Fathers taught that the one divine and uncreated [i]hypostasis[/i] of the eternal Logos assumed from the Holy Theotokos a full and complete human nature, but without becoming a human [i]hypostasis[/i] at the same time, because this would involve falling into the heresy of Nestorius. That being said, if essence and [i]hypostasis[/i] are really identical, it follows that the union of the two natures in Christ would be reduced to a mere union of grace no different from that which is received by a follower of Christ, and – as I noted above – this is simply another form of the Nestorian heresy.

Moreover, the failure to make a distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] can also lead to the heresy of Monophysitism, because if one identifies essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] the union of the two natures in Christ cannot occur in the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the eternal Logos, but must somehow occur in the essence (or nature) of the Logos and the human nature assumed by Him. This of course would involve a blending of the two natures, which involves the bizarre notion of some type of "composite" nature that is both divine and human at that same time. Thus the failure to distinguish between [i]hypostasis[/i] and essence ([i]ousia[/i]) involves the absorption of Christ's human nature by His divine nature; and as a consequence, Christ is not fully human, because His humanity would be a mere phantasm or appearance absorbed into His divine nature, while He would also not be fully divine, because He would have a mixed human and divine nature, and that would mean that His divine nature – as altered by this substantial mixing – would be different from the divine nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, this Christological error leads also to a Triadological error, because it makes the Son of God less than and essentially different from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

(6) The failure to make a distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] in Christ has the additional difficulty of making human nature itself somehow "essentially" corrupt after the ancestral sin of Adam. Sin – by definition – is a personal ([i]enhypostatic[/i]), not a natural or essential reality, but if one fails to distinguish between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] sin must be held to be natural to man, i.e., it must be held to be a part of his nature, rather than being a defect present within his [i]hypostatic[/i] mode of willing. This distinction highlights the fact that essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and energy ([i]energeia[/i]) are also distinct, because the will – as a capacity – is an essential energy of a nature, while the "mode of willing" is proper only to a [i]hypostasis[/i], i.e., the "mode of willing" is an [i]enhypostatic[/i] enactment of that natural capacity. Moreover, a nature (or essence) never wills anything, only a person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) can will to do something or not do something.

Now in Christ there are – as the Sixth Ecumenical Council taught – two natural (or essential) wills and energies corresponding to His two natures, but of course if energy is identical with [i]hypostasis[/i] it follows that the human nature assumed by Christ in the incarnation would become sinful, because sin would be a property of the hybrid human nature / [i]hypostasis[/i] composite. But as St. Maximos pointed out, sin is found only in the "mode of willing," i.e., in the [i]hypostasis[/i] of man, while it is not to be found in the will as a capacity of nature, and this means that Christ, in assuming human nature, does not assume sin itself (which as I noted earlier is found only within the [i]hypostatic[/i] "mode of willing"), and so, Christ – as the Chalcedonian decree (quoting scripture) says – is like us in all things except sin.

[mortify]

How can anyone suggest that Photios be raised to the Altar in the West?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1782733' date='Feb 16 2009, 03:52 PM']How can anyone suggest that Photios be raised to the Altar in the West?[/quote]
He doesn't need to be, because he is already commemorated in the Byzantine liturgy.

[Apotheoun]

The Roman Church does not have to liturgically commemorate the same saints as the Byzantine Churches.

After all, the Byzantine Churches do not liturgically commemorate saints peculiar to the Latin Church.

[mortify]

Oh Apotheon, get out of the Orthodox closet already!

[Apotheoun]

What am I going to do with all the Latinophiles I meet on the internet?

As I tell both my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends: Eastern Catholics are Orthodox Christians.

[Ziggamafu]

Apotheon:

Ultimately, why are you Eastern rite Catholic ([u]o[/u]rthodox), rather than Eastern [u]O[/u]rthodox? In other words, what is, in your mind, the fundamental error or errors of the Orthodox Church? Why would it be wrong to leave an Eastern rite Catholic parish for an Eastern Orthodox parish (you understand the general idea; no fine-tooth comb stuff, here)?

And what do you feel are the errors of the Latin rite? Are there any doctrines that you believe are in error as currently understood / articulated?

Thanks!

[Ziggamafu]

I should add that I am - of course - okay with the idea that dogmas could be so misunderstood at a current stage of growth that in a later stage of growth their clarification / interpretation could seem to turn the original majority-understanding of the dogma on its head ("no salvation outside of the Church" springs to mind, for example). So I get the point. I also recall Peter Kreeft suggesting that such could be the case with the current understanding of papal supremacy and papal infallibility in his "Ecumenism Without Compromise" speech (you can listen to it for free on his website).

But I really am curious of your stances, Apotheon. Not trying to paint you into a corner.

Thanks.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[SeaZephyr]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1782742' date='Feb 16 2009, 07:02 PM']What am I going to do with all the Latinophiles I meet on the internet?

As I tell both my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends: Eastern Catholics are Orthodox Christians.[/quote]

I really don't know what to think after what I have read from you on these forums, Steve. I am pretty shocked to say the least. I just wanted to let you know that.


Your old friend,
Rick

Edited February 19, 2009 by SeaZephyr

[Apotheoun]

Rick,

I hope all is well with you, and with all our mutual friends from the good old days on AOL.

Now, as far as my views on theology are concerned, as an Eastern Catholic I must be faithful to the theological patrimony of the tradition of my self-governing Church, that is, if I – and by extension my fellow Eastern Catholics – am going to assist in the process of restoring full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Latinization is not a requirement, nor is it a prerequisite, for being in communion with the bishop of Rome.

God grant you many happy years.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Apotheoun

[SeaZephyr]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1785078' date='Feb 18 2009, 11:37 PM']Rick,

I hope all is well with you, and with all our mutual friends from the good old days on AOL.

Now, as far as my views on theology are concerned, as an Eastern Catholic I must be faithful to the theological patrimony of the tradition of my self-governing Church, that is, if I – and by extension my fellow Eastern Catholics – am going to assist in the process of restoring full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Latinization is not a requirement, nor is it a prerequisite, for being in communion with the bishop of Rome.

God grant you many happy years.[/quote]

You greatly misunderstand me, Steve. I am not talking about your theology and your support of it. By all means, support Eastern theology, you are an Eastern Christian. What I am talking about is what seems to be a very confrontational attitude and a whole bus load of contempt for your Latin [u]Brethren[/u]. Yes, [i]Brethren[/i]. That's all. I really dislike the word "Latinophile" every bit as much as I dislike the term "Uniate", Steve.

Anyway, thank you for the well wishes. I pray that God also grant you many happy years.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Rick

[Apotheoun]

Rick,

It is sad to say, but there are some Latin Catholics who believe that being Catholic requires being Latin, and when I meet those kinds of Latin Catholics I try to disabuse them of that false viewpoint. It is regrettable that a rather forceful presentation of the Byzantine Catholic position is sometimes necessary.

God grant you many years.

[MithLuin]

I don't see any problem with having unique sets of saints. I mean, if the East doesn't get St. Francis of Assisi or St. Therese of Lisieux, that's their loss. If we don't get Photius...well, I'm not going to miss him, that's for sure!

There have been plenty of controversial saints over the years. No one knows the story of St. Philomena; we just have her bones (okay, okay, I know we have a couple of stories - but they are pretty much the stuff of legends, considering there's an 1700 year gap between her death and the story!) St. Christopher may have never lived. Saint Juan Diego's canonization raised some eyebrows. And then there is St. Joan of Arc, who was condemned and killed as a heretic before (eventually) being declared a saint. Some people suspect that Saint Brigid owes more to pagan cults that predate the introduction of Christianity to Ireland than to a real Christian nun. Etc. The list goes on....

If someone is less than impressed with the story of a saint's life...well, you can always choose to ignore them. There is no rule that says you have to have a devotion to all of the official saints of the Church.

Turning this into 'East vs. West' is not helpful.

[SeaZephyr]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1785096' date='Feb 18 2009, 11:55 PM']Rick,

It is sad to say, but there are some Latin Catholics who believe that being Catholic requires being Latin, and when I meet those kinds of Latin Catholics I try to disabuse them of that false viewpoint. It is regrettable that a rather forceful presentation of the Byzantine Catholic position is sometimes necessary.

God grant you many years.[/quote]

I think that you might be seeing that attitude sometimes, in places where it isn't. God bless!

Rick

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1785099' date='Feb 18 2009, 11:58 PM']Turning this into 'East vs. West' is not helpful.[/quote]

For the full 9 years that I have been a believing Catholic, that attitude has left a sour taste in my mouth. I really loath the "them and us" attitude that many Eastern and Roman Catholics alike can sometimes adopt. That is not true unity or communion. And in this day and age with modern communication technology, its really not excusable anymore. God bless!

Rick

Edited February 19, 2009 by SeaZephyr