The Catholic Church is dogmatically bound to the First and Second Vatican Councils, which she cannot give up; also the Orthodox Churches are de facto bound by their critique of, and opposition to, these dogmas. Rereading and re-reception are not an escamotage [slight of hand]. It means to interpret the teaching of the First Vatican Council on the primacy and infallibility of the Pope according to the “normal” and common rules of dogmatic hermeneutics. According to these rules, dogmas should be abided by in the sense in which the Church once declared them. But in the Catholic view, this does not imply an irrational and fundamentalist compliance with a formula. In fact, according to the First Vatican Council, faith and understanding belong together. Catholic teaching therefore recognizes a progressive deepening in the understanding of the truth that was revealed once and for all. There is a history of dogmas in the sense of a history of understanding and interpretation, and there are corresponding theological rules of interpretation. In this context, Ratzinger speaks of a rereading, Congar and others speak of a re-reception of the First Vatican Council.
The concept of reception, which has often been neglected in the past, is fundamental for Catholic theology, particularly for ecumenical theology and the hermeneutics of dogmas. Such reception and re-reception do not mean questioning the validity of the affirmations of a Council; rather, they mean its acceptance on the part of the ecclesial community. This is not a merely passive and mechanical acceptance; rather, it is a living and creative process of appropriation and is therefore concerned with interpretation …
1. A first rule for such a rereading and re-reception of the Petrine ministry is the integration of the concept of primacy in the whole context of ecclesiology. This rule was formulated by the First Vatican Council itself. It affirmed that the mysteries of faith are to be interpreted “e mysteriorum ipsorum nexu inter se,” that is, according to the internal context binding them together. The Second Vatican Council has expressed the same idea with the help of the doctrine of the hierarchy of truths. Therefore no dogma should be considered as isolated but should be interpreted taking into account the whole doctrine of the faith. Especially it should be interpreted on the basis, in the context, and in the light of the basic Catholic dogmas on Christology and the Holy Trinity.
This integration of the primacy had already been suggested by the First Vatican Council. The Council describes the meaning of primacy in the Proemium to the Constitution Pastor aeternus. It affirms that, according to God’s will, all faithful should be kept together in the Church through the bond of faith and love. It then mentions the famous quotation that is now at the basis of today’s ecumenical commitment, “ut omnes unum essent.” Finally, it refers to Bishop Cyprian: “ut episcopatus ipse unus et indivisus esset,” Peter was called to be “perpetuum utriusque unitatis principium ac visibile fundamentum.” An article recently published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presents again this formulation in its fundamental importance for a theological interpretation of the juridical declarations on the doctrine of primacy. Thus, the unity of the Church is the raison d’etre and the context of interpretation of the Petrine ministry.
Because of the outbreak of the Franco-German War, the First Vatican Council was not able to proceed with the integreation of primacy into the whole ecclesiological context. This process remained uncompleted, since it only managed to define the primacy and infallibility of the Pope. This led later to unilateral and unbalanced interpretations. Nonetheless Vatican I had affirmed that the primacy does not cancel but confirms, strengthens, and defends the direct authority of the bishops. Pope Pius IX explicitly highlighted this when he confirmed the declaration of the German bishops against the dispatch of Bismarck. In this way, Pius IX defended himself against extreme interpretations and defended the position of the bishop as the ordinary pastor of his diocese. Even the formula considered scandalous in the ecumenical perspective, that the Pope is infallible “ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae,” had already been interpreted during the Council by the speaker of the Doctrinal Commission in a purely juridical sense, in the sense that definitions did not require juridical ratification from a higher source, but, in theological terms, it is not a question of an infallibility that is separate from the faith of the Church.
The Second Vatican Council took up the question and took a second step towards the integration of primacy into the whole doctrine of the Church as well as into the whole collegiality of the episcopal ministry. This Council also reaffirmed the importance of the local Church, of the sacramental understanding of the episcopal ministry, and, above all, of the understanding of the Church as communio. This has revived synodal elements, especially at the level of synods and bishops’ conferences.
Nevertheless, the Second Vatican Council was not able to reconcile fully the new elements – which in reality correspond to the oldest tradition – with the statements of the First Vatican Council. Many issues have remained unconnected. Sometimes there is mention of the existence of two different ecclesiologies in the texts of the Council. This has led, since the Second Vatican Council, to a controversy on interpretation, to some degree continuing even today. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council, too, has remained an uncompleted Council. The integration of the Petrine ministry in the whole of ecclesiology, the relation between the universal and the local dimensions of the Church, the applicability of the principle of subsidiarity, and other questions raise theological and practical questions that have not yet been definitively resolved.
When one takes seriously that the Petrine ministry is constitutive within the Church and that all other ministries have to be in communion with it though they are not derived from it but have their own sacramental root, then a one-sided pyramidal conception of the Church is overcome and a communal one prevails, where the different institutions and ministries have their respective irreplaceable roles and are in an interplay with each other. Such a communal view, which makes room for the freedom of the Spirit, could result from a fuller reception of the Second Vatican Council.
To be continued . . .
Cathedra Unitatis 
“Introduction to the Theme and Catholic Hermeneutics of the Dogmas of the First Vatican Council.” From The Petrine Ministry: Catholics And Orthodox In Dialogue. Walter Cardinal Kasper, ed. (Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1995)
Well! That is the most winsome interpretation of “ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae” I have read. I will surely read the book you quote.
My only misgiving comes out of the way in which such “ex cathedra” papal pronouncements have already operated. In both cases (1854 and 1950), and unless i am mistaken, particularly in the first instance — it was stressed that the definition flowed from the pope alone without any episcopal cooperation. And on both occasions, pious and cherished teachings regarding blessed Mary were raised to the level of dogmas, with an attached *anathema*.
Perhaps I am wrong, but doesn’t that imply a line in the sand regarding membership in the Church, and even in salvation?
In the matter of previously debated issues not directly related to our relationship with the Holy Trinity — for example, Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans after him denied the immaculate conception for centuries while remaining good Catholics — why would or should a pope feel the need to make the teaching a life-or-death matter of salvation?
I am troubled both by the “pope going it alone” and “anathema” aspects of ex cathedra papal pronouncements.
it was stressed that the definition flowed from the pope alone without any episcopal cooperation.
???? Non capisco. In each case–the IC and the Assumption–the pope carefully canvassed the entire episcopate before issuing his pronouncement. It was only after the world’s bishops expressed overwehelming support and concurrence that the pope acted.
And, of course, as you yourself concede, there was overwhelming support among the laity. Why is this somehow a Bad Thing? Are you saying the pope should not heed the voice of the laity, the sensus fidelium? Does not contemporary neo-sobornost EO ecclesiology stress the role of the laity? Are not the laity a crucial part of Christ’s Church, per current EO thought?
Bottom line: The popes drew on overwheming support among both the episcopacy and the laity before they issued their dogmatic definitions re the IC and Assumption. If anything, these two episodes illustrate the Vatican II vision of papal primacy working in tandem with episcopal collegiality. So, I fail to see your point. 🙂
Re the IC, BTW: The feast of Our Lady of Lourdes is coming up on the 11th. I plan to watch The Song of Bernadette, one of my all-time favorite movies. Highly recommended. Amazing the way Heaven went out of its way to confirm the IC–just four years after the pope’s dogmatic definition. 🙂
In the matter of previously debated issues not directly related to our relationship with the Holy Trinity — for example, Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans after him denied the immaculate conception for centuries while remaining good Catholics — why would or should a pope feel the need to make the teaching a life-or-death matter of salvation?
Newman had a very apt quote about this., But as it is very late, I will have to dig it up tomorrow. Please remind me. Life is short, blogs are long, and working moms are very forgetful. 🙂
I do not deny the truth of the Assumption of Theotokos, it is sung in many liturgies. The immaculate conception, on Western terms, may be correct but makes not as much sense in Eastern understanding of original sin.
But even with great support for its truth, I still fail to see why a pope should see fit to make something not directly related to our relationship with the Triune God a matter of life-and-death, believe it or be damned simply because I say you must. Perhaps Newman thought otherwise.
One more thought. In the fourth century, when writing about Our Lady’s life, St. Epiphanius said “we do not know about the end of her life.”
If Christians then did not claim absolute and certain knowledge of what transpired at the end of her blessed life, what right do we have to say otherwise?
We have received “the faith once given to the saints” (Jude 3). We do not just make it up and add things as we go along. Our relationship to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is known from the beginning, and we proclaim that through the ages. But St. Epiphanius was content, about the end of the life of Theotokos, to simply say, “we do not know.” I repeat, “we do not know.”
Thank goodness we do not have to base our Faith on what one solitary Father thought or knew. Don’t you think? 😉
Moreover, the fact that Saint Epiphanius didn’t know doesn’t mean it wasn’s so. Our Faith is based on What Actually Happened–not on what so-and-so knew about it. 🙂
Is this the same Epiphanius who is regarded as a sort of proto-iconoclast? Not to smear him, but neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism require a saint to be correct on every topic. The liturgical witness of both the Eastern and Western Churches to the Dormition / Assumption of the Theotokos is far more impressive to me than the testimony of one saint.
Okay, granted that the assumption of Theotokos is backed up by a good array of testimonies, and Epiphanius alone won’t counter that. The more hotly controverted issue (in both East and West) of the immaculate conception would have been a better example.
But you seem to be missing my point.
Namely, our relationship to the life of the Trinity is our salvation. And all the controverted questions of the early ecumenical councils dealt with our relationship with that Triune God, as touching the person of our Lord Jesus, the relationship between Father and Son and how that affects our redemption, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, etc. The title Theotokos was only defined because it directly impinged upon the person of her Divine Son.
But what are these luxurious, devotional definitions on pain of anathema about?
Is it really of the core of my Christian, Catholic, Orthodox existence that Theotokos was assumed into heaven? Granted that it is all true — and has been a pious and cherished belief of the faithful — is that so central to my faith that I should be anathema if I don’t agree with it and, say, accept the Dormition but not the Assumption? Should the threat of a curse hang over me because of a question about Our Lady’s personal life?
There is another movement in recent years to dogmatize Mary as “mediatrix of *all* graces” and “co-redemptrix” — why on earth is this needed? The proponents seem to think it will zap everyone and convert the world if this is made a dogma, but such a radical conversion did not occur in 1854 or 1950.
I mean, were these such burning questions at the heart of Christian faith that they needed to be defined? Should we have considered calling an ecumenical council to define the assumption?
What will be next? The immaculate conception and assumption of St. Joseph? I mean, we don’t have his bodily relics either, and it would be *fitting* for him to be immaculately conceived as the Guardian father of our Lord…so why not define that also? As a measure of redeemed manhood in Christ? And make that binding on pain of anathema as well?
Or perhaps Joseph is co-mediator of all graces?
Do you see how great the speculation can be?
Michael –
I see where you’re going, and I think that you have some interesting points from an Orthodox perspective. I’d like to hear a good RC answer. Although…
What will be next? The immaculate conception and assumption of St. Joseph? … Or perhaps Joseph is co-mediator of all graces?
This is a little over the top. It makes no sense theologically, and there would be absolutely no basis in any tradition for such a thing. Whereas the Assumption makes sense theologically (from both an Orthodox and Catholic perspective) and is well founded in the tradition of both East and West. The Immaculate Conception also makes theological sense from the perspective of Latin theology (and also, arguably, in some streams of Eastern theology as well), although its historical pedigree is a little checkered (e.g. opposition of Bernard and Aquinas).
I find it curious that Michael, who I gather is Orthodox, should be taking a “Protestant” position on the Marian dogmas.
Michael asserts that the Church should only dogmatize on trinitarian-christological questions; but when did the Church ever dogmatize such an arbitrary rule? Is the apostolic deposit of faith restricted to trinitarian/christological truths? Of course not. If the Virgin Mary’s original purity or her bodily assumption into heaven is in fact a truth of divine revelation, then it is a potential object of dogmatic definition, for the Church must be able to protect the entirety of revelation entrusted to her.
I am sympathetic to the suggestion that the Church should only define doctrine when circumstances require her to do so in order to protect the faithful from heresy. But this is a matter of prudence and wisdom. With regards to the Marian dogmas in question, the Holy Father determined that dogmatic definition was necessary for the well-being of the Church. Ultimately, that was his call to make. Since the dogmas are true, what is the harm? There is only real harm if the dogmas are false; but this cannot be so, from a Catholic perspective.
Newman’s comments on the dogma from his Apologia are instructive:
“Let me take the doctrine which Protestants consider our greatest difficulty, that of the Immaculate Conception. Here I entreat the reader to recollect my main drift, which is this. I have no difficulty in receiving it: if I have no difficulty, why may not another have no difficulty also? why may not a hundred? a thousand? Now I am sure that. Catholics in general have not any intellectual difficulty at all on the subject of the Immaculate Conception; and that there is no reason why they should. Priests have no difficulty. You tell me that they ought to have a difficulty;-but they have not. Be large-minded enough to believe, that men may reason and feel very differently from yourselves; how is it that men fall, when left to themselves, into such various forms of religion, except that there are various types of mind among them, very distinct from each other? From my testimony then about myself, if you believe it, judge of others also who are Catholics: we do not find the difficulties which you do in the doctrines which we hold; we have no intellectual difficulty in that in particular, which you call a novelty of this day. We priests need not be hypocrites, though we be called upon to believe in the Immaculate Conception. To that large class of minds, who believe in Christianity, after our manner, -in the particular temper, spirit, and light, (whatever word is used,) in which Catholics believe it,-there is no burden at all in holding that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin; indeed, it is a simple fact to say, that Catholics have not come to believe it because it is defined, but it was defined because they believed it.
“So far from the definition in 1854 being a tyrannical infliction on the Catholic world, it was received everywhere on its promulgation with the greatest enthusiasm. It was in consequence of the unanimous petition, presented from all parts to the Holy See, in behalf of a declaration that the doctrine was Apostolic, that it was declared so to be. I never heard of one Catholic having difficulties in receiving it, whose faith ,on other grounds was not already suspicious. Of course there were grave and good men, who were made anxious by the ,doubt whether it could be proved Apostolical either by Scripture or tradition, and who accordingly, though believing it themselves, did not see how it could be defined by authority; but this is another matter. The point in question is, whether the doctrine is a burden. I believe it to be none. So far from it being so, I sincerely think that St. Bernard and St. Thomas, who scrupled at it in their day, had they lived into this, would have rejoiced to accept it for its own sake. Their difficulty, as I view it, consisted in matters of words, ideas, and arguments. They thought the doctrine inconsistent with other doctrines; and those who defended it in that age had not that precision in their view of it, which has been given to it by means of the long controversy of the centuries which followed. And hence the difference of opinion, and the controversy.”
Might it be possible for Orthdoxy to receive the two Marian dogmas? Clearly the answer for the Assumption is yes. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the Catholic doctrine of the Assumption and the Orthodox doctrine of the Dormition is that the former does not assert, but does not deny, that Mary in fact died before being bodily assumed.
The Immaculate Conception, I grant, poses a more difficult problem but not perhaps an ultimately irresolvable problem. Resolution would require us to determine the essential truth that the dogma seeks to protect. Despite different formulations of original sin, we may well discover that the Catholic and Orthodox views on Mary’s purity and holiness are in fact identical. I do not think we can rule out this possibility. Are the Orthodox really comfortable declaring the Theotokos a sinner, without qualification? (See Balthasar’s reflections.)
I agree with our host that Michael’s comment on the immaculate conception and assumption of St Joseph are over-the-top. The Pope’s dogmatic authority is limited to that which has been revealed, and the Catholic Church trusts the Spirit to protect the Church from error in her dogmatic decisions, whether conciliar or papal. As Richard Neuhaus writes, “Under the direction of the Magisterium, the Church can develop and refine doctrine, but she cannot teach anything that contradicts the core truths of the tradition (the ‘deposit of faith’) or that cannot reasonably be believed. Were a pope to say that Mary is God or that 2+2=5, a loving and faithful response might be to say that one has misheard or misunderstood what was said. One might pray that the pope will clarify his statement, or be replaced by a pope who does not cause such confusion. Certainly I would not be bound to believe that Mary is God or that 2+2=5. But this way of thinking is fundamentally wrongheaded. To be obsessed with what ifs is to remain captive to fear” (Catholic Matters, pp. 78-79).
>Nevertheless, the Second Vatican Council was not able to reconcile fully the new elements – which in reality correspond to the oldest tradition – with the statements of the First Vatican Council. Many issues have remained unconnected.
>In this sense, the Second Vatican Council, too, has remained an uncompleted Council.
>The integration of the Petrine ministry in the whole of ecclesiology, the relation between the universal and the local dimensions of the Church, the applicability of the principle of subsidiarity, and other questions raise theological and practical questions that have not yet been definitively resolved.
CU, in an earlier thread on your blog you stated that Orthodox ecclesiology was still in a “state of transition” or something to that effect, a statement, btw, I would agree with. Do not the above statements indicate that RC ecclesiology is at least euqally in a state of transition/development?
Also, isn’t such a state somewhat disturbing after two councils devoted primarily to questions of ecclesiology? Joe
Fr Kimel,
Are the Orthodox really comfortable declaring the Theotokos a sinner, without qualification?
Of course not. The Orthodox venerate her as the all-pure, all-holy one. The Orthodox objection to the Immaculate Conception is not that they do not believe that she is immaculate. It is that the Immaculate Conception implies a doctrine of the transmission of original sin which is not part of the deposit of faith. The 1854 definition raises a theological explanation to the level of dogma. That is the problem; and it has nothing to do with anyone believing that our Lady is anything but sinless.
Fr. Alvin,
When did the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church pronounce dogmas not directly related to the Trinity? Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think the eighth council (879-880) or ninth (Palamas) did either.
So then does it all come down to the Holy Father in Rome again? Which means that the Roman Church is focussed solely on the pope, for only he can declare which councils are ecumenical, only he can proclaim dogma by himself. I suppose it is all ecclesiology.
Also, I don’t think it is true that the pope’s approval was the supreme criterion for accepting a council; witness that much of the Western Church did not initially accept the Seventh Council until quite late (in spite of Rome’s approval); the Second Council had no Western participation; the councils were generally called by the emperor; and for example the pope’s excommunication of Nestorius was ignored until after the Council of Chalcedon reviewed matters on its own. The reception by the Church of a Council is admittedly mysterious, as are all movements of the Spirit, who blows as He will.
Father Alvin,
Do Orthodox Christians, then, find themselves under a heavenly stroke of anathema and curse if they question the immaculate conception of Theotokos or accept her Dormition but not her Assumption?
Of course not. The Orthodox venerate her as the all-pure, all-holy one. The Orthodox objection to the Immaculate Conception is not that they do not believe that she is immaculate. It is that the Immaculate Conception implies a doctrine of the transmission of original sin which is not part of the deposit of faith.
Try thinking it this way, Chris: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception seeks to assert the hoiness and purity of the Blessed Virgin within the framework of an Augustinian understanding of sanctifying grace and original sin. In the absence of that framework, which has not been dogmatized and is not imposed on Byzantine Catholics, there may be other ways of asserting her holiness and purity. See, e.g., Alexander Roman’s brief Byzantine Catholic presentation: “The Immaculate Conception and Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West.” Also see Daniel Joseph Barton, “My Belief in the Immaculate Conception” and Dave Brown.
CU, in an earlier thread on your blog you stated that Orthodox ecclesiology was still in a “state of transition” or something to that effect, a statement, btw, I would agree with. Do not the above statements indicate that RC ecclesiology is at least euqally in a state of transition/development?
Yes, I think that’s fair to say: not in its essential content, but in some of its formulations and expressions.
I don’t think the eighth council (879-880) or ninth (Palamas) did either.
All Orthodox are agreed that there are at least Seven Ecumenical Councils. The notion among Orthodox of there being an Eighth Ecumenical Council is by no means a universal one. Likewise, the notion of the local councils confirming Palamas having some sort of ecumenical character is likewise not a universal concept (the Russian Church, for instance, never endorsed them) – and I have never heard of these local councils being called a “Ninth Ecumenical Council.”
When did the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church pronounce dogmas not directly related to the Trinity?
II Nicaea might be cited as an example, since it was directly concerned with devotional practice, though the theological implications are clear. But even if we concede that the all 7 of the ecumenical councils addressed trinitarian-christological matters, so what? Those were simply the issues that needed to be addressed at the time. Regional and local synods also addressed other theological questions during the first millenium. And during the second millenium, local Eastern synods in the 14th century dogmatically defined the Palamite distinction between God’s energies and essence. Is it not true that all Orthodox are bound to believe in this distinction, under pain of anathema, despite the fact that it lacks consensual patristic support? Is it not true that all Orthodox are required, on pain of anathema, to reject the Roman claims regarding the papacy, despite the fact that no ecumenical council has ever ruled on the matter?
I reiterate: the Church may dogmatize, when needed, on any and all matters related to the apostolic deposit of faith. I do not believe that Orthodox theologians will disagree with this principle.
Couldn’t we say that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption have very clear theological implications for the core doctrines of Original Sin and the Resurrection of the dead?
The “we-don’t-believe-in-Original-Sin” party in Orthodoxy will not be impressed with my question, of course, but it’s not as if the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are entirely unrelated to the rest of the Faith.
Are Eastern Catholics required to accept the Augustinian framework or to merely affirm its legitimacy?
“The notion among Orthodox of there being an Eighth Ecumenical Council is by no means a universal one.”
All of the bishops who signed the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848 seemed to remember the Eighth Ecumenical Council.
I have taken some relevant quotations from the document to save time:
xi.It [the Filioque] was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the
*Eighth Ecumenical Council,* congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.
[Again, speaking of the Filioque:)
“Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the *Eighth Ecumenical Council,* and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia. The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in them much worldly advantage, and “much gain,” and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will, separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
I reiterate: There is no consensus among Orthodox today that there are Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils. Most Orthodox authorities refer to Seven Ecumenical Councils.
“There is no consensus among Orthodox TODAY that there are Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils.”
Sure, as long as we agree that in 1848 a very substantial number of Orthodox authorities did agree on this point. (My only claim was that “all of the bishops who signed the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848 seemed to remember the Eighth Ecumenical Council.”)
CU,
It’d be nice sometime if you got around to answering the questions I addressed to you last month.
The reason why Orthodox authorities speak of the 7 councils is because the 7 function as the definitive refutation of all heresies and not because there aren’t more than 7. This is why earlier many Fathers spoke of the 4 and accorded them greater honor.
You confuse official teaching and consensus with what happens to be rolling around in the heads of various Orthodox. By the same standard the prohibiting of women to the priesthood by Rome isn’t binding either. Hardly.
It’d be nice sometime if you got around to answering the questions I addressed to you last month.
Uh, it’d be nice if you could jog my memory as to who you are, and where you addressed questions to me last month.
As far as the so-called eighth and ninth councils are concerned, I agree with other posters in this thread that there are only seven Ecumenical Councils.
Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize the fact that the decisions taken at the so-called Palamite Councils of the 14th century possess dogmatic authority within the Byzantine tradition, and that is why the decrees of those synods were added to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy.
No one can deny the real distinction, without a separation, between the divine essence and the divine energy and remain Orthodox.
The following is an excerpt taken from the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”:
To Barlaam and Akindynos and to their followers and successors,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
The Chapters Against BARLAAM and AKINDYNOS
To them who at times think and say that the light which shone forth from the Lord at His Divine transfiguration is an apparition, a thing created, and a phantom which appears for an instant and then immediately vanishes, and who at other times think and say that this light is the very essence of God, and thus dementedly cast themselves into entirely contradictory and impossible positions; to such men who, on the one hand, raving with Arios’ madness, sever the one Godhead and the one God into created and uncreated, and who, on the other hand, are entangled in the impiety of the Massalians who assert that the Divine essence is visible, and who moreover, do not confess, in accord with the divinely-inspired theologies of the saints and the pious mind of the Church, that that supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
Again, to those same men who think and say that God has no natural energy, but is nought but essence, who suppose the Divine essence and the Divine energy to be entirely identical and undistinguishable and with no apprehensible difference between them; who call the same thing at times essence and at times energy, and who senselessly abolish the very essence of God and reduce it to non-being, for, as the teachers of the Church say, “Only non-being is deprived of an energy” to these men who think as did Sabellios, and who dare now to renew his ancient contraction, confusion and coalescing of the three Hypostaseis of the Godhead upon the essence and energy of God by confounding them in an equally impious manner; to these men who do not confess in accord with the divinely-inspired theologies of the saints and the pious mind of the Church, that in God there is both essence and essential, natural energy, as a great many of the saints, and especially all those who gathered at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, have clearly explained with respect to Christ’s two energies, both Divine and human, and His two wills; to those then who in nowise wish to comprehend that, even as there is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable; to them, therefore, who profess such impieties,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
Again, to those same men who think and say that every natural power and energy of the Tri-hypostatic Godhead is created, and thereby are constrained to believe that the very essence of God is also created, since, according to the saints, created energy evidences a created nature, whereas uncreated energy designates an uncreated nature; to these men who, in consequence, are in danger now of falling into complete atheism, who have affixed the mythology of the Greeks and the worship of creatures to the pure and spotless faith of the Christians and who do not confess, in accord with the divinely-inspired theologies of the saints and the pious mind of the Church, that every natural power and energy of the Tri-hypostatic Godhead is uncreated,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
Again, to those same men who think and say that through these pious doctrines a compounding comes to pass in God, for they do not comply with the teaching of the saints, that no compounding occurs in a nature from its natural properties; to such men who thereby lay false accusation not only against us, but against all the saints who, at great length and on many occasions, have most lucidly restated both the doctrine of God’s simplicity and uncompoundedness and the distinction of the Divine essence and energy, in such a manner so that this distinction in no way destroys the Divine simplicity, for otherwise, they would contradict their own teaching; to such, therefore, as speak these empty words and do not confess in accord with the divinely-inspired theologies of the saints and the pious mind of the Church, that the Divine simplicity is most excellently preserved in this God-befitting distinction,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
Again, to those same men who think and say that the name ‘Godhead’ or ‘Divinity’ can be applied only to the essence of God, but who do not confess in accord with the divinely-inspired theologies of the saints and the pious mind of the Church, that this appellation equally pertains to the Divine energy, and that thus one Godhead: of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is by all means still professed, whether one apply the name ‘Godhead’ to Their essence, or to Their energy, as the divine expounders of the mysteries have instructed us,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
Again, to those same men who think and say that the essence of God is communicable, and who thus without shame strive to subtly introduce into our Church the impiety of the Massalians, who of old suffered from the malady of this same opinion, and who thus do not confess in accord with the divinely-inspired theologies of the saints and the pious mind of the Church, that the essence of God is wholly inapprehensible and incommunicable, whereas the grace and energy of God are communicable,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
To all the impious words and writings of these men,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
To Isaac, surnamed Argyros, who suffered throughout his life with the malady of Barlaam and Akindynos, and though at the end of his life the Church asked, as formerly she had often done, for his return and repentance, he nevertheless remained obdurate in his impiety and in the profession of his heresy, and wretchedly vomited forth his soul,
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.
Stephen –
Whoa! I have never questioned the Orthodoxy of Saint Gregory Palamas, or his distinction between the essence and energies of God. I simply questioned whether or not in Orthodoxy there are really any true Ecumenical Councils beyond Nicaea II.
However, I do not want to get into a huge debate about the number of the Ecumenical Councils, or the Palamite distinction. Remember, this com-box is linked to an article by Cardinal Walter Kasper on the interpretation of Vatican I.
It is the liturgy that expresses the consensus of the Orthodox Church as far as the councils are concerned. And, of course, the liturgy commemorates the seven great councils at various times throughout the year (including the Sunday of Orthodoxy), and on the second Sunday of Great Fast it commemorates St. Gregory Palamas, which officially expresses the dogmatic acceptance by the Orthodox Church of the doctrine proclaimed at Palamite Councils of the 14th century.
CU,
I never said that you personally questioned anything about Palamas or the essence / energy distinction.
I merely pointed out in my post that only the Seven Councils of the first millennium are truly ecumenical, while the Palamite synods, although not ecumenical in the proper sense of the term, are nevertheless dogmatically binding on all Byzantine Christians.
God bless,
Todd
CU said: “However, I do not want to get into a huge debate about the number of the Ecumenical Councils, or the Palamite distinction. Remember, this com-box is linked to an article by Cardinal Walter Kasper on the interpretation of Vatican I.”
I do understand, but — of course — the Seven Ecumenical Councils are going to play a huge role in the process of restoring balance to the doctrine of primacy in the Roman Church. Perhaps that is why I found the articles by Vlassios Phidas and V. Nicolae Dura more interesting than the article written by Cardinal Kasper, but then my overall opinion of Cardinal Kasper went down considerably after I read his book “Jesus the Christ.”
God bless,
Todd
I wouldn’t join the Cardinal Kasper Fan Club either, but I thought that this particular essay was interesting (along with the other essays in the book).
I am Perry Robinson and I asked you some questions over on owen white’s blog when you were participating there. You keep commenting but never attempted to answer the questions I posed to you. Take a look at the thread.
OK, Perry, I’ve found the questions.
I saw your original comment asking me about the quote from the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which I never answered because I don’t have any profound thoughts about it either way, as confirming or denying papal primacy).
I didn’t see the second set of questions, because I didn’t feel like reading any more speculations about me from people who don’t know me from Adam. Because of the somewhat personal nature of your questions, I’d rather answer them in e-mail, if you don’t mind.
Fr Kimel, you wrote:
“Try thinking it this way, Chris: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception seeks to assert the hoiness and purity of the Blessed Virgin within the framework of an Augustinian understanding of sanctifying grace and original sin. In the absence of that framework, which has not been dogmatized and is not imposed on Byzantine Catholics, there may be other ways of asserting her holiness and purity.”
In what way, and by virtue of which Conciliar or Papal proclamation, are Byzantine Catholics not bound to believe in the Immaculate Conception as defined by Pius IX? If they are indeed bound to this dogma, how can they not thereby also be bound to this Augustinian framework?
Once the “Augustinian framework” goes, alot more than the RC Marian Dogmas go with it… I *thought* that Eastern Catholics were required merely to affirm the orthodoxy and legitimacy of Western theological developments, but I may be wrong.
In what way, and by virtue of which Conciliar or Papal proclamation, are Byzantine Catholics not bound to believe in the Immaculate Conception as defined by Pius IX? If they are indeed bound to this dogma, how can they not thereby also be bound to this Augustinian framework?
This question is perhaps best asked of Byzantine Catholics themselves. I have already cited some articles above. Do take a look at them. As far as I know, Byzantine bishops amd theologians do not feel bound to express the truth of the IC dogma in Western concepts and terms. That is simply a fact of the Catholic Church. What I think the Catholic Church can ask of her Eastern members is to be as faithful as possible to the original intent of the dogma, even while reformulating it into Eastern conceptuality.
Many different understandings of grace and original sin exist within the Catholic Church today and no doubt always have. The IC dogma presupposes that all human beings are born without sanctifying grace. The East works with a different understanding of grace. I do not yet understand this difference, but I recognize it. The challenge of Byzantine
Catholics is to restate the IC dogma within Eastern, non-Augustian terms. I don’t know if anyone who quite done this yet.
Stephen, perhaps the best way to begin is to ask, what errors does the IC dogma intend to exclude? Are these errors found in formal Orthodox teaching? Perhaps the IC dogma will encourage the East to retrieve deep portions of her tradition?
As a Byzantine Catholic I must admit that the Western Augustinian theory of the Immaculate Conception is not that important to me; instead, I prefer to focus upon the doctrinal and spiritual tradition of the Byzantine Church. Now with that in mind, I hold that the Theotokos — like every other human being — had to go through the process of theosis, which means that she experienced a growth in sanctification throughout her life; and, in fact, the process of divinization continues even into eternity, both for her and for all other human beings.
Nevertheless, this does not impugn the dignity of the Virgin Mother, for, as St. Gregory Palamas said, “The Virgin Mother, and she alone, is the frontier between created and uncreated nature. All who know God will recognize her as the one who contained Him Who cannot be contained. All who sing hymns to God will praise her next after Him. She is the cause of the benefits which preceded her, the protectress of those which came after, and through her those good things which are eternal shall be received. She is the theme of the prophets, the first of the Apostles, the support of the martyrs, the dais of the teachers. She is the glory of those on earth, the delight of those in heaven, the adornment of the whole Creation. She is the beginning, fount and root of the hope stored up for us in heaven.” [St. Gregory Palamas, “Homily 14: On the Annunciation,” no. 15]
God bless,
Todd
Happy Feast Day of Our Lady of Lourdes, y’all. 🙂
“Que soy l’Immaculada Concepciou”–Our Lady to Saint Bernadette of Soubirous, whose completely incorrupt body, BTW, still lies at Nevers, France.
oops, I think that is supposed to be “Que soy ero l’Immaculada Concepciou.”
I’m not up on my Pyrenees dialect. 🙂
Without the Augustinian framework, the intent of the IC dogma, its theological presuppositions and motivations are all gone. However, I do not want to have a debate over the Marian dogmas, what concerns me is the status of the “Augustianian framwework” and Scholastic theology as *optional* for Eastern Catholics.
Theological claims and dogmas are all interconnected; now if you simply believe that Eastern Catholics have different ways of expressing the *same* truth, then fine, but if you genuinely believe that Eastern Catholics adhere to a theology which is in many ways substantively different, contradicts and conflicts with RC teaching, then there is a problem.
I am sure that there are some Eastern Catholics who accept the “Augustinian framework,” but I must admit that I have not met one in person yet. Nevertheless, perhaps one of them will be kind enough to post a response to your concern.
However, I do not want to have a debate over the Marian dogmas, what concerns me is the status of the “Augustianian framwework” and Scholastic theology as *optional* for Eastern Catholics.
Heck, scholastic theology is option for Latin Catholics, too. Why should the Byzantines be exempt. 🙂
The DIC as defined in Ineffabilis Deus requires no assumptions that are not themselves dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent. None require the Augustinian idea that original sin is personal guilt; hence, DIC does not premise or entail that original sin is inherited personal guilt. DIC does assume that original sin, as a state of alienation from God, is inherited by all humans save Jesus and Mary and removed by baptism. But I hardly think that controversial.
Mike,
It is controversial, inasmuch as there is not even an allusion to it in the rite of baptism.
http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism.asp
Stephen
Stephen: Where does human sin come from, then? You will concede that we are all sinners, I presume. Is it a huge mysterious coincidence that we all happen to be sinners? I am genuinely confused by this.
While Original Sin may be a legitimate East-West issue to discuss, I don’t want the com-box discussion to go too far out of bounds.
I will only add that Orthodox do not speak with one voice on this issue. Some authors will endorse something very close or identical to the Western Church’s concept of Original Sin; other authors endorse Original Sin with some reservations about the expression of the doctrine in the Western Church; and still others go as far as to deny the concept of Original Sin in Orthodox theology. All of these positions seem to be drawing something from the legitimate Eastern theological tradition.
The fact that the term “Original Sin” or even explicit references to it may be absent from the Orthodox rite of Baptism does not prove that Orthodoxy completely lacks a concept of Original Sin. There are enough Eastern Orthodox representative writers – ancient, medieval, modern, contemporary – to show that it is not a concept foreign to Orthodoxy. And, if I’m not mistaken, you won’t find the term “Original Sin” or explicit references to it even in the Roman rite of Baptism.
These posts from an Orthodox blog are particularly helpful on the topic of Original Sin in Orthodoxy.
CU,
Sin is a personal reality, which means that it requires the hypostatic enactment of a man’s will. Now, because sin is personal and not natural, it follows that no one is born sinful; instead, following Adam’s sin all human beings are born mortal. In other words, Adam’s sin introduced a principle of annihilation into created being (i.e., it is moving toward non-existence), which was only reversed by the incarnation of the eternal Logos, but this principle of corruption (i.e., annihilation) must never be confused with the Augustinian idea of inherited guilt or sin.
The website you referred to is hardly representative of Orthodox thought on the matter, nor does it take into account what Fr. Maloney (S.J.) described in his book “A History of Orthodox Theology Since 1453,” as an intrusion of Scholastic ideas into the East, which only began to be reversed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The idea of inherited sinfulness is incompatible with the Christological definitions issued at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
God bless,
Todd
Todd –
If the notion of inherited sinfulness in Eastern Orthodox writers is somehow a product of “the intrusion of Scholastic ideas into the East,” how would you account for the notion of inherited sinfulness in the quotes by John Cassian, Makarios of Egypt, John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, Peter of Damascus, Gregory Palamas, Nikiphoros the Monk, Gregory of Sinai, etc. referenced in the blog link above?
Postscript: As far as the website you referred to is concerned, it is not so much what he quotes that is a problem, it is how one interprets the texts.
Now, one could diagram the Eastern and Western traditions this way:
West: Sin causes death / Sin causes death (i.e., Adam sins and brings death, and then Adam’s descendants are born sinful because they inherit his personal sin, and they die because of it).
East: Sin causes death / Death causes sin (i.e., Adam sins and brings death, and then Adam’s descendants are born mortal, and because they are mortal they fall into sins).
In other words, the focus of the West is upon sin, while the focus of the East is upon death, and this is reflected in the different interpretations given by the two traditions to Romans 5:12.
Now back to Kasper the friendly Cardinal.
CU,
I don’t believe that Cassian or any of the other Fathers of the East held that idea. Westerners read everything in the “light” of Augustine, but they need to replace that bulb, because it is defective.
God bless,
Todd
P.S. – One can find texts where Eastern authors even speak of a “stain” in association with the ancestral sin, but the stain is not a moral one; instead, it involves the corruption of our being (i.e., its return to non-existence). Sin is centered in the hypostatic enactment of the natural will, and not in the natural will itself, or Christ, who assumed a full and complete human nature, would have been sinful. The effects of the ancestral sin must be read in a Christology, not anthropology.
“The effects of the ancestral sin must be read in a Christology, not anthropology.”
Sorry, I left out a couple of words, this sentence should read as follows:
The effects of the ancestral sin must be read in the light of Christology, not anthropology.
BTW, there was a good article in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly (Volume 39, no. 4, 1995) that compared the doctrine of Chrysostom and Augustine on the consequences of the ancestral sin, it is entitled “Chrysostom and Augustine on the Sin of Adam and its Consequences.” The article shows where the two Fathers agree, and where they disagree, and the main disagreement is focused upon the idea of inherited sinfulness.
God bless,
Todd
Now back to Kasper the friendly Cardinal.
Great idea, Todd! 🙂 I’m going to freeze the comments on this post. The Kasper comments should continue in the next post.