In the past half-century, relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have been growing ever closer and oriented ever more toward possible reunion. Perhaps the greatest hope of the late Holy Father John Paul II, of happy memory, was the reunion of these two oldest Churches of Christendom. In his many efforts to bridge the doctrinal and cultural divides which separate the Churches, he was successful in fostering much greater mutual respect, if not any actual reunification. Understandably, the steps taken by the Holy Father's predecessor have excited much hope for reunion. However, it is my belief that the steps taken, on each side, toward the noble goal of rebuilding the single pre-schism Church, truly amount to little more than window-dressing, with no substantial gains made.
Not to be a party-pooper, but there is a huge list of very important things that need to be cleared up before reunion can be effected.
In compiling this list, I have provided a brief summary of each point. In order to shorten this article to a readable length, I have eliminated source citations. If you would like a citation on a particular point, please let me know in the comments section or via e-mail.
I invite your commentary.
1. The Canon of the Saints.
The canonization of a saint is held by both Churches to be a dogmatic statement of the eternal beatitude of a particular person. While coming to an agreement on the number of saints before the Great Schism is problematic enough, sorting out exactly who is a saint after the schism is even worse. Certain of those revered as saints in each Church are undoubtedly not palatable to the other Church: take, for example, Mark of Ephesus, an Eastern saint. Mark of Ephesus was the sole Eastern bishop who dissented from the decisions of the reunion Council of Florence in 1439, eventually sinking the Council's chance of succeeding in the East. According to Western thought, Mark of Ephesus is not only not a saint, but a man who scuttled the Council worked for so hard by the fifteenth-century Latins, including among them several saints. Since the Orthodox Church believes Mark of Ephesus infallibly canonized, it would have to admit that it does not have the authority to infallibly canonize. The same story goes for those Western saints inimical to the East: the Catholic Church would have to retract its post-1054 canonizations, admitting that it hasn't the infallible authority it claims. A compromise position, in which each Church retracts the canonizations unpalatable to the other, would force each Church to acknowledge that it has no infallible authority, which raises the question, are the Protestants right that infallibility is not divinely invested in any ecclesial body?/
It seems that, on this issue, there can be no agreement without one or the other Church admitting that it is not what it has claimed to be for the last thousand years.
2. The Canon of Scripture.
While not a deal-breaking matter, the Churches do not agree on a canon of Scripture; the Orthodox typically include in the canon Psalm CLI, I Esdras, III-IV Maccabees, Odes, and the Letter of Jeremiah, while the Western Church is dogmatically bound to reject the status of these books as Holy Scripture. Since, however, the Orthodox have never promulgated a dogmatic canon of Scripture, and do not hold these books in the same regard as the mutually accepted books, the issue is not insoluble, though not necessarily a simple matter, either.
3. The Councils.
The Orthodox Church accepts as ecumenical the first seven Councils — I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II-III Constantinople (553, 681-681), and II Nicaea (787), and holds that other Councils are local in nature, and not dogmatically binding.* The Eastern Church accepts the Council in Trullo of 692 (the so-called "Quinisext Council [literally, "fifth-sixth]," as a legitimate part of the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils, because it promulgated the disciplinary canons absent in the previous councils two councils. The canons of Trullo are notoriously anti-Latin, attempting to impose Byzantine liturgical praxis upon the Western Church. Except for S. John VIII, the Popes never received the canons of Trullo, and he only received "all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome."
Of course, the Roman Church holds that there have been twenty-one Ecumenical Councils, up to II Vatican inclusive. There are several possibilities for reconciliation. The Orthodox Church can affirm these Councils as ecumenical, despite the fact that most of these councils promulgated canons that the Orthodox consider heretical, and even though none of their bishops were present at most of them, clearly indicating that the Eastern Church had not been part of the una sancta since the schism of 1054. Secondly, the Catholic Church could acknowledge that these councils are not ecumenical until they are received and ratified by the bishops of the Eastern Church. The problem with this approach is that the Latin Church would be forced to acknowledge that it had not been part of the una sancta since the Great Schism. The third approach would be for the Catholic Church to submit fully to the view of the Orthodox, namely that the decrees of the Western councils have been in error, an acknowledgement of the West's lack of divine authority.
*Some Orthodox argue that the Eighth Council, IV Constantinople (870) is ecumenical, and this presents its own problems. There were, in reality, two councils to call themselves IV Constantinople, the other being held in 869 against the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, who had unjustly excommunicated the Latins. The Latin Church has, since the eleventh century, held that the 869 council is ecumenical, while the Greek Church has never recognized the 869 council as legitimate, accepting instead the council of 870.
4. Praxis.
a. Appointment of Eastern Bishops.
Currently, all episcopal appointments within the Catholic Church are overseen by the Holy See. In the Eastern Patriarchates, episcopal candidates are named by the Patriarch of the autocephalous church, which then sends the names to Rome, where the Pope approves the candidates. In the Orthodox Church, however, the Holy Synod of each autocephalous church maintains the right to episcopal appointment. In the period before the schism, each Patriarchate held the right of appointment of bishops of the suffragan sees. The only realistic option here is for the Holy See to turn appointment rights over to the respective Patriarchs of the eastern churches, something that, I'm afraid, the Popes would rather not allow.
b. The Novus Ordo Missae.
Stated plainly, the Orthodox are flabbergasted at the promulgation by Pope Paul VI of an entirely new liturgy for the Roman Patriarchate, and one that dispenses with the previous universal practice of eastward orientation of the priest, at that. While the Orthodox have maintained the same liturgies with little change since the Patristic period, the West has abandoned its corresponding liturgy in favor of one composed in the 1960s. The East is more than a little put off by the notion that the Pope feels no qualms about taking tradition in his hands and trimming it as he pleases. Such an attitude is utterly foreign to the Orthodox Church, where tradition, both doctrinal and disciplinary, is regarded as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and praxis.
5. Dogmatic sticking points.
a. Procession of the third Person of the Trinity.
The filioque clause ("…and from the Son…") added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith promotes a view of the Trinity nearly absent in Eastern theology: double procession of the Holy Spirit. The East views this Western addition to the Creed, which appeared in post-Arian Hispania in the sixth century, and was officially added to the Roman liturgy in the eleventh century, as an unbelievable act of hubris on the part of the Papacy. While the notion of double procession is said by many Orthodox theologians to be theolegumenon, acceptable belief, though not official doctrine, many do not hesitate to call double procession a heresy.
Even if Orthodoxy were to accept the doctrine of double procession, it is unlikely that they would accept the actual filioque clause, due to the fact that it was a late addition to the Creed, and not given acceptance by an Ecumenical Council. Such an allowance would be tacit admission of Papal authority in matters of dogma — something inimical to Eastern belief. If the West were to suddenly drop the filioque, the obvious admission is that the Pope had overstepped his bounds in adding to the Symbol, although the Catholic Church has dogmatically acknowledged Papal authority many times over.
b. Metropolitical Authority.
In the Eastern Church, the dominant theology of today holds that all bishops hold equal authority, and that the primacy enjoyed by Metropolitans and Patriarchs is one of honor only. Papal authority aside, Catholic theology generally holds that Archbishops and Patriarchs hold a measure of doctrinal and canonical authority above that of simple bishops, though this article of belief has never (to my knowledge, anyway) been canonized.
c. Transubstantiation.
While it is true that the two Churches have little actual material difference of belief on the matter of divine Eucharistic presence — both firmly assert that Christ is made manifest in more than a merely spiritual way — the Orthodox are more than a bit hesitant to affirm the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, which was developed in response to the eleventh-century heresy of Berengarius. The Orthodox objection to the doctrine of transubstantiation has not to do with its truth value, but to its use of a pagan Greek, particularly Aristotelian, metaphysic. Aristotle's metaphysics are used heavily in medieval Scholastic philosophy, and particularly in S. Thomas, albeit through a Western theological lens. Relevant to the debate on transubstantiation is the Scholastic use of the Aristotelian notion of substance. In Scholastic thought, substance is the metaphysical material which gives a particular object its identity, making it that which it is (haecceity, literally its "thisness"). Substance is in opposition to accidents, the outward, sensible appearances of an object. Transubstantiation is the substantial change of one object into an ontologically different one, without a necessary accompanying accidental change. Orthodox insist that the usage of metaphysical categories such as these (and others, such as form, essence, etc.) serve only to demystify and humanize realities of being and process which may only be known imperfectly anyway.
Dogmatically, the Catholic Church is irrevocably bound to transubstantiation as its primary definition of the Eucharistic transmutation. The Orthodox Church has, to my knowledge, no definitive definition regarding Christ's presence in the Eucharist.
d. Predestination.
Catholicism is dogmatically attached to single predestination — the notion that a particular elect are predestined to eternal beatitude.
The Catholic conception of predestination is not to be confused with Calvin's Double Predestination (also known as predestinarianism). In Catholic belief, God has determined that some specific persons shall be received into eternal beatitude. The theological arguments put forward in this debate are diverse, but well beyond the scope of this article. It suffices to say that most Catholic theological schools hold that God, having a foreknowledge of each man's response to grace, chooses to bestow upon the men who will respond favorably the first grace, which in turn assures the merit necessary for the reception of subsequent graces. By holding to this position while still rejecting strong monergism, Catholicism is able to neatly avoid problems of determinism.
The Orthodox Church finds the debate on predestination pointless, and believes that attempts to explain such a mystery in human terms merely leads to fatalistic philosophical traps, determinism, and an overly mechanistic view of grace and salvation, which Orthodox theologians typically do not attempt to tackle.
e. Purgatory.
It is well-known that Catholicism holds to the existence of a place of purifying fire for those who die with venial sin, or with the scars of many past, now-forgiven, sins. The doctrine of Purgatory is repulsive to the Greeks because they perceive a conflict between the existence of Purgatory and the eastern doctrine of theosis, divinization (which, as we shall see later, is, for its own part, rooted in theologies inimical to the Latin fathers). In the eastern conception of theosis, sufficient holiness for the entrance of a believer into bliss is channeled to the repentant sinner on Earth by the sacraments, charitable works, and prayer; in western theology, temporal punishment is cited as the primary means by which the grace of spiritual restoration is channelled to the repentant sinner. If the condition of his soul is enough to win salvation, yet not fit to enter Heaven directly, the flames of Purgatory await. The difference can be traced to the Churches' differing ideas regarding sin. Orthodoxy has little conception of the idea of the permanent spiritual damage caused by sin, the damage that, even though the sin may be forgiven, Latins claim, temporal punishment (i.e. Purgatory) repairs. The Orthodox ultimately confuse the Catholic doctrine of the repair of the spiritual damage remaining from sins since forgiven with the notion of conversion. Latins and Greeks agree that fervent prayer, charitable works, and reception of the sacraments are the key to repentance, and ultimately salvation, but the East, having no idea paralleling the Latin conception of the spirital scars left by sin, ultimately finds the notion of a place of purification before Heaven extraneous.
f. Divine Simplicity/Essence and Energies of God.
In the High Middle Ages, theology underwent a revival in sorts, in both East and West. In the West, the friar-schoolmen of the great mendicant orders wrote long treatises systematizing the doctrines of the Church; in the East, Constantinopolitan monks attacked and defended new, and supposedly heretical, doctrines and spiritualities. Naturally, having few real contacts, Latin and Greek theologies diverged. In the West, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity was expounded more clearly than it had been before, though it is a traditional conception in Christianity and Judaism; its rising doctrinal prominence in the High Middle Ages, culminating in its dogmatic definition at IV Lateran (1215) can be explained by the fact that it dovetails so well with the Scholastic notion of God as first cause, and the renaissance of the Aristotelian conception of God as unmoved mover. In the medieval conception of Divine Simplicity, God is conceived of as absolutely simple — having no components, physical or metaphysical, or intrinsic properties. In the Orthodox East, however, this conception was rejected for a few reasons: importantly, the contradiction between absolute simplicity and the seemingly intrinsic qualities of God (mercy, justice, inter alia). If, indeed, God has no parts, then all things are identical to His essence. His existence, justice, mercy, will to create, and all other possible attributes are identical to His existence. And because God exists necessarily, His will to create also exists necessarily, which is clearly heretical. Also, the Orthodox object on the grounds that, in the Eastern theology, both essence and energies can be predicated to God. Theosis is dependent upon God's possessing energies distinct from His essence. Obviously, the contradictions between Latin and Greek theologies on these points are not resolvable without one or the other Church capitulating to the other.
h. Immaculate Conception.
Catholicism holds that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin or the other effects of the Fall, including concupiscence, meaning that she remained sinless. The Eastern Church, while not having a dogmatic position on the matter, does not hold to the same Augustinian conceptions of Original Sin and concupiscence, and renounces the Roman conception of the Mother of God's sinlessness, though it does not deny her perpetual sanctity.
i. Ecclesiology.
The Greek Church believes itself to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. While the West believes the same of itself, the Second Vatican Council introduced the notion that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, rather than simply that the two bodies were one and the same. It is still very much under debate within the Western Church as to how, exactly, the notion of subsistence meshes with the dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church as the Church of Christ. Until a particular understanding takes hold, it is impossible to know how the Western teachings will fare in ecumenical matters with the East.
l. The Fall of Adam.
Since the time of S. Augustine, Doctor of Grace, the Latin West has held to a fairly specific view of Original Sin and the other consequences of the Fall, while the Greek Church has never adopted a detailed view of the spiritual consequences of the Fall, holding only to the idea that the Fall has resulted in material consequences for man — namely the need of man to provide for himself, the existence of physical pain, and, most importantly, death. While the Catholic Church has no problems with these ideas, it has a fairly complex view of the spiritual conseuqences of the Fall — Original Sin, concupiscence, and a darkened intellect (all of which are de fide). The Eastern Church has never accepted, formally or informally, these views, and typically considers the doctrines of Blessed Augustine heterodox.
m. Conceptions of Authority.
The Western Church teaches that apostolic ecclesiastical authority was invested in three authorities: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. The Orthodox see no problem with Scripture or Tradition, although they typically consider Scripture a part of Tradition. Magisterium, however, the Orthodox do not accept. The role of bishops in the East is seen as primarily one of teaching, shepherding, and the guarding of Tradition. There is no binding authority invested in the individual bishop, unless he is acting in his role as teacher of traditional beliefs. The duty of creating new teachings in response to heresies is believed to be the job of the ecumenical council alone, whereas, in the West, each bishop's teaching is considered binding (though not dogmatically) upon his flock.
6. Canonical Issues.
a. Patriarchates.
The Orthodox Church is a communion of autocephalous patriarchal churches bound together by the common Orthodox faith. The communion of the Church has its efficient cause Eucharistic communion between the Patriarchal churches, which is why the East never has intercommunion with other Churches. The Latin Church, however, has always conceived of its Patriarch — the Pope — as the head of the whole Church, possessing authority over the other local churches. Therefore, in the West, the title of Patriarch has always been one of honor bestowed upon heads of ritual churches, with no real accompanying canonical authority. In this way, the Catholic Church is able to have multiple Patriarchs of certain sees, while the Orthodox consider such a notion confusing (and, rightly, not historic).
It will be quite a challenge for the Churches to work out exactly who lays claim to each Patriarchate. It would be historically sensible for the West to allow the East to appoint Patriarchs to each of the Eastern sees, although it is not clear exactly how Patriarchates such as Antioch would work out, as the Catholic Church has three Patriarchs there (for the Maronites, the Melkites, and the Chaldeans), and the Orthodox one (of the Antiochian Orthodox church). The Melkites and the Antiochian Orthodox being ritually identical churches, it would only be sensible for the two Patriarchates to be merged. But that would leave the Catholic Maronite and Chaldean Patriarchs co-existing with the Byzantine-rite Patriarch (call him Melkite or Antiochian Orthodox, since they would hypothetically be one and the same). I have no idea how one could work out this mess in such a way as to return to the ancient, still-maintained-in-the-East practice of one Patriarch per see.
b. Papal Elections.
Since the Pope is fundamentally the bishop (and Patriarch) of Rome, the East never voted in the elections for that chair. Prior to the Great Schism, each Patriarch was appointed by the bishops of each autocephalous church. The Orthodox still maintain this practice, while, in the West, the Pope has usurped the right to appoint each bishop, western or eastern. The Orthodox would, most likely, not submit to Papal appointment of each of its bishops. While the Catholic Church would probably cede to the Orthodox the right to elect its own Patriarchs, the West may not allow the East to have a say in the election of the Pope, whether or not the East accepts Papal authority. Creativity will probably play a role in the solution of this problem, if one comes.
Tom Smith
Comments 48
Well has there been any serious talk of reunification? For that matter, does the term REunification make historical sense? Was there a point in the past where there was a unified Church independent of Roman authority?
It would seem that a push towards friendship would be more reasonable than a push towards a single Church.
+0
Posted 27 Jun 2006 at 3:05 pm ¶"Well has there been any serious talk of reunification?"
Yes. At the Second Council of Lyons, 1274, and the Council of Florence, 1439, reunion accords were signed, although, on both occasions, the Eastern bishops returned home and repudiated the union. After Lyons, the Byzantine Imperial court pressured the Eastern Church into repudiating the accords, while after Florence, the bishops were made by the Emperor to sign the accords in order to gain Western military support against the Ottomans. After the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, the Greek bishops once again repudiated the decrees of union.
More recently, in 1965, the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople lifted the mutual decrees of anathema declared in 1054, and delivered a mutual blessing. Pope John Paul II released an encyclical, Orientale Lumen, praising the traditions of the Eastern Church, and affirming that the West could stand to learn from the East. Within the past year, Cardinal Schoenborn, Archbishop of Vienna, has joined with Bishop Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church in a joint effort against secularism in Austria.
"For that matter, does the term REunification make historical sense? Was there a point in the past where there was a unified Church independent of Roman authority?"
Speaking with a Catholic bias, the answer is no, the East would merely have to accept that which its forefathers until the schism did. The Orthodox answer would be yes, there was a time before the Roman see usurped the authority it claims.
+0
Posted 27 Jun 2006 at 4:16 pm ¶Wouldn't a concilar Catholic Church be more amenable to reunification?
I'd also be worried practically about problems with the Russian Orthodox Church that has zip autonomy from the increasingly undemocratic Russian Nationalist gov't.
dlw
+0
Posted 27 Jun 2006 at 10:46 pm ¶tom
First of all, one impediment to any substantial dialogue is that the Orthodox can't seem to have a unified front about anything. It's part of the nature of the East it seems. So much seems to be dependent upon your Spiritual Father. So who would come to the negotiating table so to say? The Patriarch of Constantinople? Maybe. However, there isn't anything saying the Patriarch of Moscow has to listen to him.
Also, what is to say that a situation similar to that of the Eastern Catholics couldn't be arranged? Although, even with Eastern Catholics, it seems that how much they needed to accept is dependent upon when they came into union. How much are they required to accept as a bare minimum? I know I've been to a Byzantine Catholic parish where they omitted the filioque in the Creed. (I know it was a Catholic church because they prayed for our holy ecumenical Pontiff, Benedict, the Pope of Rome…) That could have been a liturgical abuse, though. Who knows?
+0
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 12:41 am ¶Regarding Byzantine-rite Catholic churches, all are required to fully accept the Catholic faith — all of the disputed dogma must be accepted. Which is obvious, as the Church does not have authority to bind dogmas "kinda," or on only a portion of the faithful.
As to elements of praxis, none of the Byzantine churches are required to recite the Creed with the filioque. None of the accords of union required even the slightest change to liturgical praxis. All Byzantine churches that recite the filioque do so because, under the pressure of the governments of Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary, etc., they were required to do so.
+0
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 7:34 am ¶the thing is i heard that how much they had to accept was dependent upon "who was at the negotiating table". what i heard could be complete b.s., though. maybe i misunderstood what whoever told me was saying, though.
if they accept the filioque dogma, why wouldn't they recite the creed that way?
also, in some of the points you make, you say the East doesn't have a defined position. what's stopping the Orthodox from just accepting the Catholic one? the way i understood it, the Orthodox didn't have a defined position because there was no heresy on the issue in their territory. commonly, the Church defines things when they are disputed.
+0
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 9:34 am ¶I thought that that was a very balanced and realistic article. Too many people are willing to sacrifice truth on the altar of so-called ecumenism - overlooking differences which are important. And then accuse those who wish to point out the importance of the differences as being "party poopers"…
"Was there a point in the past where there was a unified Church independent of Roman authority?"
In AD 33, the Church was independent of Roman authority, and it was unified.
In ~1500 BC, at the foot of Sinai, the Church was even independent of the authority of Jerusalem.
+0
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 9:47 am ¶"if they accept the filioque dogma, why wouldn’t they recite the creed that way?"
Why would they? The filioque is a late addition to the Creed anyway. By that standard, we'd have to add everything we believed to the Creed, and it would take two hours to recite.
"also, in some of the points you make, you say the East doesn’t have a defined position. what’s stopping the Orthodox from just accepting the Catholic one?"
The Catholic dogmas that the East doesn't accept are, almost entirely, inimical to Orthodox non-dogmatic tradition.
+0
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 1:17 pm ¶"In AD 33, the Church was independent of Roman authority, and it was unified."
in AD 33, the Church was under Petrine authority, which is the precursor to Roman authority.
+0
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 1:25 pm ¶so why can't the Orthodox do the same thing (agree with the dogma but not adopt the praxis.) with the filioque clause?
btw, i think the article is very well written.
+0
Posted 28 Jun 2006 at 1:41 pm ¶maybe we need to focus more on evangelization rather than ecumenism. it's not as if the Truth changes, so where would there be even room for compromise?
+0
Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 12:42 am ¶Here I go, again.
According to the Points:
1. Technically, I'm not sure that the Church (Catholic, that is) claims infalliblity for its canonizations, although this would make sense. Nobody that I know of (except Tom Moloney) every objected to the idea. There was a time when people didn't need a seal of De Fide approval attached to something so that they'd believe it (if you think you don't, read the Syllbus of Pius IX or Humani Generis of Pius XII, and see if you swallow everything they say).
Interesting tidbit: St. Stephen I of Hungary is the only saint independantly canonized by the Catholic and Orthodox Church separately. We did it in the 1100's; the Orthodox did it as a present to the Hungarians on the 1000th anniversary of statehood in 2000.
We may even have problems with pre-schism saints. The East was a heck of a lot more forgiving of heresy in its canonizations. Also, Constantine the Great is highly revered by the Byzantines (he's an "equal to the Apostles").
Am I wrong in thinking the Russians are about the only Orthodox much interested in new canonizations these day?
2. We might be able to argue that some of these texts are actually just part of the books ennumerated by Trent (cf. Appendix A of the Bible).
3. We accept Vatican II? Hey, I hold III Constantinople to be a heretical modernist council!
4. It should be noted that the Roman Mass was never as archaic as the Orientals. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy of 500 is the same as that of today from the "Little Entrance" onward. Prior to that, are a few Antiphons (psalm texts) which probably formed part of the priest's private prayers before being attaced to the Liturgy. They are analogous to the "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" in the Roman Mass. Best I can tell, the Syriacs, Copts, et al. are even less innovative.
Also the Russians don't like that Rome hasn't had an epiclesis since the 500's (oh, and the stuff in the New Mass hasn't helped. They like their epicleseis after the words of Christ).
5a. I get the impression that the Orthodox complain about the filioque because they've been doing so for 1000 years. I doubt even most Trinitarian theologians can cogently explain the difference between Eastern and Western Trinitarian theologies using the same terms for both.
b. I get the impression that you've got that backwards, Tom. The West hasn't given anything more that honorary authority to Archbishops in a long time (Cardinals, yes; Archbishops, no). Today the West is all about the equality of Bishops. Metropolitans (more or less the same as Archbishops) have historically held a lot of sway in the East. Lately, it's the heads of the autocephalous churches with the power among the Orthodox, but that's a development which has paralleled the growth of papal authority.
d. Do you know where we defined single-predestination? Not that I'm arguing for double-predestination (although, at times…), but that's not our principal problem with Calvinism.
While way beyond the scope of this article, your account of Catholic predestination (while rarely contested today) would be rejected by significant portions of the theological community of years past on multiple points.
What's monergism?
e. Temporal punishment is distinct from Purgatory, and quite distinct from grace. It is the penalty God requires in atonement for our sins, and may be remitted by prayer and good works on earth. Also, not all grace is merited, and heaven is never earned (only merited- in the way that a kid who gets all A's merits an ice-cream cone, but doesn't exactly earn it).
f. You should write a post solely on this topic, as it is one I have never fully understood, but have some ideas about. Also, I command it, and as we all know, the world revolves around me.
i. There is some reason to believe that most of the Fathers wanted "subsist" to be used as an emphatic "to be" (cf. the related ex(s)ist).
m. Oh boy am I glad I've traded in Bp. Trautman for Archbp. Basil!
6. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: to reunify with the East, first we have to reunify the East.
Actually, Patriarch does have some canonical effect (esp. today), being nearly synonymous (at least in a square/rectangle way) with "Major Archbishop", which has a whole host of canonical effects.
Alexandria has two Catholic patriarchs, as well: Melkite and Coptic. I think there is also at least one Orthodox and one "Oriental Orthodox" Patriarch (the latter is in union with no one).
Comments to the Comments:
1. John, if by "Roman" you mean Imperial, then yes. Admittedly, however, between the sack of Rome and the Eastern Schism there weren't many tangible effects of the unification.
3. dlw, it's not clear who's in charge of whom in Russia. Sometimes the Orthodox force the government to do things (like restrict religious freedoms).
4. edey, if it's the Patriarch of Constantinople bargaining, don't expect much to come of it. No one listens to the "His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch" these days. Also, the Eastern Catholics don't have to say the "filioque" (the Ruthenian Byzantine Major Archmetropolitan Cathedral doesn't). I don't like it, but Rome allows it.
5. Tom, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that there were liturgical changes ordered by the union of Uzhorod for the Ruthenians. The epiclesis is silent, unlike in other Byzantine Churches. I thought it was by order of the Pope.
6. edey, actually not reciting the "filioque" is a proper translation of the Greek liturgical books, which do not contain the phrase. It was only ever inserted in the vernacular (if you call thousand year old Slavonic "vernacular"). As to why they don't agree with us, a. the East doesn't like to define things, and b. they don't like us.
8. Tom, I'm okay with a two-hour creed.
10. edey, to accept our dogmas they would have to first accept our ideas of theology, which are the very problem. It's no that the Orthodox think that the Immaculate Conception, or the filioque are evil in and of themselves. It's the very idea of defining them, and doing so with philosophy, that gets them. They dislike dogma, and don't accept philosophy (esp. Aristotelian philosophy).
See what happens when I quite reading for a week ;)>
+0
Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 1:52 am ¶Anthrakeus,
"b. I get the impression that you’ve got that backwards, Tom. The West hasn’t given anything more that honorary authority to Archbishops in a long time (Cardinals, yes; Archbishops, no). Today the West is all about the equality of Bishops. Metropolitans (more or less the same as Archbishops) have historically held a lot of sway in the East. Lately, it’s the heads of the autocephalous churches with the power among the Orthodox, but that’s a development which has paralleled the growth of papal authority."
True enough, but modern Orthodox theological writers stress the equality of all bishops more now than at any time in the history of the Greek Church. While I believe it's pure sophistry to read back into the Fathers that which isn't there (the equality of, say, the Patriarch of Constantinople with the auxiliary bishop of some rinky-dink see in Siberia), that's what they're doing.
"d. Do you know where we defined single-predestination?"
There may not be a particular in which it is stated that single predestination is the truth. However, it's still considered by Denzinger, Ott, etc. de fide. It was assumed as a proposition by I Orange, Quiercy, Valence, and, most importantly, Trent. In various documents, the Popes have also taken single predestination as assumed. The Fathers and Doctors seem to be almost universally in favor of single predestination, although I can't say that I've reviewed every last jot and tittle of each. The only pure definitional statements one has are those which slam the door on semi-Pelagian rejection of predestination at Orange, Valence, etc., and double predestination at Trent. Obviously, this leaves only single predestination as proper Catholic belief. (Although, a tiny crack such as this is enough for a sophist such as yourself to drive a truck through. Sophist.)
"While way beyond the scope of this article, your account of Catholic predestination (while rarely contested today) would be rejected by significant portions of the theological community of years past on multiple points."
Really? I thought I stuck pretty close to Ludwig Ott on the matter. Unfortunately, most of the reading I've done on predestination uses Calvin-speak rather than Catholic language, and that may be coloring my explanation.
"What’s monergism?"
Monergism is the idea that God alone saves, and does so independently of all human efforts and actions, while synergism is the notion that human action plays a part in salvation. (Whether that part is large or small is not important: synergism encompasses everything from Catholicism to semi-Pelagianism.) One of the ongoing debates between Catholics, Jansenists, Calvinists, and Lutherans has to do with S. Augustine on the question: Lutherans and Catholics hold that he was a weak synergist, while Jansenists and Calvinists hold that he was a monergist. Monergism seems to lead to determinism, and the Church has generally rejected it. Unfortunately, the Church has generally also rejected any simple definition of synergism as smacking of semi-Pelagianism, preferring instead to straddle the fence. It seems to me, however, that monergism is an absolute, while synergism is flexible, and that any vacillation on the question indicates that synergism is one's belief.
"f. You should write a post solely on this topic, as it is one I have never fully understood, but have some ideas about."
Honestly, I don't think that anybody really understands essence and energies. Which may be why the Orthodox like them: they're vague enough not to sound like philosophy.
"They dislike dogma, and don’t accept philosophy (esp. Aristotelian philosophy)."
So they say, but it's a load of crap. They didn't have a problem with the philosophy which brought about the notion of the homoousion. They don't mind Palamas' philosophy. The Orthodox don't seem to mind metaphysics, as long as it didn't come from anyone whose name starts with an "A." (Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas are all disliked in the East. Coincidence? I think not. They hate the letter "A.")
+0
Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 10:26 am ¶"So they say, but it’s a load of crap."
That seems to be a good response to most statements about Orthodox claims.
+0
Posted 29 Jun 2006 at 11:39 am ¶"Honestly, I don’t think that anybody really understands essence and energies."
It's simple.
essence - what something is.
energies - what something does. Latin equivalent of "energy" = "operatio" (ie, operations).
What St Gregory Palamas was saying is that we cannot experience God's essence directly - it is wholly transcendent, and to experience it we'd have to be "of one essence" with Him (just as Christ is "of one essence" with Him). We can (and do), however, experience God by what He does - eternally and everywhere.
"Which may be why the Orthodox like them: they’re vague enough not to sound like philosophy."
You're fond of these little backhanders, it seems.
""They dislike dogma, and don’t accept philosophy (esp. Aristotelian philosophy)."
So they say, but it’s a load of crap."
So *who* says?
If the Orthodox didn't accept philosophy, why would we venerate Justin the Philosopher as a Saint? Why would St Gregory the Theologian speak approvingly of St Basil as being "a philosopher among philosophers" in his funeral oration? And as you quite rightly point out, it was a philosophical term that eventually won Orthodox approval as a defense against Arianism. So of course we accept philosophy. We use philosophy as a means of explaining and more precisely delineating the Faith, as it has been handed down to us, and only when necessary (ie, when a new heresy has arisen). As St Gregory said, like a bee we fly from flower to flower, taking that which is good in philosophy and leaving the rest.
Our criticism of the Roman church (especially since the time of the scholastics) is not that they use philosophy and create dogma, but that they use philosophy as a means to its own end, and that they create dogma for the sake of creating dogma. It is the endless (and pointless) philosophical speculations which end up being dogmatised for no apparent purpose which the Orthodox disagree with. We don't make dogmatic pronouncements just for the sake of it - only to defend against an imminent heresy.
+0
Posted 04 Jul 2006 at 11:41 am ¶"essence - what something is.
energies - what something does. Latin equivalent of “energy” = “operatio” (ie, operations)."
Is this all that he means? These definitions of essence seems a but simplified, although I acknowledge that, being a philosophy student in a department with very little in the way of non-Greek, pre-Enlightenment content, and a Catholic, I know little of medieval Byzantine philosophy. But if these are the only things that Palamas means, there is really nothing standing in the way of Western acceptance of Palamite theology, which is why I hesitate to acknowledge that these are the only meanings Palamas uses, given all the theological battles waged over essence and energies. Even in the Greek Church, as I'm sure you know, hierarchs were divided over the acceptance of these notions.
"What St Gregory Palamas was saying is that we cannot experience God’s essence directly - it is wholly transcendent, and to experience it we’d have to be 'of one essence' with Him (just as Christ is 'of one essence' with Him). We can (and do), however, experience God by what He does - eternally and everywhere."
With that I cannot disagree outright, although I will say that I don't understand why it is needed to put energies on the same plane as essence — essence, as the sole determinant of ontological reality, exists independently of any energies exhibited by that object. Since energies are accidental characteristics, even by your definition above, why speak of "essence and energies" together, as though they're inseparable, rather than grouping energies in with other accidental features? Perhaps this is a nitpicky thing, but I think it belies the fact that energies, in Palamas, are more than mere actions taken by God.
"'Which may be why the Orthodox like them: they’re vague enough not to sound like philosophy.'
You’re fond of these little backhanders, it seems."
Oh, without a doubt. I mean nothing by it.
""They dislike dogma, and don’t accept philosophy (esp. Aristotelian philosophy).'
So they say, but it’s a load of crap.'
So *who* says?"
Almost every Orthodox writer I have read (which is, without a doubt, a small number indeed) takes time, in dealing with Orthodoxy's battles with the West, to knock Scholasticism as far too philosophical for Christian doctrine. His Grace +Bp. Kallistos makes plain that philosophy is not suited to the faith of the Orthodox Church.
"If the Orthodox didn’t accept philosophy, why would we venerate Justin the Philosopher as a Saint? Why would St Gregory the Theologian speak approvingly of St Basil as being “a philosopher among philosophers” in his funeral oration?"
You're only illustrating my point — when the Fathers use philosophy, it's okay. But when some crazy Italian friars use it, it becomes fashionable to bash on it.
The reason I oh-so-subtlely describe the position of the likes of Kallistos Ware as "a load of crap" is because the Schoolmen of the West were doing *exactly* what the Greek Fathers of the fourth century were doing — utilizing the best in the philosophical, metaphysical thought of the day to clarify the truths of the faith.
"Our criticism of the Roman church (especially since the time of the scholastics) is not that they use philosophy and create dogma, but that they use philosophy as a means to its own end, and that they create dogma for the sake of creating dogma. It is the endless (and pointless) philosophical speculations which end up being dogmatised for no apparent purpose which the Orthodox disagree with."
"As St Gregory said, like a bee we fly from flower to flower, taking that which is good in philosophy and leaving the rest."
I take it that you contend that the West regularly does, and has done, otherwise.
What is a dogma that is pointless? Transubstantiation? The West first utilized it as a catechetic against the Eucharistic heresies of Berengarius, and it was canonized in response to the Eucharistic heresies of the likes of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. Predestination? It was developed in response to the heresies of Pelagius, and canonized in response to the heresies of Calvin. Papal infallibility? It was canonized in response to the heresies of the conciliarists, Gallicans, and modernity.
What is an example of a truly pointless Western dogma?
"…they use philosophy as a means to its own end…"
What do you mean? Who does? Can you cite an example?
+0
Posted 04 Jul 2006 at 12:42 pm ¶I will agree that some of the scholastics (generally the lesser ones, whose work was of no importance anyway) did use philosophy and more broadly disputation simply "for fun". As a self-styled Sophist I can scarcely condemn them for it. Nonetheless, what I would like to see is not examples of Western theologians overusing philosophy (which might well turn out too numerous to answer), but an Eastern theologian who in the past… oh… let's say 1000 years has come up with some "new" definition, theory, anything. There certainly have been heresies in the past millenium, and most could not be answered without some new thinking. Not that this thinking should be anything truly new. Just rewordings and extensions of traditional dogma.
The issue with Palamas becomes that within a Western understanding of simplicity (based deeply on very old principles; Palamas is the innovator here, not that such things are instantly bad). A scholastic would agree that God cannot be known perfectly by finite beings, nor in this life can He be known immediately. However, Palamas can seem to be saying that there are two parts of God, His essence and His energies. Such would be heresy. Now, I don't think that's what Palamas is saying. Nonetheless, when his theories are extended beyond the nice little boxes they were designed for (mostly mystical theology), problems can arise. Furthermore, it seems clear that we can know *about* God's essence, for example His simplicity. It's unclear (at least to me) if Palamas would agree.
+0
Posted 06 Jul 2006 at 1:37 am ¶"The issue with Palamas becomes that within a Western understanding of simplicity"
Make that "A problem arises between Palamas and a Western understanding of simplicity"
I changed my thought mid-sentence.
+0
Posted 06 Jul 2006 at 1:47 am ¶I'm sorry, I wasn't under the impression that theological definitions are meant to be complicated.
Actually, your surprise at the simplicity here is actually symptomatic of the very problem that Orthodoxy has with Scholasticism in general - ie, the tendency to over-complicate things and to go into unnecessary detail.
So as a Catholic you don't know much about medieval "Byzantine" philosophy - fine, I can understand that. What about Catholic philosophy? Do you know something about that?
The terminology of "essence" and "energies" is the same terminology as coined and used by Catholic theologians such as St Basil the Great and St Gregory the Theologian when they were defending the Orthodoxy of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church against the Arians, in between the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. (The concept itself is much earlier, and can be clearly seen in the likes of Theophilus of Antioch, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 2).
His Grace Bishop Kallistos Ware, whom you claim to have read, actually points this out in The Orthodox Church when he discusses the hesychast controversy. If you are interested, the relevant epistles of St Basil are CCXXXIV and XXXVIII. The latter especially is important in coming to understand the meaning of the words "hypostasis" and "ousia" as used at the 2nd and later Ecumenical Councils.
The essence/energies distinction is closely related to the apophatic theology of the Cappadocians. When describing the essence (which is held to be unknowable), the descriptions used are always in the negative - undescribable, ineffable, uncircumscribable, unknowable, infinite, eternal (ie, not-circumscribed by time), etc. Positive terms like Judge, King, Lord, Master, God, Just, Loving, etc are said to describe His energies.
Well, you appear to be labouring under the misconception that the Palamas-Barlaam controversy was over the distinction between energies and essence. It was not. The disagreement was over whether or not the energies are created or uncreated. Barlaam held that the energies are a created phenomenon. The Orthodox (represented by St Gregory Palamas) held that the energies were uncreated. The difference is that Western theology (following Barlaam) leaves us with the fact that we can only experience God through created intermediaries, whereas the Orthodox belief is that we experience God directly. This is what prevents the West from accepting Orthodox theology (as espoused by St Gregory Palamas).
Near as I can tell, "accidental features" and "energies" are virtual synonyms - which makes your statement "other accidental features" a bit empty.
The reason they are grouped together is as I explained above - both are uncreated.
So you are fond of saying meaningless things, it seems. I'm not sure which is less flattering…
Have you not read St Justin? St Basil? St Gregory of Nyssa? St Athanasius? Origen? Clement of Alexandria? Or even St Augustine? They were all Orthodox writers, and none of them refused to accept philosophy. So either your claim "almost every Orthodox writer I have read" is false, or you haven't read the Fathers…
I think also you had better read Fr Thomas Hopko's popular exposition on the faith.
I think perhaps you need to re-read what His Grace Kallistos Ware had to say about philosophy and theology. I've never read anything he wrote that says this.
And you are missing my point. Ss Justin, Gregory and Basil were Orthodox writers. In light of this observation, you need to reevaluate your statement "almost every Orthodox writer I have read".
And this is where we disagree. If the scholastics had restrained themselves to use philosophy to explain or clarify the truths of the faith, we would have no problem with them. But our criticism of them is that the scholastics went far beyond merely trying to explain truths of the faith - they began using philosophy to speculate on hitherto unknown truths, which subsequently became dogma.
I know it's fashionable among papal apologists to dismiss this using the cliched "anti-Western hatred" stereotype (which is what your "crazy Italian friars" comment was undoubtedly insinuating). But we are completely consistent in this regard - we do not reserve this sort of criticism for "crazy Italian friars", or even for Westerners. For example, Origen and (to a lesser extent) Clement of Alexandria were neither Italian nor Western, and yet they come in for exactly the same sort of criticism from us as the scholastics do. Our criticism of the scholastics has very little to do with the fact that they are Italian, and a great deal to do with the fact that they were guilty of the same sort of philosophical speculation that Origen was guilty of.
And of course, we were not the first to point out this tendency in the schoolmen. The philosophical excesses of the schoolmen featured prominently in many of the battles at the time of the Reformation.
The enumeration of the sacraments. The enumeration of the sins. The legalistic classification of sins into "mortal" and "venial". The system of merit that underlies the dogmatic explanation of the workings of the Atonement, along with its related spin-offs (superrerogatory works, etc). The Immaculate Conception. Having the earth declared at the centre of the universe and unmoving (ok, perhaps this wasn't declared dogma, but it was certainly an opinion held seriously enough to land Galileo in trouble). Etc.
What I mean is, when faced with a question like "how does the atonement work" or "how many sacraments are there", the appropriate response is "I don't know". This is humility and simple realism - we can know nothing apart from revelation, and there are some things that God hasn't revealed to us (nor would we understand them if He had). However, the phrase "I don't know" barely seems to be in the Schoolmen's vocabulary. [Begin infomercial voice] Want to know how many sacraments there are? Concerned that the sacraments have never been Traditionally enumerated, or that God hasn't revealed the exact number to us? Have no fear! Our Schoolmen will fill in the gaps in God's revelation using their special philosophical powers! Where God has abandoned you to ignorance, they will rescue you! [End infomercial voice] This sort of pointless speculation is what we criticised Origen for. And it's what we criticise the schoolmen for.
+0
Posted 07 Jul 2006 at 11:20 am ¶Jezz,
I'll go into more detail later, but for starters:
The difficulty Catholics (and Orthodox theologians like Barlaam, who however "relapsed" into Catholocism) have is that it seems the essence/energies distinction creates a real distinction in God (that is, a distinction in being, as opposed to a distinction only in thought). Unless I am quite mistaken, Palamas does not see the energies as merely convenience of speech (like distinguishing between mercy and justice, both of which are truly the same thing in God). The energies are real, uncreated entities (not independant of God but distinct from His essence). Catholics admit only one kind of distinction within the Divinity: distinction of Person. So, "the Father is not the Son" is fine, but "God's justice is not God" is heresy. The justice of God is identical with God.
Also it should be noted that Catholics believe that we will experience God immediately (in His essence) in Heaven, just not completely (as He is infinite and we are finite). Only on earth must creatures mediate our experience of God (the bible and the Church fall under the category of creatures).
+0
Posted 07 Jul 2006 at 2:47 pm ¶"I’m sorry, I wasn’t under the impression that theological definitions are meant to be complicated."
Backhander?
"Actually, your surprise at the simplicity here is actually symptomatic of the very problem that Orthodoxy has with Scholasticism in general - ie, the tendency to over-complicate things and to go into unnecessary detail."
What *exactly* is wrong with creating a detailed exposition of the Faith? What *exactly* is consitutive of "unnecessary detail?" Do you have a problem with religious philosophy in general, or only when religious philosophy leads to the promulgation of dogma?
These questions, I think, will prove a permanent sticking point between you and I.
"So as a Catholic you don’t know much about medieval 'Byzantine' philosophy - fine, I can understand that. What about Catholic philosophy? Do you know something about that?"
A little, perhaps. I don't pretend to be a scholar. I was talking about Palamas, however, and not the Fathers. You're talking about how the Fathers = Catholic philosophy. While I can agree to that statement, you're ultimately equating S. Gregory Palamas with Catholic philosophy, which, I think, is erroneous, although, as you can see, I know very little of Palamas.
"The terminology of “essence” and “energies” is the same terminology as coined and used by Catholic theologians such as St Basil the Great and St Gregory the Theologian when they were defending the Orthodoxy of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church against the Arians, in between the First and Second Ecumenical Synods."
"Essence," I can agree with. Obviously, with all the discussion of the Incarnation dealing with "ousia," and culminating in the definition of Christ as "homoousion" (not sure about the spelling), "essence" has a firm grounding in Patristic writings. Dropping the Palamite lens through which contemporary Orthodox writers see, where do "energies" come into play, though? (I'm not setting you up; I genuinely have no idea.)
"His Grace Bishop Kallistos Ware, whom you claim to have read, actually points this out in The Orthodox Church when he discusses the hesychast controversy."
I don't doubt it. When I return to Pittsburgh in a few weeks, I will look up the relevant passages in The Orthodox Church.
"Positive terms like Judge, King, Lord, Master, God, Just, Loving, etc are said to describe His energies."
You claim that God's energies are accidental characteristics. So are his qualities as Judge, King, etc. accidental? That seems like quite a commitment you're making here. It seems to me that, when one describes Him as "God," one is referring to an essential characteristic. Isn't God essentially and necessarily God? Is God only God accidentally? That doesn't seem to make sense. Either Palamas is stating that God's Divinity can be predicated to Him only accidentally, which seems to me nonsensical, or Palamas is not paralleling the Cappadocian Fathers' apophatic theology.
"The Orthodox (represented by St Gregory Palamas) held that the energies were uncreated. The difference is that Western theology (following Barlaam)…"
Tiny nitpicky detail here: it's incorrect to speak of the West *following* Barlaam, as most of the influential Scholastic thinkers were hammering out their doctrines in the thirteenth century, while the controversy over the Holy Hesychasts was in the fourteenth.
"…leaves us with the fact that we can only experience God through created intermediaries, whereas the Orthodox belief is that we experience God directly. This is what prevents the West from accepting Orthodox theology (as espoused by St Gregory Palamas)."
Thank you for giving me a bit of education in Palamas. With what you've told me, though, I disagree. The main disagreement here comes from the notion that God's actions are uncreated, not from the various explananations as to how God is experienced (directly or indirectly). Since God has no components, and is therefore simple, and because all that is uncreated is God, the only uncreated thing is God's essence.
"Ss Justin, Gregory and Basil were Orthodox writers. In light of this observation, you need to reevaluate your statement 'almost every Orthodox writer I have read'."
When I was talking about "Orthodox writers," I meant to exclude the Fathers. In referring to "Orthodox writers," I meant "modern Orthodox writers," as in, "those moderns in the Eastern Orthodox Church." Also, both Orthodox and Catholics typically think of the Fathers as belonging to the Church to which they belong. This comes out in my writing — I think of the Fathers as Catholics, although I would not deny that, as one of the two Churches resulting from the Great Schism, the Fathers belong equally to the Orthodox Church.
"But our criticism of them is that the scholastics went far beyond merely trying to explain truths of the faith - they began using philosophy to speculate on hitherto unknown truths, which subsequently became dogma."
By "hitherto unknown truths," you imply that all truths of the faith were known at all times, going back to the Apostolic period. That seems, to me anyway, incorrect.
"And of course, we were not the first to point out this tendency in the schoolmen. The philosophical excesses of the schoolmen featured prominently in many of the battles at the time of the Reformation."
A few Reformers did, indeed, dislike this aspect of the Scholastic philosophy. Many, however, used the Scholastic method against Catholicism.
Also, I think you're on to something here. You said that "we were not the first" to take issue with Scholasticism. I agree — because Orthodoxy has not, by and large, come to condemn Scholasticism until very recently. It seems to me strange that the Orthodox would dislike Scholasticism so strongly today, when just a few hundred years ago, Russian schools were teaching Aquinas in Latin, and had no problem talking about transubstantiation.
"The enumeration of the sacraments."
. . . was dogmatically defined in response to the Protestant Reformers who claimed that there were only two.
"The enumeration of the sins."
I take it that you mean the seven deadly sins? We get our theology on the seven deadly sins primarily from St. John Cassian and many of the Desert Fathers.
"The legalistic classification of s