OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 09:45:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic  (Read 27271 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #90 on: December 28, 2010, 06:14:03 PM »

They can consider them ecumenical or not as they like, they are still bound to the dogmatic definitions.
Neither the Melkite Patriarch nor the head of the UGCC (Lubomyr Husar) accept the proposition that you are putting forward, because both have indicated that Eastern Catholics do not have to subscribe to Western theological formulations issued at the fourteen local synods of the Latin Church that took place during the second millennium.

I know that Roman Catholics have a hard time accepting this, because they have for centuries seen the Roman Church as the only Catholic Church, but those days are now over.  Eastern Catholics will no longer be bullied into accepting latinization as inevitable.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 06:15:49 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #91 on: December 28, 2010, 06:17:37 PM »

I agree with the Melkite Patriarch who - in a speech in Connecticut - said: "We must explain and clarify the topics that are obstacles to our full communion [with the Orthodox]: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, Western Councils which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI) . . ."

And I also agree with Melkite Archbishop Zoghby who said: ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #92 on: December 28, 2010, 06:17:48 PM »

Quote
-Created grace isn't a belief of the Roman Catholics, I'll try to find the threads we discussed this ad nauseum.
laugh laugh laugh

This dead horse. Oh sure they don't believe in Created Grace. They just believe you have to explain and name that new situation of grace in you. Ooo, but wait, it's a distinct Grace than the grace we always have and never lost. However, it's not created, just created in us, but the grace created in us in not a created grace, even through we can't have uncreated grace in us... Huh Roll Eyes
 laugh
 
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #93 on: December 28, 2010, 06:19:59 PM »

They can consider them ecumenical or not as they like, they are still bound to the dogmatic definitions.
Neither the Melkite Patriarch nor the head of the UGCC (Lubomyr Husar) accept the proposition that you are putting forward, because both have indicated that Eastern Catholics do not have to subscribe to Western theological formulations issued at the fourteen local synods of the Latin Church that took place during the second millennium.

I know that Roman Catholics have a hard time accepting this, because they have for centuries seen the Roman Church as the only Catholic Church, but those days are now over.  Eastern Catholics will no longer be bullied into accepting latinization as inevitable.

Formulations that are not dogmatic definitions, perhaps. Nobody is permitted to reject the dogmatic definitions of the Church's 21 councils. The infallibility of the Pope is a dogmatic definition.

If you are saying that the Melkite Patriarch formally rejected a dogmatic definition, show evidence of it, please. If he did, he is excommunicated, whether Pope Benedict has failed in his duty to do so visibly or not.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 06:20:21 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #94 on: December 28, 2010, 06:20:54 PM »

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.


Question: But the Orthodox are saying that you (i.e., the Ukrainian Catholics) were latinized in the 18th and 19th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose freedom?

Major Archbishop Husar: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of Metropolitan Sheptytsky at the beginning of the 20th century: that he tried to reverse this process. Personally, I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, canonical heritage. We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it. And it is only with Metropolitan Sheptytsky that we could say: Dear brothers from Rome, one can be Catholic without being Latin. And we were attacked on two fronts, Catholic-Latin and Orthodox-Byzantine. And we said: No, dear brothers, one can be Ukrainian, one can be Byzantine, one can be at the same time Catholic. These different elements do not contradict one another. So this is why neither the Latin Church nor the Orthodox Church is very happy with us.

Question: What are the conditions to have eucharistic communion between the believers of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church? Is it necessary to have the same theology of marriage, of the filioque, of purgatory?

Major Archbishop Husar: No. Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. What is our practical stand on intercommunion? If a Catholic finds himself in a position where there is no Catholic church around, he can freely go to the Orthodox church and receive sacraments. The same thing when an Orthodox cannot find an Orthodox priest, we don't deny him the sacraments, especially confession and holy Communion. The only problem is the scandal that it means, not to give the impression that it doesn't make a difference what you are. You are what you are. But the circumstances are such that you are in need and we are open to help you or to being helped.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: December 28, 2010, 06:22:17 PM »

Apparently the Catholic Church is able, in wisdom, to accept that there are at least two, and actually more, lines of expression of the same core truths, necessary for salvation.  

With respect to filioque, the position would be that as long as Orthodoxy does not deny any non-heretical understanding of filioque, then they are not bound to profess it in the creed because it is not their tradition.

The same would apply to the teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception, in fact.  In a situation of resumed communion, it would not be wise for Catholics of the Roman rite to think that there would now be a Feast of the Immaculate Conception in Orthodoxy.  It would not be required at all.  It is not their tradition.  As long as they continued to celebrate the feast day of the Conception of St. Anne, and profess the absolute sinlessness of the Mother of God that would be sufficient.

That sort of thing is what the Pope refers two when he recognizes the truth contained in Orthodoxy.

M.

The Melkite Catholic Church is allowed to name the councils however they like. But every dogmatic definition of every council, 1 through 21, is entirely binding upon every Catholic, of any rite. To deny them is to be excommunicated.

Ratzinger is being diplomatic, probably to an unwise extent. In the first millenium Rome never brooked any dissent from any other Church once she had taken an official position on what the teaching of the magisterium was. Quite the opposite, regularly she threatened to excommunicate, or did, eastern patriarchs for continuing in error against her definitions of magisterial teaching or her rulings on matters of canon law.

On the issue of unity: The filioque is not a dogma both Churches must accept, unless the Orthodox take the view that to include the filioque is heresy. Their view on this has hemmed and hawed over the years. On the issue of the dogma of Papal infallibility it is true that the EO are outside of the faith, I will give you that one.

As far as ecclesiology goes, autocephaly is definitely not the ancient view of the Orthodox. The Churches that became the "Eastern Orthodox" were in ancient days those churches which were the state Churches of the Byzantine Empire, and they were legally answerable to the government thereof. That they were sometimes rebellious certainly does not mean they had any articulated notion of autocephaly the way the Orthodox do now. That grew gradually as the Empire shrank.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #96 on: December 28, 2010, 06:27:02 PM »

They can consider them ecumenical or not as they like, they are still bound to the dogmatic definitions.
Neither the Melkite Patriarch nor the head of the UGCC (Lubomyr Husar) accept the proposition that you are putting forward, because both have indicated that Eastern Catholics do not have to subscribe to Western theological formulations issued at the fourteen local synods of the Latin Church that took place during the second millennium.

I know that Roman Catholics have a hard time accepting this, because they have for centuries seen the Roman Church as the only Catholic Church, but those days are now over.  Eastern Catholics will no longer be bullied into accepting latinization as inevitable.

Formulations that are not dogmatic definitions, perhaps. Nobody is permitted to reject the dogmatic definitions of the Church's 21 councils. The infallibility of the Pope is a dogmatic definition.

If you are saying that the Melkite Patriarch formally rejected a dogmatic definition, show evidence of it, please. If he did, he is excommunicated, whether Pope Benedict has failed in his duty to do so visibly or not.
I apologize for confusing you, but what you call "dogmatic definitions" I call "theological formulations."  Thus, the decree of Trent on the original sin is not a dogma, but merely a theological formulation, and a formulation that is heavily influenced by the theories of St. Augustine, as such it cannot be seen as a dogma, but must be seen merely as an opinion, and one that Eastern Catholics do not accept.  

Another "dogma" which really is in fact merely a Western formulation, and one that is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers is the false idea that divinity is not present in icons and relics (see Council of Trent, Decree on the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics, of Saints, and on Sacred Images).  As an Eastern Catholic I believe, in line with the teaching of the Holy Fathers - and in particular Sts. John Damascene and Theodore Studite - that divine energy (i.e., divinity) is present within icons and relics, and that is precisely why it is possible to give them veneration.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #97 on: December 28, 2010, 06:30:16 PM »

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.


Question: But the Orthodox are saying that you (i.e., the Ukrainian Catholics) were latinized in the 18th and 19th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose freedom?

Major Archbishop Husar: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of Metropolitan Sheptytsky at the beginning of the 20th century: that he tried to reverse this process. Personally, I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, canonical heritage. We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it. And it is only with Metropolitan Sheptytsky that we could say: Dear brothers from Rome, one can be Catholic without being Latin. And we were attacked on two fronts, Catholic-Latin and Orthodox-Byzantine. And we said: No, dear brothers, one can be Ukrainian, one can be Byzantine, one can be at the same time Catholic. These different elements do not contradict one another. So this is why neither the Latin Church nor the Orthodox Church is very happy with us.

Question: What are the conditions to have eucharistic communion between the believers of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church? Is it necessary to have the same theology of marriage, of the filioque, of purgatory?

Major Archbishop Husar: No. Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. What is our practical stand on intercommunion? If a Catholic finds himself in a position where there is no Catholic church around, he can freely go to the Orthodox church and receive sacraments. The same thing when an Orthodox cannot find an Orthodox priest, we don't deny him the sacraments, especially confession and holy Communion. The only problem is the scandal that it means, not to give the impression that it doesn't make a difference what you are. You are what you are. But the circumstances are such that you are in need and we are open to help you or to being helped.

Sorry, you'll have to point out to me where in that the Patriarch denies Vatican I's definition of Papal infallibility, I'm not seeing it. All I see him saying is that in order to have communion with the orthodox it is not necessary to believe the same on all theological points. Certainly since the Melkites subscribed to the definition of infallibility in official capacity, they would need to recant of them in official capacity. Answering a question at a conference is a pretty big stretch.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 06:32:18 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #98 on: December 28, 2010, 06:31:56 PM »

If you are saying that the Melkite Patriarch formally rejected a dogmatic definition, show evidence of it, please. If he did, he is excommunicated, whether Pope Benedict has failed in his duty to do so visibly or not.
Since you are mistaken about these formulations being dogmatic definitions it is non-sequitur, because Eastern Catholics have never believed in things like "created grace," or the idea that images are empty of divinity, and so the fact that these things have been proposed in the local councils of the Latin Church are - for Eastern Catholics - irrelevant.  These false ideas, i.e., in the case of the two examples I just gave, play no role at all in the spiritual and liturgical life of Eastern Catholics.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #99 on: December 28, 2010, 06:34:01 PM »

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.


Question: But the Orthodox are saying that you (i.e., the Ukrainian Catholics) were latinized in the 18th and 19th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose freedom?

Major Archbishop Husar: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of Metropolitan Sheptytsky at the beginning of the 20th century: that he tried to reverse this process. Personally, I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, canonical heritage. We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it. And it is only with Metropolitan Sheptytsky that we could say: Dear brothers from Rome, one can be Catholic without being Latin. And we were attacked on two fronts, Catholic-Latin and Orthodox-Byzantine. And we said: No, dear brothers, one can be Ukrainian, one can be Byzantine, one can be at the same time Catholic. These different elements do not contradict one another. So this is why neither the Latin Church nor the Orthodox Church is very happy with us.

Question: What are the conditions to have eucharistic communion between the believers of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church? Is it necessary to have the same theology of marriage, of the filioque, of purgatory?

Major Archbishop Husar: No. Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. What is our practical stand on intercommunion? If a Catholic finds himself in a position where there is no Catholic church around, he can freely go to the Orthodox church and receive sacraments. The same thing when an Orthodox cannot find an Orthodox priest, we don't deny him the sacraments, especially confession and holy Communion. The only problem is the scandal that it means, not to give the impression that it doesn't make a difference what you are. You are what you are. But the circumstances are such that you are in need and we are open to help you or to being helped.

Sorry, you'll have to point out to me where in that the Patriarch denies Vatican I's definition of Papal infallibility, I'm not seeing it. All I see him saying is that in order to have communion with the orthodox it is not necessary to believe the same on all theological points. Certainly since the Melkites subscribed to the definition of infallibility in official capacity, they would need to recant of them in official capacity. Answering a question at a conference is a pretty big stretch.
The responses - as is evident to anyone who reads them - concern Western theories like the "immaculate conception," and "purgatory," two things that play no real role in the spiritual life of Eastern Catholics.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #100 on: December 28, 2010, 06:35:55 PM »

Thomist,
 
What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that, since I - as an Eastern Catholic - do not accept the ecumenicity of the Western synods, it follows that I do not feel compelled to accept the formulations proposed at those local synods as somehow binding upon everyone.

I have, since becoming Eastern Catholic in 2005, run into many people like you, who mistakenly believe that being Catholic is identical with being Latin.  Such bigotry is something that is no longer acceptable to Eastern Catholics.  The funny thing in all this is that Rome began the process of de-latinization in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 06:39:02 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #101 on: December 28, 2010, 06:39:01 PM »

The Orthodox take 'created grace' refer to grace that is created in esse. The Catholic doctrine is only concerned with grace created in accidens. This is wholly relative to the possession of the grace being an accidental feature of the person who now possesses it, it has nothing to do with the substantial nature of grace. Thus, Thomas:

Quote
And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be inact with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."

and:

Quote
thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

I am unfamiliar with the teaching on divinity inhering in relics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is also that the western Church teaches divinity to inhere in relics in accidens.

You can believe whatever you want, that's up to you. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you say that you are Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not allow those who reject Papal infallibility to be in communion with it - see the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht. You say you don't appreciate what you call my bigotry. Well I don't appreciate you misrepresenting essential doctrines of my religion.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 06:47:58 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #102 on: December 28, 2010, 06:43:06 PM »

I am unfamiliar with the teaching on divinity inhering in relics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is also that the western Church teaches divinity to inhere in relics in accidens.
Oh, you might want to read St. John Damascene's "Three Treatises on the Divine Images," and St. Theodore Studite's book "On the Holy Icons."  The doctrine that divine energy is present in icons and relics is clearly enunciated in their writings.  If icons and relics were somehow empty of divinity to give them veneration would be a form of idolatry.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #103 on: December 28, 2010, 06:45:06 PM »

Well, I'll check it out, but in accidens does not mean divinity is not there. For example, I have red hair. I have red hair in accidens because it is not part of the substantial essence of any human being to have red hair: My red hair is an accidental feature of me.

A relic, say, the bone of a saint, would have divinity in accidens, according to the Aristotelico-Thomist vocabulary, because it is not part of the essentia of a bone to be divine.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #104 on: December 28, 2010, 06:48:44 PM »

The Orthodox take 'created grace' refer to grace that is created in esse. The Catholic doctrine is only concerned with grace created in accidens. This is wholly relative to the possession of the grace being an accidental feature of the person who now possesses it, it has nothing to do with the substantial nature of grace. Thus, Thomas:

Quote
And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be inact with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."

and:

Quote
thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

I am unfamiliar with the teaching on divinity inhering in relics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is also that the western Church teaches divinity to inhere in relics in accidens.

You can believe whatever you want, that's up to you. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you say that you are Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not allow those who reject Papal infallibility to be in communion with it - see the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht. You say you don't appreciate what you call my bigotry. Well I don't appreciate you playing pretend with my religion.
Fr. Hardon said the following about created grace:  "Nature of Sanctifying Grace. What is sanctifying grace? It has been called the 'masterpiece of God's handicraft in this world … far more glorious than anything we can behold in the heavens above us or on the earth at our feet.' Is it just God's favor toward us, as Luther wanted? No, it is much more. Is it God's life or nature or God's love, as some have called it? No, for God's life and love and nature are uncreated, are God Himself. Sanctifying grace is not God, it is not the Holy Spirit, it is not just God's favor. It is something created, given to us by God out of love and mercy, which gives us a created likeness of God's nature and life. It is a supernatural gift infused into our souls by God, a positive reality, spiritual, supernatural, and invisible."

I reject what Fr. Hardon says about sanctifying grace.  As an Eastern Catholic I believe that grace is the very uncreated energy of God, for nothing created can divinize a man.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 06:49:19 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #105 on: December 28, 2010, 06:51:06 PM »

So do I. Where was that said? I would be inclined to argue that Father Hardon inadequately understands the teachings of Saint Thomas on the issue, who was perhaps the most western of western catholics. Created grace is only created in terms of the accidental feature of the one participating it, not the essential nature of itself.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #106 on: December 28, 2010, 06:51:27 PM »

A relic, say, the bone of a saint, would have divinity in accidens, according to the Aristotelico-Thomist vocabulary, because it is not part of the essentia of a bone to be divine.
That is a nice Scholastic take on the issue, but I reject it as contrary to the teachings of the Holy Fathers.  I hold that divine energy is infused into the relics of the saints, and into sacred icons, and that is precisely why they can be venerated by the faithful.

By the way, Aristotle is a pagan, a smart one perhaps, but a pagan nonetheless, and so I see no reason to follow his theories about metaphysics.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #107 on: December 28, 2010, 06:52:15 PM »

So do I. Where was that said? I would be inclined to argue that Father Hardon inadequately understands the teachings of Saint Thomas on the issue, who was perhaps the most western of western catholics. Created grace is only created in terms of the accidental feature of the one participating it, not the essential nature of itself.
It is in his course on grace.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #108 on: December 28, 2010, 06:53:19 PM »

A relic, say, the bone of a saint, would have divinity in accidens, according to the Aristotelico-Thomist vocabulary, because it is not part of the essentia of a bone to be divine.
That is a nice Scholastic take on the issue, but I reject it as contrary to the teachings of the Holy Fathers.  I hold that divine energy is infused into the relics of the saints, and into sacred icons, and that is precisely why they can be venerated by the faithful.

By the way, Aristotle is a pagan, a smart one perhaps, but a pagan nonetheless, and so I see no reason to follow his theories about metaphysics.

If you believed that the forearm of a saint was divine in essentia then you would believe that every human forearm is divine in essentia. There would be nothing unique or unusual about this particular Saint's forearm.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 06:53:37 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #109 on: December 28, 2010, 06:53:38 PM »

Created grace is only created in terms of the accidental feature of the one participating it, not the essential nature of itself.
I do not believe in "created grace" in any sense of the term; instead, I accept the doctrine of uncreated grace by participation in the divine energies.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #110 on: December 28, 2010, 06:55:49 PM »

A relic, say, the bone of a saint, would have divinity in accidens, according to the Aristotelico-Thomist vocabulary, because it is not part of the essentia of a bone to be divine.
That is a nice Scholastic take on the issue, but I reject it as contrary to the teachings of the Holy Fathers.  I hold that divine energy is infused into the relics of the saints, and into sacred icons, and that is precisely why they can be venerated by the faithful.

By the way, Aristotle is a pagan, a smart one perhaps, but a pagan nonetheless, and so I see no reason to follow his theories about metaphysics.

If you believed that the forearm of a saint was divine in essentia then you would believe that every human forearm is divine in essentia. There would be nothing unique or unusual about this particular Saint's forearm.
Have I mentioned essence (ousia) in any of my posts up to this point?  I don't believe that I have; instead, I have spoken of the infusion of the uncreated energies (energeiai) into icons and relics.  Essence and energy are not identical.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #111 on: December 28, 2010, 06:58:18 PM »

1.) On created grace. Believing that human beings participate in grace is the same thing as believing in created grace in accidens. When they come to be participating in grace, an accidental feature of them, that they participate in grace, is created. Similarly, when my hair turns gray, an accidental feature of me, that my hair will have turned gray, will be created. This has nothing to do with the grace itself being created in essentia.

2.) On relics. That the relics, again for example the forearm of a saint, have divine energy flowing through them, is an accidental feature of them. It is not the case that all forearms have divine energy flowing through them, it is a feature of this particular forearm. Thus it is attributed to the forearm in accidens.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 06:58:57 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #112 on: December 28, 2010, 07:01:15 PM »

P.S: Thomas, again:

Quote
I answer that, Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #113 on: December 28, 2010, 07:02:19 PM »

1.) On created grace. Believing that human beings participate in grace is the same thing as believing in created grace in accidens. When they come to be participating in grace, an accidental feature of them, that they participate in grace, is created. Similarly, when my hair turns gray, an accidental feature of me, that my hair will have turned gray, will be created. This has nothing to do with the grace itself being created in essentia.
Nothing created can divinize a man.  Theosis, as taught in the East, concerns man's participation in the uncreated divine energies, which are distinct from the divine essence.  The East believes in a real distinction, without a separation, between essence and energy in God.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this teaching, but it is precisely this doctrinal distinction that makes "created grace" unnecessary.

2.) On relics. That the relics, again for example the forearm of a saint, have divine energy flowing through them, is an accidental feature of them. It is not the case that all forearms have divine energy flowing through them, it is a feature of this particular forearm. This it is attributed to the forearm in essentia.
The categories of substance and accidents, which you are trying to apply - as any good Aristotelian would - have no importance within the doctrine of energies as taught by the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, and St. Gregory Palamas.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #114 on: December 28, 2010, 07:06:29 PM »

P.S: Thomas, again:

Quote
I answer that, Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.
That may be what St. Thomas believed, but it is not what I believe. 

I agree instead with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  "According to the divine Maximos, the Logos of well-being, by grace is present unto the worthy, bearing God, Who is by nature above all beginning and end, Who makes those who by nature have a beginning and an end become by grace without beginning and without end, because the Great Paul also, no longer living the life in time, but the divine and eternal life of the indwelling Logos, became by grace without beginning and without end; and Melchisedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, not because of his created nature, according to which he began and ceased to exist, but because of the divine and uncreated and eternal grace which is above all nature and time, being from the eternal God. Paul, therefore, was created only as long as he lived the life created from non-being by the command of God. But when he no longer lived this life, but that which is present by the indwelling of God, he became uncreated by grace, as did also Melchisedek and everyone who comes to possess the Logos of God, alone living and acting within himself" [St. Gregory Palamas, Third Letter to Akindynos].
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #115 on: December 28, 2010, 07:07:20 PM »

1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.

2.) Thomas was a subtler and more of an academically philosophical thinker than any of the Church Fathers were.  I don't even know that what I've laid out is the teaching of the Church (I've yet to look in to it), but it is logically necessary that the divine energy in question is an accidental feature of the relic, and I wouldn't be surprised if a Thomistically worded definition from the west confused the east, which does not speak in the technical jargon of Aristotelico-Thomism.

Also I'd like you to explain why you think the quote you posted from Palamas contradicts the quote from Thomas.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 07:08:35 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 28, 2010, 07:09:39 PM »

1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.
I agree, nothing about grace is created, which is why the use of the word "created" should be avoid entirely.  Grace is God as energy dwelling in man.

2.) Thomas was a subtler and more of an academically philosophical thinker than any of the Church Fathers were.  I don't even know that what I've laid out is the teaching of the Church (I've yet to look in to it), but it is logically necessary that the divine energy in question is an accidental feature of the relic, and I wouldn't be surprised if a Thomistically worded definition from the west confused the east, which does not speak in the technical jargon of Aristotelico-Thomism.
Alas, Thomas was too influenced by the pagan philosophy of Aristotle, which is why he proposed the quasi-Arian notion of "created grace."
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #117 on: December 28, 2010, 07:11:25 PM »

Also I'd like you to explain why you think the quote you posted from Palamas contradicts the quote from Thomas.
Because Palamas - unlike Aquinas - does not assert some kind of created likeness to God; instead, he says, and correctly so, that man becomes uncreated by his participation in the divine energy, that is, man takes on the eternal and uncreated theosis, which makes him a real, and not merely a virtual, icon of God.  To understand this better you should consult St. Gregory's "The Triads," and his treatise entitled, "The Capita Physica."
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 07:12:57 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 28, 2010, 07:15:05 PM »

Quote
1.) On created grace. Believing that human beings participate in grace is the same thing as believing in created grace in accidens. When they come to be participating in grace, an accidental feature of them, that they participate in grace, is created. Similarly, when my hair turns gray, an accidental feature of me, that my hair will have turned gray, will be created. This has nothing to do with the grace itself being created in essentia.
laugh laugh laugh

God's Grace never 'left' us, neither purposely or accidentally.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #119 on: December 28, 2010, 07:16:15 PM »

Thomas said "Participated likeness" not "Created likeness". Do you understand the difference?

« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 07:17:29 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #120 on: December 28, 2010, 07:19:24 PM »

Thomas said "Participated likeness" not "Created likeness". Do you understand the difference?
But what does Thomas mean when he speaks of a "participated" likeness, according to the Summa Theologica, he means a "created light of glory" (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 7).

Alas, we have not even addressed the problems associated with Thomas' view that the vision of God involves a vision of the divine essence, which is something that the Eastern Fathers completely reject.  The divine essence is utterly transcendent, which is why the vision of God is a vision of the uncreated energies, and not the divine essence.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 07:22:49 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 28, 2010, 07:21:16 PM »

God's Grace never 'left' us, neither purposely or accidentally.
Nor did it do so substantively or accidentally.  Cheesy
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #122 on: December 28, 2010, 07:22:45 PM »

From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: December 28, 2010, 07:26:53 PM »

The Orthodox take 'created grace' refer to grace that is created in esse. The Catholic doctrine is only concerned with grace created in accidens. This is wholly relative to the possession of the grace being an accidental feature of the person who now possesses it, it has nothing to do with the substantial nature of grace. Thus, Thomas:

Quote
And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be inact with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."

and:

Quote
thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

I am unfamiliar with the teaching on divinity inhering in relics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is also that the western Church teaches divinity to inhere in relics in accidens.

You can believe whatever you want, that's up to you. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you say that you are Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not allow those who reject Papal infallibility to be in communion with it - see the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht. You say you don't appreciate what you call my bigotry. Well I don't appreciate you playing pretend with my religion.
Fr. Hardon said the following about created grace:  "Nature of Sanctifying Grace. What is sanctifying grace? It has been called the 'masterpiece of God's handicraft in this world … far more glorious than anything we can behold in the heavens above us or on the earth at our feet.' Is it just God's favor toward us, as Luther wanted? No, it is much more. Is it God's life or nature or God's love, as some have called it? No, for God's life and love and nature are uncreated, are God Himself. Sanctifying grace is not God, it is not the Holy Spirit, it is not just God's favor. It is something created, given to us by God out of love and mercy, which gives us a created likeness of God's nature and life. It is a supernatural gift infused into our souls by God, a positive reality, spiritual, supernatural, and invisible."

I reject what Fr. Hardon says about sanctifying grace.  As an Eastern Catholic I believe that grace is the very uncreated energy of God, for nothing created can divinize a man.

Father Hardon was, and is, a very good man and priest.

That is not to say that he had the charism of infallibility in his local catechesis.  

This is not Thomistic teaching.  It is not even formal Catholic teaching.

To raise it is of local interest only...and local import only.

You, as a Catholic, never need to accept Father Hardon's teaching on sanctifying grace.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: December 28, 2010, 07:26:53 PM »

1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.
I agree, nothing about grace is created, which is why the use of the word "created" should be avoid entirely.  Grace is God as energy dwelling in man.

Unless of course you are a Roman rite Catholic, or speaking of Roman rite expressions of their tradition and then, of course, you may use it...and rightly and accurately so, in so far as it is true.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #125 on: December 28, 2010, 07:26:53 PM »

Also I'd like you to explain why you think the quote you posted from Palamas contradicts the quote from Thomas.
Because Palamas - unlike Aquinas - does not assert some kind of created likeness to God; instead, he says, and correctly so, that man becomes uncreated by his participation in the divine energy, that is, man takes on the eternal and uncreated theosis, which makes him a real, and not merely a virtual, icon of God.  To understand this better you should consult St. Gregory's "The Triads," and his treatise entitled, "The Capita Physica."

 laugh laugh laugh

Excellent advisement for all concerned.

And a course on Thomas from traditional Dominicans is in order as well!!
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #126 on: December 28, 2010, 07:35:47 PM »

1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.
I agree, nothing about grace is created, which is why the use of the word "created" should be avoid entirely.  Grace is God as energy dwelling in man.

Unless of course you are a Roman rite Catholic, or speaking of Roman rite expressions of their tradition and then, of course, you may use it...and rightly and accurately so, in so far as it is true.
What Roman Catholics think about their own theories is their own business.  It only becomes a concern for an Eastern Catholic when the Latin Catholic tries to enforce Western theories on Easterners.  It is sad to say but there are still a lot of Latin Catholics who equate being Catholic with being Latin.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #127 on: December 28, 2010, 07:41:16 PM »

Thomas said "Participated likeness" not "Created likeness". Do you understand the difference?
But what does Thomas mean when he speaks of a "participated" likeness, according to the Summa Theologica, he means a "created light of glory" (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 7).

Alas, we have not even addressed the problems associated with Thomas' view that the vision of God involves a vision of the divine essence, which is something that the Eastern Fathers completely reject.  The divine essence is utterly transcendent, which is why the vision of God is a vision of the uncreated energies, and not the divine essence.

Thomas does not treat of participated likeness vis a vis sanctifying grace in the question you cited.

Quote
I answer that, It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower. Now the mode of being of things is manifold. For some things have being only in this one individual matter; as all bodies. But others are subsisting natures, not residing in matter at all, which, however, are not their own existence, but receive it; and these are the incorporeal beings, called angels. But to God alone does it belong to be His own subsistent being. Therefore what exists only in individual matter we know naturally, forasmuch as our soul, whereby we know, is the form of certain matter. Now our soul possesses two cognitive powers; one is the act of a corporeal organ, which naturally knows things existing in individual matter; hence sense knows only the singular. But there is another kind of cognitive power in the soul, called the intellect; and this is not the act of any corporeal organ. Wherefore the intellect naturally knows natures which exist only in individual matter; not as they are in such individual matter, but according as they are abstracted therefrom by the considering act of the intellect; hence it follows that through the intellect we can understand these objects as universal; and this is beyond the power of the sense. Now the angelic intellect naturally knows natures that are not in matter; but this is beyond the power of the intellect of our soul in the state of its present life, united as it is to the body. It follows therefore that to know self-subsistent being is natural to the divine intellect alone; and this is beyond the natural power of any created intellect; for no creature is its own existence, forasmuch as its existence is participated. Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it.

Thomas does allow the object to see the essence of God if God by His grace should unite Himself to the created intellect.

As for the opinions of the fathers, I'll be straight and I say I consider Thomas a greater thinker any father was. If you want to have an argument between the opinions of Thomas and the opinions of the Fathers, I welcome that, but I do not share the Orthodox super-reverence for the opinions of the father.

As for your belief that Eastern Catholics are allowed to deny Papal infallibility without incurring excommunication, it's incorrect, I'm sorry. It is a matter of fact, not opinion. Though you still haven't produced any evidence that the Malakite Catholic Church has repudiated its earlier subscription to Papal Infallibility, and I haven't been able to find any myself.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 08:08:43 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #128 on: December 28, 2010, 07:48:34 PM »

This topic should be renamed: Eastern Catholic vs. Eastern Catholic.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #129 on: December 28, 2010, 08:29:17 PM »

Ah, you were referring to question 6, not question 7, 'Whether those who see the essence of God comprehend Him?'

Quote
In proof of this we must consider that what is comprehended is perfectly known; and that is perfectly known which is known so far as it can be known. Thus, if anything which is capable of scientific demonstration is held only by an opinion resting on a probably proof, it is not comprehended; as, for instance, if anyone knows by scientific demonstration that a triangle has three angles equal to two right angles, he comprehends that truth; whereas if anyone accepts it as a probable opinion because wise men or most men teach it, he cannot be said to comprehend the thing itself, because he does not attain to that perfect mode of knowledge of which it is intrinsically capable. But no created intellect can attain to that perfect mode of the knowledge of the Divine intellect whereof it is intrinsically capable. Which thus appears---Everything is knowable according to its actuality. But God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (Q[7]) is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.

Aquinas here refers to the 'created light of glory' which increases the mind's knowledge of God, but does not simply equate it with the participatory likeness that is salvific grace. Indeed, he makes no mention of salvific grace or participatory likeness at all.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #130 on: December 28, 2010, 08:43:20 PM »

Ah, you were referring to question 6, not question 7, 'Whether those who see the essence of God comprehend Him?'

Quote
In proof of this we must consider that what is comprehended is perfectly known; and that is perfectly known which is known so far as it can be known. Thus, if anything which is capable of scientific demonstration is held only by an opinion resting on a probably proof, it is not comprehended; as, for instance, if anyone knows by scientific demonstration that a triangle has three angles equal to two right angles, he comprehends that truth; whereas if anyone accepts it as a probable opinion because wise men or most men teach it, he cannot be said to comprehend the thing itself, because he does not attain to that perfect mode of knowledge of which it is intrinsically capable. But no created intellect can attain to that perfect mode of the knowledge of the Divine intellect whereof it is intrinsically capable. Which thus appears---Everything is knowable according to its actuality. But God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (Q[7]) is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.

Aquinas here refers to the 'created light of glory' which increases the mind's knowledge of God, but does not simply equate it with the participatory likeness that is salvific grace. Indeed, he makes no mention of salvific grace or participatory likeness at all.
Once again the problem remains, because Eastern Christians reject the idea that the light of glory is created.  Nothing created can bestow the vision of God upon man.  The light of glory is the uncreated light of Tabor.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #131 on: December 28, 2010, 08:45:40 PM »

As for the opinions of the fathers, I'll be straight and I say I consider Thomas a greater thinker any father was. If you want to have an argument between the opinions of Thomas and the opinions of the Fathers, I welcome that, but I do not share the Orthodox super-reverence for the opinions of the father.
I believe that Aquinas was a good Aristotelian philosopher but a very poor theologian.  Cheesy

I will stick with the views of the Holy Fathers of the East.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #132 on: December 28, 2010, 08:46:58 PM »

This topic should be renamed: Eastern Catholic vs. Eastern Catholic.
You mean Eastern Catholic vs. Western Catholic?
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #133 on: December 28, 2010, 08:47:11 PM »

Quote
Either way, his personal views on it aren't the views of the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but his personal views are exactly the views of the Catholic church if he chooses to make them so. I'm familiar with some of the nuances of the doctrine of infallibility, and any time the pope chooses to speak "from the magisterium," he is to be regarded as speaking "infallibly." That's the deal, like it or not.

We Orthodox don't like it, needless to say.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #134 on: December 28, 2010, 08:50:52 PM »

1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.
I agree, nothing about grace is created, which is why the use of the word "created" should be avoid entirely.  Grace is God as energy dwelling in man.

Unless of course you are a Roman rite Catholic, or speaking of Roman rite expressions of their tradition and then, of course, you may use it...and rightly and accurately so, in so far as it is true.
What Roman Catholics think about their own theories is their own business.  It only becomes a concern for an Eastern Catholic when the Latin Catholic tries to enforce Western theories on Easterners.  It is sad to say but there are still a lot of Latin Catholics who equate being Catholic with being Latin.

Even more than that, they equate being Latin Catholic with "the One True Faith." Despite for a thousand years espousing doctrines the Eastern church regards as heterodox or even heretical.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.157 seconds with 72 queries.