An Open Letter to Jose Miguel
- Tony Lowe
- Apr 3, 2024
- 3 min read
Dear Jose,
This is in response to a discussion we began to have here, in response to the article I wrote here, in which I claimed that the Eastern Orthodox lack the proper mechanisms by which to determine essential doctrines.
Given the limited word count and the need to address a mixture of points and confusions all at once, it seemed better to opt for a full-form answer.
Firstly, when you asked: “Are you a Scotist, a Thomist, or a Palamist per Union of Brest?” Perhaps, at first, I didn’t know exactly what you were referring to… the three thinkers mentioned have a variety of different views pertaining to this event, and a Catholic layman is under no obligation to accept any of them.
It’s also odd that you even mention “Palamist” as an option, given that Gregory Palamas was an Easter Orthodox cleric, not a Catholic.
It is important to note from the outset that there are different grades of Catholic dogma, from what everyone is universally bound to believe, to what is open for consideration amongst the faithful, yet not binding. Theological opinions are of this second, lower kind. More is made of this in the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott.
When I said that “the issue you mentioned is not related to any kind of dispute over essential doctrines” what I meant is that disagreements amongst theologians is not tantamount to a disagreement about essential doctrines because Catholic Dogma remains unaffected. In that sense, a particular disagreement amongst theologians doesn’t bare upon the essentials. They may be correct or in error, until the Church makes a magisterial decree.
Now, yes, the specific issue you proceed to discuss: the Trinity, is an essential doctrine. But as it happens, neither Scotus nor Aquinas present arguments that explicitly contradict the Church’s teaching on it (although Aquinas' teaching is more explicitly in line with it). Scotus emphasises different things, which leaves him open to debate, and ultimately, if his approach is tantamount to a real denial of the Church’s official teaching, it is wrong. This is how Catholic Dogma and, by extension, Catholic theology maintains its consistency.
And so, no, there aren’t 3 “systems” in Catholicism, as you stated. There is one system with a core of consistent Dogma, authoritatively supported, along with peripheral discussions that are not considered to be binding.
For this reason, your argument includes a straw-man fallacy.
You implied that 2 or more Catholic theologians have a real disagreement about a defined, essential doctrine (they don’t),
And by extension you implied that, therefore, there is a conflict within the body of binding Catholic doctrine (there isn’t).
Later, you followed my comment:
“the issue you mentioned isn’t even related to any kind of dispute over essential doctrines”
With:
“That means theology isn’t essential. If that isn’t essential, what is?”
Which is a form of conflation. You are conflating some aspects of theology with all of theology. As just mentioned, defined dogmas and theological opinions are neither the same thing nor hold the same weight, though both are theology.
Hopefully, this resolves the rest of the confusion about essential doctrines and accepting councils. Yes, as a Catholic I accept the Catholic view of the Trinity as dogmatic and essential, and yes I accept the Council of Florence. Your arguments are based upon misnomers.
Now, as to your claims about the consistency of the Eastern Orthodox Jurisdictions…
I asked, “[is there] universal agreement about the Council of Jerusalem? Do all agree to accept it and be bound by its teachings?”
And you replied, “The Council of Jerusalem in 1672 was a Great Synod, binding to the whole Orthodox body.”
This is true. I admit that I got my facts wrong and thought that there was some disagreement about The Council of Jerusalem. There isn’t.
However, there is a modern example of a council which is simultaneously presented as pan-orthodox, yet not pan-orthodox: The Council of Crete (2016):
But the really key thing is that you have no real, consistent for criteria for saying which councils must be accepted, and which rejected.
You can’t use:
The number of bishops (because some “false” councils had large numbers of bishops),
The unanimity of bishops (because not all councils regarded as binding had full unanimity),
The decrees of subsequent councils (because the council confirming that other councils are legitimate does, itself, need to be legitimised by a future council), nor
The apparent, general, widespread acceptance of the Eastern Orthodox church because this makes the legitimacy backwards or argues in a circle: the legitimacy of the council is only confirmed once it is accepted by the very people who it is supposed to have authority over.
The full version of this argument is given here, along with other points:
Regards,
Tony
The reason I mention Palamist as an option is because post-Union of Brest in 1596, and with the bringing in of multiple Eastern churches into union with Rome under the same ecclesiastical principle, there are multiple groups from the Melkites to the Ruthenian Uniates who hold to Palamas' system which is incompatible with Aquinas' system. What this results in is a union of political loyalty to the Vatican not a union of the same faith, if these theological systems are part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith that has been preserved and handed down. From your explanation, I understand that Rome sees these as distinct from the Deposit of Faith, which explains why in Roman practice they are non-essential.
This…