OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 08:09:30 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Theologumenon  (Read 1293 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« on: June 17, 2011, 08:46:31 PM »

The topic of theological opinions (theologumenon) not being church-dividing has come up a couple of times lately: in a conversation I had with Wyatt that would be a little too long to quote here, and also in a post from Kasatkin fan on the "First council of Toledo 397 - 400, Filioque" thread:

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Why would there be such a document?  Huh

Why would anyone be excommunicated over a non-binding council?

If anyone could help me to understand how this works I'll be most appreciative.

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2011, 08:49:36 PM »

P.S. A more specific question (which I also asked in my discussion with Wyatt) that comes to mind is: Does this "go both ways"? Or is it unidirectional, e.g. only working in an west-to-east direction, as per this post:

Quote
I think what I am about to post may insult some people, and I ask for forgiveness right now. But I feel I really need to express it.

Contrary to popular belief, there is a lot of Mystery in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, particularly the Latin Church, really has not made that many dogmatic pronouncements about the Faith. There is a LOT of theologoumenon in the Latin Church.

Having said that, here's the part which I think may insult some individuals: I think some Easterns/Orientals who feel frustrated at some of the theologoumenon in the Latin Church are not being true to their heritage of apophatic spirituality and theology. I TOO often hear the argument: "Why doesn't the Pope make that more clear? What use is the Pope if he can't settle this issue?"

My response would be "Well, why should he?" It is so inconsistent and hypocritical to accuse the Catholic Church (especially the Latin Church) of too much dogmatism, and then turn around and argue that they need MORE dogma.

But I do sense often that some Eastern/Oriental Catholics go Orthodox because of their frustration with Western theologoumenon. For instance, I've heard EC's complain of the idea of purgatorial fire, or the idea of guilt being passed on in original sin, or that Mary never died, etc,, etc., etc. My viewpoint is that since I am not required to believe any of that, it really does not concern me, and thus it does not bother me. I have no business as an Oriental Catholic complaining about what goes on in the Western Church, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. So why, I always wonder, do I TOO often hear Eastern and Oriental Catholics want to impose their own theologies and beliefs on the Westerns, to the point that if the Westerns don't accept their points of view, then they run off to the Orthodox Church?

Since I was not born and bred Catholic, I have never really been exposed to the tensions between Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholics. In that light, I admit I may not really have a right to judge the feelings of my fellow Eastern/Oriental Catholics and their frustrations with the Western Catholics. But I do feel obligated to call my fellow Easterns and Orientals to consistency.

I would ask my fellow Easterns and Orientals to try to be more discerning between Latin theologoumena and the actual offical teachings of the Catholic Church.

Please note I am writing this with respect to theologoumena. I do recognize that there are Western dogmas that are a cause of genuine uneasiness and tension- though of course I believe these dogmas properly understood can be presented in a manner that is not incompatible with the Eastern or Oriental Traditions.

Humbly,
Marduk
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 08:55:43 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2011, 04:18:23 PM »

To answer your second question, I am not sure it goes both ways. I think it may be more common for us to be accepting of theological opinions than for the Orthodox to be. The reason I say this is because I have heard Orthodox criticize the Catholic Church over "limbo" even though limbo has never been a doctrine, but has always been held as a theological opinion. Unfortunately, sometimes theological opinions are elevated and promoted in such a way that it comes off as if they are doctine (which is what I have heard has happened with limbo in the past) but they are still, nevertheless, theological opinions.
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2011, 06:47:31 PM »

Unfortunately, sometimes theological opinions are elevated and promoted in such a way that it comes off as if they are doctine (which is what I have heard has happened with limbo in the past) but they are still, nevertheless, theological opinions.
This is likely the case with limbo. While it has never been a Catholic dogma, it was at one time the prevailent teaching.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2011, 01:48:22 AM »

To answer your second question, I am not sure it goes both ways. I think it may be more common for us to be accepting of theological opinions than for the Orthodox to be. The reason I say this is because I have heard Orthodox criticize the Catholic Church over "limbo" even though limbo has never been a doctrine, but has always been held as a theological opinion. Unfortunately, sometimes theological opinions are elevated and promoted in such a way that it comes off as if they are doctine (which is what I have heard has happened with limbo in the past) but they are still, nevertheless, theological opinions.
On October
29, 1951, in his Allocution to Midwives, Pope Pius XII declared:

"In the present state there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying
grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than Baptism]. 
But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely
necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain
supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God.  An act of love can
suffice [i.e., Baptism of Desire] for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace
and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly
born, this way is not open."

Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2011, 02:22:19 AM »

To answer your second question, I am not sure it goes both ways. I think it may be more common for us to be accepting of theological opinions than for the Orthodox to be. The reason I say this is because I have heard Orthodox criticize the Catholic Church over "limbo" even though limbo has never been a doctrine, but has always been held as a theological opinion. Unfortunately, sometimes theological opinions are elevated and promoted in such a way that it comes off as if they are doctine (which is what I have heard has happened with limbo in the past) but they are still, nevertheless, theological opinions.
On October
29, 1951, in his Allocution to Midwives, Pope Pius XII declared:

"In the present state there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying
grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than Baptism]. 
But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely
necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain
supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God.  An act of love can
suffice [i.e., Baptism of Desire] for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace
and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly
born, this way is not open."


And yet, regarding unbaptized infants, the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply says that we entrust them to the mercy of God.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2011, 05:08:32 AM »

P.S. A more specific question (which I also asked in my discussion with Wyatt) that comes to mind is: Does this "go both ways"? Or is it unidirectional, e.g. only working in an west-to-east direction, as per this post:

Quote
I think what I am about to post may insult some people, and I ask for forgiveness right now. But I feel I really need to express it.

Contrary to popular belief, there is a lot of Mystery in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, particularly the Latin Church, really has not made that many dogmatic pronouncements about the Faith. There is a LOT of theologoumenon in the Latin Church.

Having said that, here's the part which I think may insult some individuals: I think some Easterns/Orientals who feel frustrated at some of the theologoumenon in the Latin Church are not being true to their heritage of apophatic spirituality and theology. I TOO often hear the argument: "Why doesn't the Pope make that more clear? What use is the Pope if he can't settle this issue?"

My response would be "Well, why should he?" It is so inconsistent and hypocritical to accuse the Catholic Church (especially the Latin Church) of too much dogmatism, and then turn around and argue that they need MORE dogma.

But I do sense often that some Eastern/Oriental Catholics go Orthodox because of their frustration with Western theologoumenon. For instance, I've heard EC's complain of the idea of purgatorial fire, or the idea of guilt being passed on in original sin, or that Mary never died, etc,, etc., etc. My viewpoint is that since I am not required to believe any of that, it really does not concern me, and thus it does not bother me. I have no business as an Oriental Catholic complaining about what goes on in the Western Church, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. So why, I always wonder, do I TOO often hear Eastern and Oriental Catholics want to impose their own theologies and beliefs on the Westerns, to the point that if the Westerns don't accept their points of view, then they run off to the Orthodox Church?

Since I was not born and bred Catholic, I have never really been exposed to the tensions between Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholics. In that light, I admit I may not really have a right to judge the feelings of my fellow Eastern/Oriental Catholics and their frustrations with the Western Catholics. But I do feel obligated to call my fellow Easterns and Orientals to consistency.

I would ask my fellow Easterns and Orientals to try to be more discerning between Latin theologoumena and the actual offical teachings of the Catholic Church.

Please note I am writing this with respect to theologoumena. I do recognize that there are Western dogmas that are a cause of genuine uneasiness and tension- though of course I believe these dogmas properly understood can be presented in a manner that is not incompatible with the Eastern or Oriental Traditions.

Humbly,
Marduk

Ah, Mardukm.  He mystifies even the followers of the Vatican.

As St John taught "a small thing is not a small thing, when it leads to something great."  If it leads to or supports heresy, it needs to be pruned lest it bear such fruit. The East has been better at weeding before its weeds pollenated the West.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2011, 08:26:23 AM »

Thanks for all the responses so far.

I'm hoping that someone can provide either a fuller answer to Inquisitor's question, or an explanation of the answer already given:

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Why would there be such a document?  Huh

Why would anyone be excommunicated over a non-binding council?

« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 08:26:53 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2011, 06:25:43 PM »

Thanks for all the responses so far.

I'm hoping that someone can provide either a fuller answer to Inquisitor's question, or an explanation of the answer already given:

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Why would there be such a document?  Huh

Why would anyone be excommunicated over a non-binding council?


Since Inquistor claims to read Latin, he can start here, p. 146 (p. 738 in the text)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=R0N5AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2011, 12:07:19 PM »

Thanks for all the responses so far.

I'm hoping that someone can provide either a fuller answer to Inquisitor's question, or an explanation of the answer already given:

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Why would there be such a document?  Huh

Why would anyone be excommunicated over a non-binding council?


Since Inquistor claims to read Latin, he can start here, p. 146 (p. 738 in the text)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=R0N5AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Alright. And what will he learn there? (Or is that a secret between you and him?)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.065 seconds with 37 queries.