Mike,
Thank you for your excellent post. I intend to reread it along with Al's article later today when I have a little more free time and I will post some thoughts on it/them.
Yours
John
"Yet the patristic evidence for this [essence/energies] distinction is remarkably meager and can hardly claim consensual support (see A. N. Williams, The Ground of Union)."
I must respectfully dissent; I winced after reading this. It is an integral, non-negotiable component of Orthodox Christology and soteriology. I hope you would consider the implications of its denial. If there is no uncreated reality or divine life outside of God's essence, what are the implications of that Christologically and soteriologically?
William,
You critiqued the statement on a theological basis, but you haven't provided any answer at all to her factual assertions that the e/e distinction (a) has little evidence in its favor, and (b) lacks any "consensual" evidence in the Fathers. That is not to answer the question, but to beg the question.
Tighe,
(Eastern Catholic) Steven Todd Kaster's papers completely demolish both (a) and (b) here:
http://www.geocities.com/apotheo...otheoun/
paper09
http://www.geocities.com/apotheo...theoun/
paper08b
There is little I could or would add to them.
If there is no uncreated reality or divine life outside of God's essence, what are the implications of that Christologically and soteriologically?
Very little, at least as measured against the parallel Western construction of the same problem. The West has maintained real union and real knowledge by knowing an infinite object according to finite modes of knowing/experiencing, although this is not knowledge in the absolute or comprehensive sense (analogical knowledge in St. Thomas, "confused" knowledge in Albertus Magnus, "learned ignorance" in Nicholas of Cusa's idiom). The Alexandrian Clement appears to have used both the notion of infinite essence (at least in primitive form) and the essence/energies concept alongside one another with little difficulty. It appears that Plotinus had his own version of infinity, somewhat different from the Western view (and indeed, this is not entirely surprising, as there was hardly any uniform view in Hellenic philosophy, particularly given that it was a point of contention between Aristotle and Plato). For whatever reasons, the Christian concept of divine infinity was subsumed within the essence/energies distinction (infinity being viewed in terms of effects and hence an attribute of energy, although not an energy that comes into or out of existence; see, e.g., St. John Damascene's Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.9). Gregory of Nyssa was probably the last significant Eastern thinker on the subject of divine infinity, and like Clement, his ideas were still primitive (to use Leo Sweeney's characterization).
The problem is that the West generally, and Augustine particularly, often gets charged with either the Origenist or Plotinian view (effectively putting the divine essence at the level of power/knowledge/energies, although in fairness, Origen, Plotinus, and Eunomius all did this in different ways). I believe there is good evidence in Augustine's writings that he didn't actually hold to any of these views; see, e.g., City of God 12.17-18 (in contrast with Origen and Eunomius, who indisputably adhered to a finite concept of the divine essence as far as I can tell). In fact, I am extremely skeptical about Augustine's "books of the Platonists" being anything other than Christian philosophers (probably including Origen) that he obtained through Simplicianus in Milan, pace Carol Harrison. Per Gyorgy Heidl's thesis, I think Augustine was deliberately vague on the point simply because he didn't want to be charged with Origenism. But even leaving all that aside, it is quite clear that Augustine's theological inheritors didn't have the defective concept of divine infinity from Origen or Plotinus, so the relevance of the Eastern critique is more or less zero. This is particularly relevant because the concept of divine infinity plays a major role in the potentia ordinata/potentia absoluta distinction that looms large in all of Western theology,
This is particularly relevant because the concept of divine infinity plays a major role in the potentia ordinata/potentia absoluta distinction that looms large in all of Western theology, meaning that parsing Western theology according to Hellenic categories based on a different concept of divine infinity renders most of it unintellgible (witness David Bradshaw's valiant attempt in Aristotle East and West).
I could go back even farther and point out that the West actually had its own concept of essence/energies as well, also based on the technical use of energeia from Greek medical physics but different in focus, that actually drove this use of the concept of divine infinity and much of the theology about the vision of God in the West. But let it suffice for the moment that the ostensible denial of the essence/energies distinction in no way suggests that nothing outside of the divine essence participates in uncreated reality or divine life.
William, I am not a patristics scholar; but I have now read around enough in the literature to know that on this question of essence and energies the large majority of scholars simply do not find the Palamite distinction in folks like Athanasius and Cyril, much less in Augustine and the Western Fathers. I have confirmed this point in conversations (oral and email) with Robert Wilken, Daniel Keating, and David Hart. All the Fathers speak of divinization through participation in the divine nature; but few (none?) find it necessary to qualify this assertion by distinguishing the nonparticipable divine essence and the participable divine energies. This appears to have been principally a Cappadocian concern.
I certainly do not deny that the East eventually embraced and developed the Cappadocian distinction; but I confidently resist the reading back of Palamas into the early Fathers.
Thus A. N. Williams:
"Orthodox writers attempting to establish the distinction’s patristic pedigree appeal to two sorts of evidence: reference to divine energy and Basil’s Letter 234. We did not, in the patristic survey, note usages of energeia because it does not emerge strongly from patristic accounts of deification, a point in favor of the Western view of the distinction. The term is not absent, however, from patristic discourse about divine activity; the Orthodox correctly point to its use early in the patristic period. The problem lies in the fact that these usages suggest little, if anything, more than that the Fathers speak of God’s activity, not only as action proper but as a power that is a divine attribute. Apart from Basil’s letter, there is nothing to suggest that this energy exists in some sort of symbiotic or contrastive relationship to divine essence. Use of energeia, therefore, does not in itself authenticate a patristic form of the essence-energies distinction. The exception, as we have noted, is Basil’s Letter 234. There, however, we find a mention so brief, so fleeting, and in a context so occasional, that it seems highly questionable to propose this text as the basis of a major doctrine."
Pontificator,
If the Divine Essence is imparticiple but the Divine Grace and Life which is the source of salvation is uncreated, is this not implicitly opposed to the definition of divine simplicity supplied by natural theology? Patristic soteriology and Christology unequvically affirms that humanity is raised to and participates in something truly divine and uncreated which is not the Divine Essence. Only an uncreated power can be the cause or ground of deification, that is certainly a patristic principle.
JP,
How is an appeal to "infinity" going to provide the sufficient condition for communion with a being/essence that is *completely* indivisible? Soteriologically, either humanity is assumed into the divine essence or a created medium; the same holds Christologically; either the beautific vision grants total knowledge of the essence or none at all.
"For, whatever is composed of parts is not altogether one, but is: in some sort plural, and diverse from itself; and either in fact or in concept is capable of dissolution." [Proslogium, XVIII]
William,
I agree with Al Kimel: the credentialed and academic scholars, of whatever Church committment, do not agree with you or with Mr. Kaster. Personally, I consider Mr. Kaster to be little more than a polemicist attempting to foist anti-Roman Orthodox views on disputed questions on the Eastern Catholic Churches, thus calling into question the raison d'etre of these churches, which is that communion with the Apostolic See is one of the necessary marks of communion with the Church; and that, consequently, on those matters which that see had determined to be de fide tenenda, they must of necessity accept its authoritative teaching. Were he Orthodox, this would be a not uncommon viewpoint -- but as a Catholic it resembles the spectacle of a man sawing the branch on which he is preched off from the trunk of which it is a branch; a spectavcle as diverting as it is rare, but entailing potentially fatal consequences for the person so perched.
Kaster's views are like that of most (read: virtually all) of the Eastern Catholics I know, but that's what Eastern Catholicism is, Orthodoxy with nominal Papal submission, a glass of oil and water.
I plan a longer comment later, but I would like to jump in briefly here. I am not aware of an Orthodox theologian who takes the Anglican A.N. William's thesis in her "Ground of Union" all that seriously. It got some polite reviews in a few Orthodox publications, but my impression is that most Orthodox theologians do not view it as a starting point or even as a useful tool. I wonder what David Hart has to say about the book, as Hart has, I am told, publicly stated that "Palamas was an idiot." If that is Hart's view, then he would seem to have separated himself from normative Orthodox theology. I would be curious to know what the majority of Orthodox credentialed and academic scholars believe about the energy/essence distinction prior to the Cappodocians. I have a good friend, an Orthodox priest, who is just finishing his doctorate in historical theology and who has had to bite his tongue on a number of occasions in order to get his degree. He will have to continue to bite it until he is tenured. I imagine that there are other Orthodox in the same situation. It is only recently that there has been a considerable number of English speaking Orthodox entering these fields. In another generation there may well be a number of English speaking Orthodox scholars addressing these issues. The vast majority of patristics scholars today deny that there was an Orthodox Church prior to Nicaea. Many if not most of them teach that the categories we use such as "catholic" and "orthodox" are the mythical creations of the party/parties which won the essential disagreements and eradicated their theological enemies. In such an academic context, I am not so sure that I would associate the majority opinion with the truth.
I think the essence/energies distinction is right there in Clement of Rome and Irenaeus. With the former not so much in the context of divinization, but in the context of theological method, Triadology, and Ecclesiology. People are making too much of the essence/energy distinction if it isn't grounded from a perspective of the patristic ordo theologiae that first considers Hypostasis. Otherwise, it is just our good ol' friend Mr. God-in-General.
Photios
That's your opinion, Mr. Ballow -- but as an Eastern Catholic myself it corresponds with neither my views nor my experience. Perhaps your "most ... of the Eastern Catholics I know" corresponds with that of the socialite who was astounded by FDR's landslide victory in 1936 "because almost all of the people that I know voted against him."
Perhaps your "most ... of the Eastern Catholics I know" corresponds with that of the socialite who was astounded by FDR's landslide victory in 1936 "because almost all of the people that I know voted against him."
Hehe, I can't beat that, that was good...
Dr. Tighe,
What's your take on Palamas' theology as an Eastern Catholic?
Even as late as the nineteenth century, Roman Catholic bishops taught that the pope was subject to a General Council (i.e., an Ecumenical Council). Such was the testimony of Roman Catholic bishops to a Parliament Royal Commission in 1825. As long as the pope of Rome was regarded as subject to an Ecumenical Council, as long as a pope could not dictate doctrine solely on his authority, there was no need to grant him the status of infallibility. In 1826, thirty bishops signed the Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland which affirmed:
The Catholics of Ireland declare on oath their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the pope is infallible.
Even as late as the mid-19th century, Roman Catholic catechisms denied papal infallibility. For instance, one of the most popular Roman Catholic catechisms in mid-19th century England was the Controversial Catechism, by the Reverend Stephen Keenan which provides this Q & A:
Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.
Similarly, the Vicar Apostolic in England (the primary papal representative), Bishop Baines, stated in 1822:
Bellarmine, and some other divines, chiefly Italian, have believed the Pope infallible, when proposing ex cathedra an article of faith. But in England or Ireland I do not believe any Catholic maintains the infallibility of the Pope.
(http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/
trv_infallibility.html)
I have a couple of responses in the works but I am running a fever of 101 at the moment, my daughter hit her head on her rocking horse and is cranky, and my wife is about to start listening to election nonsense on the radio, which is the last thing in the world I can stomach at the moment. Thus I will call it a day and try to respond tomorrow, by which there may be 100 comments, but if the conversation remains as good as it has been I will read each one.
I appreciate all of the discussion, and especially the interaction with Mike L.
As someone who has absolutely no clue what is now being discussed (i.e. essence/energies etc), I'd just like to say that I hope these topics aren't major obstacles in reunion between East and West. I don't think these topics can convince all but the most academic of minds when "choosing apostolic communions". Relating to Al's article, I think a bad reason for choosing RC or EO is to be convinced by authors who wrote on these topics to prove/disprove aspects of RC/EO as this all seems highly academic and less about the faith in the end. I in no way mean to imply that these issues are trivial. They just seem way beyond the average people in the pews.
Again, I have no clue what anyone is talking about now but these last two posts and overall discussion have been great.
How is an appeal to "infinity" going to provide the sufficient condition for communion with a being/essence that is *completely* indivisible?
If anything, the indivisibility is what underlies the reasoning (both Clement and Augustine linked indivisibility, the concept of "wholeness," with God's infinity). The West emphatically denied that God could be pieced out, which meant that no finite method of knowing could actually lay hold of the essence in such a way that it would actually be grasped or comprehended. Actually, that also explains why most medievals who looked like they were analyzing the essence actually weren't.
The infinite/finite distinction serves to distinguish absolute knowledge from really-increasing-but-incomplete knowledge. That was particularly relevant in the West, where the knowability of the Son was being asserted by the Homoians as a real distinction from the Father, Who was entirely unknowable. The Western solution turned on the concept of forma or species as an *action* rather than something intrinsic to an entity. Thus, knowability or unknowability was a product a mode of manifestation and a mode of understanding (which might be elevated or illuminated above a natural capacity). The infinity of God, however, was a hard limit on such knowability ever being proper to any finite mode of knowing/seeing.
The suitability of some or another action to render God knowable was therefore based on the revelatory action conferring to the person receiving the action some knowledge of God. In some cases, the nature of the act itself might not convey the impression, in which case the subject might need to be elevated or illuminated in some way to perceive the significance of the action (in the case of the beatific vision itself, either by the soul being separated from the body subject to original sin or by being glorified in the body).
The point is that the West just flat-out rejected the idea that a multiplicity of objects were needed for there to be multiple experiences of God. The energies would have been entirely superfluous; a single object could already be manifested in an infinite number of concrete actions. Kaster is certainly right that Augustine's theory of signs doesn't appear to be identical with the Platonic ideal, but he had that in common with the whole rest of the West. And it isn't Nestorian (at least, the Chalcedonian Fathers didn't consider it Nestorian when Leo used the same explanation in his Tome to Flavian), because multiplicity of action doesn't imply multiplicity of subjects (as noted above, multiple manifestations don't require multiple objects).
Is all of this stuff different than the Eastern understanding? Sure. But I hardly think that a metaphysical debate over knowability and manifestation regarding whether particular things count as entities or not represents a substantive disagreement. Much is made over whether the theophanies are create
Much is made over whether the theophanies are created or uncreated, but that already assumes that theophanies are "things," and the West really never saw the issue that way. In fact, it's debatable even whether certain Easterners saw things that way, especially given that there is no philosophical necessity to posit energies as metaphysical entities to protect the distinction of God-in-Himself from God-towards-us (assuming that Plotinus isn't understood to have a monopoly on the coherent accounts of real knowledge). In the West, there simply wasn't the assumption that the affirmation that one could really know something about God through natural manifestations raised some spectre of raising the creature to the level of God. I mean, that's great if you think that, but I have no idea why it should be imposed on everyone.
Mr. Ballow,
I don't know enough about hesychasm even to have an opinion about him. He's a saint on my (Ukrainian Catholic) Church calendar, so I suppose he's "kosher" and I understand he was restored to it at the specific behest of Rome, so I assume that Rome doesn't view him as a heretic, just as I likewise assume that that Rome acts on the assumption either that his views and Western views are compatible or else that of they are not, then their incompatibility does not require the severance of communion between his defenders and his opponents. It does not seem to me, on the other hand, possible that Eastern Catholics can accept as binding or determinative for themselves the dicta of the 14th Century Constantinopolitan councils that dogmatized the Palamite view on essence/energies, since that would seem to have as its corollary conclusion that Rome was/is teaching error on this subject, which is a rash conclusion for any individual or Church in communion with Rome to profess.
As to your subsequent posting, I don't see its point or salience. Some 19th Century English and Irish Catholic bishops denied papal infallibility, or at least that it had binding dogmatic status. On the other hand, most Catholic bishops in 17th Century Ireland were ultra-papalists. Until Vatican I defined Catholic dogma on ths subject one could hold opposed views on the matter, just as in the Third Centurt one might reject the use of the term "homoousios" as Sabellian.
William Ballow,
I have enjoyed reading your comments in this thread, and I commend you for your civility and charity, because it is quite refreshing. On the other hand, I must admit that I am often shocked by Dr. Tighe's comments, especially since he claims to be an Eastern Catholic. The fact that I, as an Eastern Catholic, accept the essence / energy distinction as real, and that I believe that the grace of theosis is an eternal and uncreated energy given to man by God, evidently -- at least in Dr. Tighe's opinion -- makes me a "polemicist."
Finally, if Dr. Tighe is correct in his opinion that it is not possible for an Eastern Catholic to accept the teaching espoused at the so-called Palamite Councils of the 14th century, it inevitably follows that the ecumenical movement is utterly dead, because the Eastern Orthodox Churches will never reject the teaching of those councils on the doctrine of theosis, and moreover, they will never accept the Scholastic philosophical theology of the Western Church. I suppose that Dr. Tighe should have been in Belgrade in order to advise Cardinal Kasper about all of this, so that both sides could avoid the tremendous waste of time and energy.
God bless,
Todd
Finally, if Dr. Tighe is correct in his opinion that it is not possible for an Eastern Catholic to accept the teaching espoused at the so-called Palamite Councils of the 14th century, it inevitably follows that the ecumenical movement is utterly dead, because the Eastern Orthodox Churches will never reject the teaching of those councils on the doctrine of theosis, and moreover, they will never accept the Scholastic philosophical theology of the Western Church.
And what has the latter to do with the former? All Dr. Tighe requires is that the Palamite councils not be viewed as a dogmatically exclusive formulation so that they entail a conclusion that Rome is in error for having a different formulation. Evidently, Cardinal Kasper does not share your pessimism that the Eastern Churches cannot accept scholastic theology. Of course, I doubt he shares your belief that the Palamite councils dogmatized a particular theological method as the defining mark of ecclesiology and patristic thought. In any event, if that truly is what you believe, then you should not suffer communion with we heretics, and if not, then you should not be criticizing scholastic theology on account of your dogmatic adherence to the Palamite teaching. It seems to me that this reply simply justifies what Dr. Tighe said. Figure out what it is you believe, and act accordingly, because right now, you are only consistent in being inconsistent.
And, for the record, I don't care what bishops, priests, professors, universities, or whoever else engages in similar illogic. All that proves is just how easy it is to slip into nonsense if you don't impose some standards of discipline and consistency on yourself. I happen to think a lot of smart people that I otherwise respect as scholars have fallen off this particular cliff due to a lack of restraint, and unfortunately, scholars are a lot like lemmings once the first guy takes a dive.
Mr. Prejean,
Thank you for responding to my post. Sadly, I cannot agree with your comments about Scholasticism possibly being acceptable to the Orthodox, because clearly it is not, and I base this statement on the writings of the various Orthodox authors that I have read over the course of the last five years (Lossky, Stanilaoe, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Papademetriou, Papadakis, Azkoul, Papanikolaou, et al.), since all of them unequivocally reject the doctrinal innovations of the Catholic West.
Over the last few years, as my spiritual journey from the West to the East progressed, I slowly came to realize that if communion is ever to be restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the West is going to have to return to the ancient faith of the undivided Church. This will no doubt be a painful journey from Western Catholics, but it is a necessary first step in the process of reunification.
Now, on the question of the essence / energy distinction, it is clearly a dogma, and it is intimately and inseparably bound to the doctrine of theosis. Thus, as an Eastern Catholic I must in good conscience accept it as such, and this acceptance is founded upon the gift of faith that I have received through grace, and also upon the ongoing de-Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches encouraged by the Popes of the last century.
Finally, just as you do not care what various bishops, priests, or professors, et al., think about these doctrinal issues, I honestly do not care what you think about them. Your views on what Church I should or should not join are irrelevant to me, and it is even rude of you to try and tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what Church to join. I find the vitriolic hatred and rudeness that I encounter from my Western co-religionists most distasteful, but I also find it interesting that this aggressive rudeness is practically non-existent on the Orthodox side. The intolerance of Latins speaks volumes, because by their fruits they will be known.
May God bless you as you continue your spiritual journey in Christ,
Todd
I ask the (relatively) unbiassed reader to review the four most recent postings prior to this one: mine, Mr. Kaster's two and then Mr. Prejean's. It's pretty clear to me from them that Mr. Kaster is a soulmate of the likes of Photios Jones in demanding an "unconditional surrender" on Rome's part to the demands of the Romaniditophiliac Orthodox and other enrages of that sort. He views the teaching of the 14th-Century Constantinopolitan Palamite councils as true and binding, and thus entailing the view that the Western Church generally and Rome in particular is in error on this point; and he rejects "scholasticism" root-and-branch in the by now accustomed fashion of that Orthodox faction. Nothing new here; and I have no doubt that faithfuness to the Church and Tradition (as they view them) moves Mr. Jones and other likeminded Orthodox to embrace this stance. My point here is, however, that Mr. Kaster has absolutely no locus stanti as an Eastern Catholic to state such things; and that, rejecting as he has done on another thread elsewhere, on Pontifications, the dogmas of Vatican I, he shows himself to be in heretical dissent from the teachings of the Catholic Church of which he professes to be a member -- dogmas which (as I have written elsewhere) were supported or endorsed by all, or nearly all, of the Eastern Catholic bishops who were present at Vatican I and which have been embraced, professed and taught by the Eastern Catholic bishops ever since that time. In that respect he places himself in the same position as, e.g., dissidents from the teaching of the Holy Roman Church on such issues as women's ordination and the sanctification of sodomy. He has adduced the statements of the Melkite patriarch and the Melkite Synod of Bishops on his behalf, but it must be noted that he is himself a Ruthenian Catholic, and most evidently can produce nothing in the way of support from the bishops of his own Metropolia. He rejects both the doctrinal professions of his own church and the conclusions of modern scholarship (those latter subject, of course, to reevaluation and revision in the light of new evidence or insights) in favor of the most narrowly polemical and historically absurd and disreputable (e.g., Romanides on the Franks) views of demimondaine "scholars" in the baseless hope that someday, somehow their views will came to be seen as scholarly respectable and prevalent. Such behavior calls into question both his scholarship and his credibility as a Catholic of any sort. We live in a "free country" where it is open for anyone to assert whatever they please (e.g., that the women recently "ordained" on a Pittsburgh riverboat by "women bishops" are validly ordained Roman Catholic priests or that men and women who undergo what are termed "sex-change operations" really do change their sex) and perhaps the demands of social intercourse oblige us to pass over in silence in many circumstances manifest absurdities of this sort, but in
fora of this sort, we may speak with that parrhesia with which we have been endowed as sons in the Son and call a spade a spade or to identify delusion as delusion. It is this last, no more and no less, that I have attempted to do here.
the point which is ignored in the above posts, the fact remains, the Palamite councils and the Orthodox liturgical practice makes clear that Palamism is not a theological opinion of the Eastern Church, like it or lump it.
It is therefore irrelevant what the Roman Church requires. Asking the Easterners to go back on Palamism (which is nothing other than the Faith of Ireneaus, Athanasius, Cyril and Maximus) would be like asking Rome to rescind Trent. Ain't gonna happen.
As someone who doesn't feel he has a dog in this hunt at all, it's interesting to watch the maneuvering on Ortho-Roman fringe here. From a strictly philosophical view I'm basically in agreement with Prejean's response of 11 PM, but I would point out that the same issues arise with Thomism insofar as it enshrines a Aristotlean framework.
I'm sure nobody at all cares about that last observation, because it represents my (relative) freedom from political constraints, whereas the discussion has been increasingly dominated by the coupling (or as I see it, crippling) of theology and politics. This particularly comes to the fore in Tighe's last long post which more or less identifies truth with fealty. This is where the whole thing falls apart for me, since the church is supposed to be a conduit, a vicar, an embassy for the True truth-- that is, the Godhead. It is simply possible to ask whether it is doing a good job of this, and that implies at least the potential to look beyond the church, though we all agree that this potential is itself not really realizable, as we all rely on the church as a conduit anyway. But the argument, as well as being and East/West poltical contest, is also in the typical odd position of demanding that the Protestant bystander make an evaluation, and also of saying that cannot make it. Somewhere around here, reasoning is failing us.
I very much like the word "fealty" (from "fidelitas" = fidelity, faithfulness) and as far as a description of the demeanor which living as "a child of Holy Church" requires (putting aside the question, equally important, of accepting her authoritative teachings with the assent of Faith), it can hardly be bettered. Of course, GCW appears to be disparaging this, but since, as a Protestant, he must believe in one of two fictions: that of an invisible church or a divisible church, his attitude is understandable.
William Tighe,
Please explain to me why my views somehow make me "enraged" ? I am dogmatic, pointed, and I believe you and your communion to be in serious theological error, but that does not make me enraged.
Jesus Moses...to read your text, you'd think I'd be knockin' down some doors or somethin' or fear that King Charles was still hunting me down!
However you wanna slice it, it's pretty clear you're out to get Todd. Comparing a man that wants to be (and is) Traditional to the core, and viewing his "dissent" as comparable to ordained women and sodomites is not even close. Like I told you on another thread, no one moves immediately. I sure didn't. If you remember, I had a pretty good stint on the fence too. Why was that? Because I wished to be dishonest, deluded, and a heretic? Yeah, that's the ones!
1) I don't believe in unconditional surrender for you to become Orthodox. I think there is an equally valid Latin non-Augustinian Western Tradition that needs to be recovered in the West and you come to realize this on your own and come back into the Church on your own steam. Unconditional surrender would be demanding that every christian be East Roman in their prayer and liturgical practice.
Photios
I base this statement on the writings of the various Orthodox authors that I have read over the course of the last five years (Lossky, Stanilaoe, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Papademetriou, Papadakis, Azkoul, Papanikolaou, et al.), since all of them unequivocally reject the doctrinal innovations of the Catholic West.
And what would Lossky, Staniloae, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Papademetriou, Papadakis, Azkoul, Pananikolaou, et al. (or for that matter, Romanides or even Bradhsaw) from the Orthodox know about the scholastics or Augustine? When you're dealing with people are inexpert about the subject matter, they are forced to rely uncritically on other people's work (which is what they ordinarily do), and it's even worse with several of these authors, because they not only rely uncritically but selectively, without any independent basis to make judgments about where these authors are reliable or not. And of course, they can hardly be trusted with the primary sources if they are inexpert. If you told me that you were seriously and critically engaged with Thomist scholarship, it might show something. But certainly, if the people you cited are the best you have to offer, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Over the last few years, as my spiritual journey from the West to the East progressed, I slowly came to realize that if communion is ever to be restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the West is going to have to return to the ancient faith of the undivided Church. This will no doubt be a painful journey from Western Catholics, but it is a necessary first step in the process of reunification.
That's fine for you, but as far as I can tell, the "realization" of your "journey" is simply blind emotionalism. What I can tell you is that you are advocating a bare logical contradiction if you are claiming that this is a consistent position for Eastern Catholics to take.
Now, on the question of the essence / energy distinction, it is clearly a dogma, and it is intimately and inseparably bound to the doctrine of theosis. Thus, as an Eastern Catholic I must in good conscience accept it as such, and this acceptance is founded upon the gift of faith that I have received through grace, and also upon the ongoing de-Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches encouraged by the Popes of the last century.
Believe whatever you want. Just be consistent. If "in good conscience" you consider the E/E to exclude scholasticism, then it's inconsistent to be Catholic, unless you're interested in being a liar.
Finally, just as you do not care what various bishops, priests, or professors, et al., think about these doctrinal issues, I honestly do not care what you think about them. Your views on what Church I should or should not join are irrelevant to me, and it is even rude of you to try and tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what Church to join.
Put away the violin, To
Put away the violin, Todd. I'm not saying what Church you have to join. I'm saying that what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Are we going to turn into that liberal version of tolerance in which you can spout whatever irrational gobbledygook you want as long as you slap the label religion on it? My point is that nonsense doesn't get excused because someone endorses it for religious reasons. Religious ideas are not exempt from critical consideration.
I think there is an equally valid Latin non-Augustinian Western Tradition that needs to be recovered in the West and you come to realize this on your own and come back into the Church on your own steam.
Now that actually could be substantive point (the accusation of emotionalism pretty much stems from piles of rhetoric absent any substantiated substantive points). How about you define what the equally valid Latin non-Augustinian Tradition is in some non-trivial way, list the scholars who support your interpretation, and then we'll actually have something concrete to analyze? In my view, that's where anti-Westerns have been downright delinquent, simply invoking conclusory generalizations about certain authors (often grabbed from secondary sources without critical examination) in place of argument. So pony up your sources, and let's see if this position actually has anything to commend it. I think it's thoroughly implausible that Augustine was massively out of step and that his contemporaries had vastly different theologies and theological methods, but you're welcome to give it a try.
Well, I merely went to make a few observations and report my disagreement, and now it seems I am "disparaging", which I would understand to represent the note of contempt pervading Tighe's response.
If we like the word "fealty", then fealty to a church is surely predicated on that church's fealty to Christ; and since we all preceive that there are organizations which call themselves churches are which are to some degree or another not so faithful, descernment is required. The latter fealty ought not simply to be assumed, for that simply roots us in our existing church bodies. And indeed, Kimel's original post is rooted instead in trying to convince others (and in context, me, as an Anglican) to abandon their existing loyalties and redirect them to Rome.
My point in all of this is that appealing to infallibility is pointless as a tactic, as it puts the cart before the horse. Infallibility of Roman teaching presumes my fealty to Rome; ditto Constantinople (or whichever synecdoche you prefer for Orthodoxy). It is irrational to suppose that I should take that fealty as a given when it is what needs to be produced.
As far as the Protestant "fictions" are concerned, it's a cute false dichotomy, for it presumes my indification as a Protestant before anything else. And that simply isn't true; before all else (at least as far as this is concerned) I am a churchman. And as such my fealty to where I am now is the starting point, and Protestantism is derived from that. Since I am in the church, I am stuck with an ecclesiology which allows where I am to be the church, at least as long as my fealty remains. I think if it were to fail, it would fail in a different way than Kimel's failed, so that I would not then be stuck with an ecclesiology that said that where I was never was the church. But it is ironic that an ecclesiological commitment whose focus was especially my church's illegitimacy has turned around into an Ortho-Roman theological (and therefore ecclesiological) turf battle. The message is that the same pressures that protect Rome from Protestant criticism also subject it to Orthodox criticism.
From a strictly philosophical view I'm basically in agreement with Prejean's response of 11 PM, but I would point out that the same issues arise with Thomism insofar as it enshrines a Aristotlean framework.
I'm not sure that you understood me. I have nothing against the Eastern solution to the problem of divine knowability; I merely think that it is to some extent a self-created problem. To that extent, Thomism does NOT rely on an Aristotelian framework, although it does employ a couple of creative extensions of Aristotelian criticism to break out of the Platonic framework. This is one of the numerous points on which various Hellenic philosophers had conflicting views, so it doesn't really make any sense to speak of the "same issues" arising in Thomism. My point is that imposing a required solution (i.e., the dogmatic affirmation of the essence/energies distinction) in a framework that simply doesn't need it because it doesn't accept the assumptions that produced the problem in the first place doesn't make any sense. We have to actually fight out the question of which set of conflicting assumptions makes the most sense before we can say whether a particular solution is necessary or not. If the East can't show an error in the underlying assumptions, which were a matter of dispute even among Hellenic philosophers, then the East has no right to impose a solution.
Well, it's not clear whether or not we disagree, but I think perhaps there is another issue of whether the framework of assumptions works outside of theology as well as inside it. I would guess that medieval/ancient theologians simply assumed that one framework would cover everything, and in particular natural science. It seems to me that this assumption is what is behind the problem you see in the energies/essences distinction-- at least, that's how I come upon the same objection (that it's an artificial problem).
The point is that Thomism has some of the same difficulty, because it has imbedded in it the Aristotlean approach to natural science, which was part and parcel of the larger academic community of the day. So it seems to me that to make Thomism work now one has to be able to pull the Aristotlean natural science out and substitute the one we have now (that actually works). It seems that this is done with greater or lesser difficulty or success, and one's faith in Thomist conclusions is tied a little too closely to one's faith in how successfully this is accomplished.
So perhaps you are right, and these are different problems, though it appeared to me at the time that they were more closely coupled than they appear to me now.
Well, it's not clear whether or not we disagree, but I think perhaps there is another issue of whether the framework of assumptions works outside of theology as well as inside it. I would guess that medieval/ancient theologians simply assumed that one framework would cover everything, and in particular natural science. It seems to me that this assumption is what is behind the problem you see in the energies/essences distinction-- at least, that's how I come upon the same objection (that it's an artificial problem).
The point is that Thomism has some of the same difficulty, because it has imbedded in it the Aristotlean approach to natural science, which was part and parcel of the larger academic community of the day. So it seems to me that to make Thomism work now one has to be able to pull the Aristotlean natural science out and substitute the one we have now (that actually works). It seems that this is done with greater or lesser difficulty or success, and one's faith in Thomist conclusions is tied a little too closely to one's faith in how successfully this is accomplished.
So perhaps you are right, and these are different problems, though it appeared to me at the time that they were more closely coupled than they appear to me now.
CGW,
"Contempt" like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I intended none, but what you perceive is your own business.
"... fealty to a church is surely predicated on that church's fealty to Christ." Well, if you say so; but who is the judge in such an assessment? If it is the private judgment of the individual, then I think that the ascription of such competence to the individual is yet another Protestant conceit, without any foundation in the pre-Reformation history of Christianity. I reject the notion.
"... I am a churchman ... Since I am in the church, I am stuck with an ecclesiology which allows where I am to be the church ..." Well, again, if you say so. From my perspective an Adventist might claim as much in this regard as an Anglican, and with just as much historical plausibility; that is to say, as much in the one case as in the other. If you make up an ecclesiology to justify being where you find yourself, you will no doubt find what you're seeking; but I don't see why one should call it "Catholic" if words have any stable meaning.
Perhaps we do not always perceive our own tone so very well. I can only report what I hear, and if you insist that you intended no such thing, well then so be it.
If I am not already a Catholic from upbringing, then surely it is true that I must judge, for surely it is my decision that must be made, and surely it is I who must choose to recognize Roman claims in the context of (to take the present example) Orthodox claims and any other competing systems, should I even be persuaded that this would be the right basis for deciding. It seems again that the need to actually persuade me isn't being taken seriously; since that persuasion (especially through arguments) must engage my judgement, that some concession has to be made to the fact of that judgement. Saying that I am incompetent to judge (for whatever reason) isn't the way to engage it, especially when the grounds for judging me incompetent beg the question egregiously.
You seem to expect me to defend the Anglicans against the Adventists. Well, actually, I agree with you on that point; but "Roman Catholic" will serve as well as "Adventist". As catholics-in-some-sense we both believe that membership within the church is not-- or for that matter, for most people at some point in their lives, cannot be-- about alignment of beliefs and tenets. Infants have no ecclesiology; insistence that the baptized must have an ecclesiology takes us straight to adult, believer's baptism.
And on the other side, "Catholic" doesn't have a stable meaning-- at least, not one that matters in this discussion. The Roman church is Catholic, unless the Orthodox church is Catholic, unless the "sole proprietor" model is wrong and Catholicity isn't manifested that way. I personally don't need it to have a stable meaning, because objectively, it doesn't.
Mike L.,
Thank you for the discussion and the kind words. I suppose I should start things with natural theology. It was good of you to mention that there was a context to my brusque statement. While the tone of the statement may have been encouraged by recent events, the conviction behind the statement is unwavering, as you suggest. Particularly in the realm of theodicy and death I find natural theology impotent, at best. But then again I used to live in a place where I had access to nearly all of the sets of the Gifford Lectures, and I frequently read them while I was in the bathroom. So that may have informed my use of that particular phrase as well. Natural theology has come up several times in this thread and the last and right it should. As you well know, from an Orthodox perspective, every theological question must pass through the lens of another question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” Thus when I ask myself “what does it mean to be human,” or “is there a meaning to human death” or “why would God allow a 2 ½ month year old baby to die in her crib” I am not going to be satisfied with talk of life cycles and seasons, death-speak involving terms of necessary and sufficient causes, notions of (and inevitably infatuations with) general order in the post-lapsarian universe, crass natural analogies maneuvered to achieve some theological end, philosophical gymnastics that offer a logical equation to answer the question of death, or any such things. The only real answers to the questions I mention above are Christological answers. And Christ has answered the question of human death. This pertains to our current discussion in this regard. One should be wary of stating, “the fathers of the Church taught thus…” But in this case I offer an indisputable generalization. The fathers of the Church taught that the cross of Christ is God’s perfect revelation of Himself to mankind. Everything God the Father wanted to communicate to man was communicated in the Son of God hung dead on a tree. As Fr. Andrew Louth has written, “We can never pass beyond the apostolic confession of Christ. Rather the formation of Christian theology is the result of sustained, and prayerful, thinking and meditation by those who sought to grasp what is entailed by the Paschal mystery.” With this we should comment on the “realized eschatology” of the Orthodox Church. Other Christian groups seek through various means to come to know more of or about Christ, and many seem to be waiting upon the eschaton or some progressive march through history to receive the full revelation of Jesus Christ. In Orthodox thought, this has already happened. Heaven is not the perfection of an until-then partial revelation, rather, heaven is the perfection of my own appropriation of that revelation. In heaven the life of the believer will perfectly recapitulate the life of Christ. The process in which I learn in this life to appropriate and recapitulate the death and life of Christ is The
...Theosis. But, strictly speaking, Theosis is not a progressive grasp of revelation. Theosis is the progressive appropriation and recapitulation in my own life of that already and fully revealed revelation, Jesus Christ. If one holds this realized cruciform theological vision, there is really no honest place else to go. One is either kneeling at the foot of the cross reflecting upon the Paschal Mystery, or one is walking away from it. This is why for Orthodox there can be no substantial development in theology. You mention the Arian question and homoousion and, in order to not distract more than I already have and will on this thread, I am going to post further on this issue on my own blog today or tomorrow.
If I may continue with my response to your post.
I know that we are dealing with a translation of the official text, but for the sake of argument...
“Absolutely” is generally defined as “without exception; completely; wholly; entirely” or
“positively; certainly.” “Manifest” is generally defined as “readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain.” According to VatI the teaching of scripture regarding the jurisdictional authority of the pope is without exception (or at least positively) something which is readily perceived by the understanding. Whose understanding? The understanding of the Church. While there are those who, here and there, do not understand because they do not share the mind of the Church or they misunderstand the mind of the Church due to ignorance or misinformation, it would seem that that fathers of VatI believed that the Church herself always explicitly understood certain passages of scripture to clearly teach the jurisdictional authority of the papacy as understood by VatI. The same terms may not have been used, but the understanding of the office was the same then and now and all times in between. My point here is not to argue whether or not the jurisdictional authority of the pope is something which was taught in the NT and by the Apostles. At least traditionally, RCs believe as much. I am Orthodox so of course I do not believe that and that issue is not the point of this discussion. My point was to show that the fathers of VatI based their argument on what they believed to be the clear and explicit teaching of the Apostles, and not on some means of determining doctrine which is akin to doctrinal development. They appeal to authority in much the same way that Orthodox appeal to authority, and not according to the Newman schema. It seems to me that the development theory provides advantages to its adherents but at a great cost. It allows them to maintain that the apparent contradictions that have occurred in Catholic theology over time are not in fact contradictions, therefore real dogmatic change has not occurred, etc. But in order to do this the adherent of DD must introduce a new method of determining theological truth which goes beyond the simple appeal to the clear and/or explicit teaching of the Apostles (and the fathers who taught us the Apostolic faith). Not only that, but the DD methodology is confronted by the fact that former RCC dogmatic statements justify themselves on the basis of direct appeal to explicit Apostolic witness and explicit and clear presence within the tradition.
Thus, if you will, the fathers of VatI argue that point D (VatI) is true because it is the same thing that was taught at point A, point B, and point C. It is only at point D, for any number of reasons, formally codified, etc. But in the mind of the VatI fathers, what is taught at point A is essentially the same (even in content) as what is taught at point D, hence the appeal to the Apostolic witness, etc. But for the DD adherent, point A progressively develops into point B, which develops into point C, which develops into point D. In this view, point A was pregnant with point D, but the teaching of point D might go substantially beyond (in degree) the explicit teaching of point A. Obviously, however, it still may not contradict point A. But the progressive development view mitigates the apparent differences between point A and point D because once it is allowed that there is not only a lack of uniformity in the linguistic appearance but also a difference of at least degree in the content of point A and point D, then we can expect there to be at least the appearance of variance, which at times may, on the surface, seem like a contradiction. Thus “there is no salvation outside of the Church” was a doctrine seen through a glass darkly 400 years ago, and some, perhaps many, may have crassly (and now we know wrongly) interpreted this in the strictest possible manner, but now through the process of development we see more clearly what is meant by there being “no salvation outside of the Church.” Again, this system works for DD adherents in explaining apparent differences and even apparent contradictions. Obviously I think the DD system is wrong, for a number of reasons. But setting aside why I think it is wrong, I would like to focus instead on why I think it is dangerous. The DD adherent, now at point E (say, VatII, post-VatII), looks back at point D and notices that point D says that it is teaching what was clearly taught (though perhaps with different terms) at points A, B, and C. Now the DD adherent must not only mitigate and overcome apparent differences between point A and point B, but he must also mitigate the method of substantiation used in point D, because that method is decidedly different, and apparently contradictory to the theory of DD. This is, in certain respects, what threatens DD the most. Point D’s method does not acknowledge apparent differences (other than perhaps linguistic form and perhaps occasional, not progressive, historical contingencies) between itself and points A, B, and C. The entire reason that the DD theory exists is because DD adherents acknowledge apparent differences between a given point A and point D, and to resolve those differences (even if only of degree) without denying them. DD therefore cannot allow point D’s method of substantiation to stand on its apparent terms.
Here is where, in my opinion, things get really interesting. The method that DD uses to mitigate or re-read (in the sense, almost, of Roland Barthes) the texts in question is essentially a sequentialized version of Derrida-style deconstruction. Instead of an attempt to open a text to several meanings and interpretations at once, the text is opened to a progression of meanings and interpretations. Furthermore the methods of substantiation within the given texts (appeal to Apostolic witness, a substantial sameness with regard to what was taught at prior points) is subject to a new mitigating interpretation which is achieved through the meticulous readings of given phrases in which each term comes under intense philosophical scrutiny and analysis in a abstract manner oftentimes devoid of the more broad literary context. But the icing on the cake is that all this is done, in pure Derrida fashion, in an attempt to secure power. Derrida taught that all use of language was an attempt to achieve or maintain power. It would seem that it would be self-defeating for DD adherents to engage in a method which mitigated the apparent meaning of those specific texts which explain why it is that a given doctrinal truth is true. Because if their apparent meaning is subject to future interpretations in which variance is perceived, then it stands that DD might one day be interpreted in a manner which is at variance with how it presents itself today, and the theory of DD mitigated to the point that it is subject to some other totalizing interpretive theory. It would seem from this that DD only serves a temporal function. In modernity the chattering classes would no longer ignore apparent differences in RCC doctrines over time. Thus DD is brought in to replace more traditional forms of doctrinal self-justification. Again this falls straight into the hands of Derrida, wherein language is merely a temporal and occasional exchange of power. I think it is only a matter of time before we see thesis brought forth in which comparisons are made between DD and post-structuralist literary theory. I am surprised that I have not seen any already. It seems that Newman’s theology not only foreshadowed Darwin’s biology, but also Derrida’s literary criticism. He seems to be a Derrida with a touch of Hegel, or vice versa. I’m not sure yet.
Warmest regards,
Owen
Mr. Prejean said: "And what would Lossky, Staniloae, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Papademetriou, Papadakis, Azkoul, Pananikolaou, et al. (or for that matter, Romanides or even Bradhsaw) from the Orthodox know about the scholastics or Augustine? When you're dealing with people are inexpert about the subject matter, they are forced to rely uncritically on other people's work (which is what they ordinarily do), and it's even worse with several of these authors, because they not only rely uncritically but selectively, without any independent basis to make judgments about where these authors are reliable or not."
Perhaps they are not experts on Scholastic thought, but then you are not an expert on it either, and nor are you an expert on Eastern theology.
Finally, I find it interesting that you think that you know my motivations in converting to Eastern Catholicism. Clearly, you have a very high opinion of yourself.
May God bless you,
Todd
Owen,
I commend you on your excellent posts in this thread. I always find what you have to say deeply interesting and informative.
Todd
Dr. Tighe,
Yours is one of the first posts I've seen by a Eastern Catholic (or Roman Catholic) that equates the teaching of Barlaam with the theology of Aquinas. If Barlaam and Aquinas actually teach the same thing, then it follows that Aquinas has been condemned outright by the Eastern Church. So, my question to you is this, is Barlaam's heretical theology identical with Aquinas' philosophical theology?
May God bless you,
Todd
Dr. Tighe,
As far as Vatican I is concerned, I share the views of Eastern Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby.
God bless,
Todd
Hello? Where did I ever mention Barlaam of Calabria? As a historian, I know who he was, but I haven't read a thing by him; so how, since I haven't mentioned his name, can I be asked if I equate his teaching with that of Aquinas?
As to Kyr Elias, I did follow the "Zoghby Initiative" and, speaking for my self only, thought it a piece of meaningless nonsense at the time, and so I'm not surprised that it has come to nothing. But I am not aware that Kyr Elias has ever written or spoken since that time in such a way as to discuss what he believes to be the implications of his "profession of faith" and he has certainly not -- to my knowledge, and unlike you -- claimed that he can reject the dogmas proclaimed at Vatican I and remain a Catholic in good standing in the communion of the Church of Rome. Perhaps it might be suggested that he has a wisdom and ecclesiological sense that you appear to lack; and that as a bishop his example of not prefering his own eccentric views to that of the Catholic Church of which he is a member might be both an example and a reproach to you.
Perhaps they are not experts on Scholastic thought, but then you are not an expert on it either, and nor are you an expert on Eastern theology.
Finally, I find it interesting that you think that you know my motivations in converting to Eastern Catholicism. Clearly, you have a very high opinion of yourself.
Well, I must say that I am impressed that you have managed not only to avoid putting away the violin but to continue playing it perched atop a high horse. Impressed as I am, I still must defend myself from your accusations.
First, I do not hold myself out as an expert in medieval or Eastern theology. I just hold myself out as someone with sufficient common sense to know that when scholars are generalists or generalizing, they are far more likely to be wrong, and if a second scholar has studied the question in greater detail and come to a contrary conclusion, the first is likely wrong. That is not to say that I see no value in pioneering scholars who are often generalists by necessity, only that further study rarely supports conclusions as general as originally claimed.
Second, there are at least two topics that are absolutely critical to proper understanding of West vis-a-vis East that are by universal admission only just now being studied carefully: the distinction between ordained power and absolute power and the concept of divine infinity. By "only just now," I mean that the seminal works were released in the mid-nineties based on hints found in works from the seventies and eighties, which themselves were only just beginning to rigorously parse medieval concepts regarding knowledge about God beyond the general level. I have strong doubts about ANYBODY being able to say anything rigorous about these subjects up until very recently, much less people who are simply relying on others' work. The best scholars of both church history and medieval theology all admit it, East and West. That should at least counsel restraint against passing judgments against "scholasticism" in general (which itself is probably as meaningless a concept as "Hellenism").
Third, I have no idea what your motivations are; I can only objectively describe your actions. Your claims are objectively incoherent; you cannot simultaneously claim to be Catholic and to affirm that Rome is in theological error. So turning to your motives for holding that contradictory position, you cite a number of sources that aren't reasonably sufficient to justify the conclusion for the reasons that I stated above, given that the scholarly community itself admits that the issues have not been studied in sufficient detail to support rigorous conclusions on precisely the matters at issue. What am I supposed to make, objectively, of you advocating an straight contra-dictio when one of the dicta appears to be believed on insufficient evidence? My point regarding others is that irrationality does not become sensible by consensus. Pardon me
Pardon me for being unwilling to jump off the bridge simply because it appears to be the popular thing to do at the moment.
Ochlophobist:
Mostly for other readers' convenience, I note that your reply to my post consists in a five-part comment that ends seven comments above this one. But I also mention it for expository benefit. Thus, while I entirely accept the theology you profess in the first two comments comprising your reply, your criticisms of DD do not seem to me to follow in the least.
Your second comment points up the difficulty nicely:
Theosis is not a progressive grasp of revelation. Theosis is the progressive appropriation and recapitulation in my own life of that already and fully revealed revelation, Jesus Christ. If one holds this realized cruciform theological vision, there is really no honest place else to go. One is either kneeling at the foot of the cross reflecting upon the Paschal Mystery, or one is walking away from it. This is why for Orthodox there can be no substantial development in theology.
First, nobody here suggests that theosis "is" merely a "progressive grasp of revelation." As far as I'm concerned, it is just what you say. But if it is that, then a needed part of the "progressive appropriation and recapitulation" is what Vatican II describes:
Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her. (Dei Verbum §8 ).
That happens not only phylogenetically, in and through the Church as a whole, but by the same token ontogenetically, in each individual member of the Mystical Body who devotes themselves to following Christ. At no point does that mean addition to the deposit of faith; it means growth in the understanding thereof, and with it growth in the life it is meant to facilitate. Hence DD as Newman understood it and as I defend it is not the mere ideological wordplay that your criticism assumes. It does not change the content of what the Church has always professed from the beginning as the Tradition handed on by the Apostles; the fruit of contemplation, study, and Christian life, it facilitates theosis by expressing the growth of the Church's collecti
it facilitates theosis by expressing the growth of the Church's collective insight into the faith-once-delivered.
It is with that in mind that I cite your key criticism:
...the adherent of DD must introduce a new method of determining theological truth which goes beyond the simple appeal to the clear and/or explicit teaching of the Apostles (and the fathers who taught us the Apostolic faith). Not only that, but the DD methodology is confronted by the fact that former RCC dogmatic statements justify themselves on the basis of direct appeal to explicit Apostolic witness and explicit and clear presence within the tradition.
All Catholic teaching requiring the assent of faith, like all Orthodox teaching of the same import, appeals to the explicit witness of the Apostles and of the Tradition handed on from them. But the explicitness and normativity of those witnesses need not and in fact does not limit us to repeating their formulas or using only ones that are strict logical consequents thereof. New questions and debates pose challenges that are met by doctrinal developments which sometimes merely clarify but which sometimes amplify, in the sense of making more explicit what was formerly less so. Even Orthodoxy acknowledges this. You will not find the homoousion or the essence/energy distinction explicitly in the writings of the Apostles or the ante-Nicene Fathers, but the Orthodox argue—in the former case indisputably, in the latter with some justice—that those ideas are firmly rooted therein and thus more fully bring out the meaning and purport of the relevant points of faith. The problem is not with the method in question and as such, which has been practiced on all sides because its practice is to some extent inevitable. The questions are how to tell the difference between good and bad use of the method and at what point it should be put aside.
For reasons there is no need or space to belabor, Orthodoxy came up with some different results from Catholicism's between the 9th and the 14th centuries and seems to have put basically the whole methodology aside since then. But the Catholic Church continued it and now all-but-explicitly endorses it. Thus, Vatican I's appeal to what was "absolutely manifest" in the teaching of the Apostles and early fathers does not mean, nor did the Church at the time understand it to mean, that acceptance of those sources as normative would have, in the mind of this particular Christian or that, prompted immediate assent to that council's formulas. That appeal meant that those formulas mean what the Apostles and the early Church meant by their profession on the relevant points, just as the homoousion did when it was propounded at Nicaea I. From this point of view, the fact that many dissented from the homoousion then and from the Catholic doctrine of the papacy now only goes to show that what is manifest in itself and absolutely is by no means always so to people and t
what is manifest in itself and absolutely is by no means always so to people and thus relatively. Hence when you say ...the fathers of VatI based their argument on what they believed to be the clear and explicit teaching of the Apostles, and not on some means of determining doctrine which is akin to doctrinal development, you're introducing a false dichotomy. Authentic DD must indeed be "based" on the clear and explicit teaching of the Apostles; but if we limit DD to what we know they explicitly taught, then we're stuck in a fundamentalism that Orthodoxy has no more practiced than Catholicism.
If Vatican II is correct in Dei Verbum, then there is no point at which we can safely say "doctrine has developed enough; we go no further." So the sole remaining question is how to tell the difference between "good and bad uses of the method," between authentic and inauthentic DD. To some extent, that is a matter of rigorous theology and ascesis. Those who, praying well and living well by the power of the Spirit, "do the will of the Father" and thus "know the true doctrine," guide the Church mightly in her discernment. But most such people do not have the office of speaking for the Church as as a whole. So, answering the question in a way that binds is ultimately up to the teaching authority of the Church. And that leaves us with the question to which I've often reverted, which is exactly where that authority resides. But since you already know how I answer that and why, I'll stop there.
Best,
Mike
Dr. Tighe: "Hello? Where did I ever mention Barlaam of Calabria? As a historian, I know who he was, but I haven't read a thing by him; so how, since I haven't mentioned his name, can I be asked if I equate his teaching with that of Aquinas?"
Dr. Tighe,
I have not questioned your credentials as an historian; instead, I have merely pointed out that Barlaam was condemned at the 14th century "Palamite" councils, and to the best of my knowledge no mention was made of Aquinas. Thus, my point was simply this, only if you equate the theology of Barlaam with that Aquinas does a problem arise.
God bless,
Todd
Mr. Prejean,
I wish I could play the violin. Now, as far as Rome being in error is concerned, that only follows if one buys into the idea that the theology of the Scholastics is dogma, and I do not hold that it is. Finally, perhaps the Popes should stop telling Eastern Catholics to recover their traditions, because the more that Easterners recover them, the less Latin they will be.
God bless,
Todd
Dr. Tighe,
For Archbishop Zoghby's views on the First Vatican Council, I recommend his book "Ecumenical Reflections."
God bless,
Todd
Well, I appreciate at least that the last comment directed my way did not include the personal accusations. Now we can actually deal with some concrete substance.
1. Now, as far as Rome being in error is concerned, that only follows if one buys into the idea that the theology of the Scholastics is dogma, and I do not hold that it is.
And the question about which you have been thoroughly evasive is "On what basis do you hold that a doctrine is or is not dogma?" My point, which Drs. Tighe and Liccione have also made, is that the term "Catholic" requires acceptance of authority of the Pope, and it is a blatant self-contradiction to claim to accept the authority of the Pope while rejecting that the authority is what he says it is. It is nonsense to say "I accept your authority, but your authority is not what you say it is." To do so itself requires an authoritative appeal (e.g., in a system with separation of powers, one branch might judge the cause of another in certain cases, although there will be cases in which one branch's authority cannot be judged by any other). But the Bishop of Rome explicitly rejects such authority (see, e.g., Canon 1404, "The First See is judged by no one.") and imposes acceptance of this as a requirement of anyone in communion with him. You seem to be asserting some right to remain in communion with Rome even when you do not meet Rome's declared standards for communion (which are in turn defined by Rome's definition of what is dogma, although perhaps it would be better to stick with "declared standards for communion"). That simply doesn't meet the definition of "Catholic" on any reasonable meaning of the term. Surely, it is true by definition that you can't be in communion with someone who refuses or would refuse to be in communion with you. Perhaps you can perpetuate nominal communion through concealment or deceit, but that is surely not worthy of anyone.
Finally, perhaps the Popes should stop telling Eastern Catholics to recover their traditions, because the more that Easterners recover them, the less Latin they will be.
If the conclusion were true, then I imagine that they would immediately do so. The entire support of recovering Eastern tradition is based on there being no intrinsic conflict with any of the standards for communion that Rome has already declared. If you honestly believe that the Eastern traditions are true as against Rome, then you have no business being Catholic. Eastern Catholicism, at least if professed honestly, is for those who at least have hope that the traditions do not conflict, even if they do not know how to reconcile them. If you've already concluded that they do, then you have no honest choice but to renounce communion with the Bishop of Rome, because he has made clear that communion with him requires acceptance of all that Rome has declared as dogma (whether you consider it dogma or not). Certainly, Latinizing in terms of a
Certainly, Latinizing in terms of actual culture might be discouraged, but Latinizing in terms of dogma is not "Latinizing" at all; it is simply enforcing the requirements of communion with Rome, which all Eastern Catholic churches accepted when they came into communion with Rome.
Mike L.,
Thanks for the comments. I have been pretty sick this week and not able to attend much to the discussions here, or post on my own blog as I had hoped. When I do post on my blog, I plan to some time describing where I am in agreement with you and Pontificator (on the matter of historical proofs, etc.). I did have a friend email me his commentary on our discussion this week. He is unable to post on blogs for prudential reasons (and I assume he does not want to go anon for personal reasons). I will just note that he is a friend of mine and Orthodox. I share his thoughts because I thought they were interesting and I have about exhausted my own thoughts on the matter. Here they are:
---Finally, he [ML} says, "Authentic DD must indeed be "based" on the clear and explicit teaching of the Apostles; but if we limit DD to what we know they explicitly taught, then we're stuck in a fundamentalism that Orthodoxy has no more practiced than Catholicism."
This doesn't undercut your criticism in the least… I'm surprised he couldn't see that. You do not say "limit yourself to fundamentalism." What you say is "Vat 1 looked to Apostles and Fathers and not to DD criteria." He says this is a false dichotomy, but if that's true, it would seem to argue in your favor. If "DD criteria" and "Apostles and Fathers" are the same, then DD is void of meaning. It is nothing more than a nice rhetorical game: "We believe this doctrine [say, "two natures"] is found in the Apostles and early Fathers but in different language. However, rather than saying that, we want to say doctrine 'developed.'" That's not, of course, what most DD adherents do. For most I've encountered (Fagerberg being the only exception thus far) is to say DD is not about clarifying terms but an actual development in the substance of the doctrine itself. If that's so, then your criticism still holds because DD and "Apostolic Fathers" are not synonymous and so, criteria are needed for DD. For Vat 1, this involves very very circular reasoning, as the criteria becomes "what the pope says ex cathedra."---
This ends, of course, along the lines of where you end your comment, and perhaps the ends are such that it finally is pointless to debate the means. Nonetheless I enjoy the discussion.
Warmest regards,
Owen
I am in complete accord with Jonathan Prejean's last (bipartite) post, such that I need say no more on the subject, save to remark that Mr. Kaster has been thoroughly evasive about the basis of his remaining in communion with the Apostolic See and of his acceptance of the finality of its authority - questions that have been put to him more than once, on this thread and on others, but concerning which he has provided no response at all.
Mr. Prejean,
You must demonstrate that the present Pope holds that Scholasticism (i.e., the entire Scholastic approach to theology), is dogma, because if it is not dogma, it follows that I do not have to be a Scholastic, and can instead follow the doctrinal tradition of the Eastern Church.
God bless,
Todd
I do not understand the most recent posting. As far as I can see, Mr. Prejean nowhere stated that "the entire scholastic approach to theology" is dogma; at most, he was claiming that to reject it as erroneous is itself to call into question the basis of one's communion with Rome. His point, rather, was to ask how an Eastern Catholic who rejects councils that Rome had declared and which declared themselves to be ecumenical (Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), as well as the dogmatic formulations promulagted by these councils, can justify being in communion with Rome on his own terms rather than on Rome's. That question still remains unanswered.
You must demonstrate that the present Pope holds that Scholasticism (i.e., the entire Scholastic approach to theology), is dogma, because if it is not dogma, it follows that I do not have to be a Scholastic, and can instead follow the doctrinal tradition of the Eastern Church.
I am not saying that an "approach" is normative; I am saying that particualr doctrines are, including every single doctrine declared by and of the 21 councils considered ecumenical by Rome.
"Amen," Jonathan.
Mr. Prejean,
I believe the document discussed at the meeting of Catholic and Orthodox representatives in Belgrade states that after the schism between East and West ecumenical councils became impossible, but that "both Churches continued to hold 'general' councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople" [par. 45]. It sounds like Rome is more flexible on theological and ecclesiological issues than are some posters on Catholic websites.
God bless,
Todd
Ochlophobist:
Addressing you, your friend writes:
What you say is "Vat 1 looked to Apostles and Fathers and not to DD criteria." He says this is a false dichotomy, but if that's true, it would seem to argue in your favor. If "DD criteria" and "Apostles and Fathers" are the same, then DD is void of meaning. It is nothing more than a nice rhetorical game...
I'm afraid he, and presumably you, still aren't getting my point. While Vatican I did not explicitly invoke DD criteria, those criteria account for what they did do, which is base their definition on what the Apostles and Fathers explicitly said but without pretending that it is what the As and Fs explicitly said. Your friend's use of 'the same', as if that's what I meant, obscures that point.
I introduced an analogy to Vatican I: the homoousion. The mere fact that it was, and is, far from manifest to everybody that later definitions are firmly rooted in the earlier data is no more evidence against Vatican I's definitions of papal primacy than against Nicaea's definition of the divinity of Christ. The only theological approach that even begins to explain why the later is nonetheless manifest in the earlier is DD, roughly as Newman outlined it.
Best,
Mike
STK:
Perhaps you should send a dubium to the CDF on this topic. I'd bet the farm that the reply you'd get will disappoint you. Belgrade notwithstanding, Rome does not consider the general councils of the West held since the schism to be anything less than ecumenical. The key to understanding that is, as always, a distinction of usage.
In the purely empirical sense of the word 'ecumenical', no general council of the West—or the East for that matter—held since the schism can be accounted ecumenical. For the plain fact is that no council held since the schism has been both attended and received by both East and West. But in the normative sense of the word 'ecumenical' as employed by Rome, each and every "general" council of the West held since the schism is ecumenical. For, by the authoritative ratification of popes, their dogmatic decrees bind the whole Church and thus bind all true, particular churches, such as those of the East.
You won't hear anything to the contrary at the CDF. I say that with confidence because I know what its previous head believes, and I personally know the priest who is #3 on its staff now.
Best,
Mike
Dr. ML,
Well, in order to avoid placing Owen in the role of "go between," I'll comment long enough to engage your position. First, let me say that I might be induced to continue the discussion via email, but my schedule is full (one of many reasons I deem it to be generally imprudent to comment on blogs--one gets "sucked in.").
As for my use of "the same," it seems no less ambiguous than your use of "explicitly." I agree that prior to Nicea (indeed, not for some time AFTER Nicea) was "homoousious" a rallying cry. However, I would say that homoousios was already essentially taught and held by the Church, just in different rhetoric/language/terms. If you're saying that's all DD is, then, you would be the second person I've met who takes Newman in that direction. Most RC I have encountered have not. Otherwise, Bossuet and Newmann are basically doing the same thing. Now, maybe you'd hold they are. A debate over what N means could be interesting reading for me.
So, to continue, it seems possible to me that DD, as you're expounding it, is just a rhetorical game. If "homoousios" is like (may I say "the same as"?) V 1's Papal Infallibility claim, then there may be little, if any difference between you and I on "DD," except that I would not call it DD. That would bring us back to debating whether the essence of V1 is in the earlier Church tradition and that is a separate debate.
That is the larger point I was trying to make--that if something is taught "explicitly" in 1905 and then decreed officially in different language in 1990, there is no DD, just a clarification on what has always been held. The dogma itself has not changed. Canon law surrounding the dogma probably did, but the dogma did not.
On the other hand, if you would argue it's not as I described, but an actual change in the dogma, over time, then we do differ.
Of course, the question of "criteria" would differentiate us as well.
Anyhow, enough for now. You may have the last word. It is your blog, after all. Keep up the good posts and such. Your blog engenders some really great comments and reflections from various people.
God bless you!
I agree that prior to Nicea (indeed, not for some time AFTER Nicea) was "homoousious" a rallying cry.
Ugh. Another reason to be cautious on my blog comments--grammatical errors. I mean to agree with you that "homoousios" was not a rallying point before Nicea. In fact, Athanasios didn't even use it immediately after.
Sorry about that.
Fr. Oliver:
As I and the other Catholics around here have repeatedly insisted, DD does not entail addition to the deposit of faith. What it does entail is making more explicit what was once less so in earlier data. That's essential, because the fact that the earlier data are explicit statements does not at all entail that what God teaches through such statements is itself fully explicit. For if it were, then heresy would never even seem reasonable to those who, like the Arians, have believed that their heresy expresses the faith-once-delivered.
Best,
Mike
Commenting by HaloScan
