Accepted doctrines and dogma (papal infallibility, et al)

[crazzeto]

Could we not be united on a common faith? An obvious statement. But again, IF the later 14 Latin Councils dealt with internal matters of the Latin Church, Latin theology/ecclesiology and movements like the Reformation, why should this impact the Eastern Churches?

Now, if it can be shown that the Eastern Churches deny something affirmed by Rome (distinguishing carefully between Latin theological wording and the actual faith behind it which can be expressed in other ways), then I concede your argument.

If not, then . . .

Alex

How can one say we’re united upon commonfaith though? When so many are so willing to declare eccumenical councils “internal latin matters” and set them aside?

Edit
I also wonder, whether or not there is a real understanding with some in the East as to what exactly it is they disagree with… When they set aside trent, when they set aside the IC, when they set aside purgatory… I have a sense, that there is a serious lack of understanding as to what exactly Trent, Vatican I, and the Pope taught regarding these matters.

There is the domga, and then there are theologies used to explain the dogmas. The two are not the same.

 

[Formosus]

Alexander’s point is what do those Latin councils teach that the our Byzantine faith handed down to us by our forefathers does not teach? The 14 Latin councils did not address matters that affected the whole Church, just theological issues that were important in the West. Things like rejection of the Real Presence or Purgatory were only issues among the westerners. The East, while using our own terminology, has never denied these things. So we do not need a western council telling us what to believe on these matters when we never went astray in the first place.

As far as I go, I do not deny that Trent, Vatican I, etc were all valid councils and that there is much spiritual benefit to be gained from them. Simply put though, I consider them on the same level as councils like the Council of Carthage and other local Latin councils. Much as I do not expect Latins to accept the degrees of Trullo or the Palamite councils.

 

[smad0142]

They would have to accept all the dogmatic and doctrinal statements from the councils, including the two ex cathedra statements that have been made. They do not necessairly have to accept our explanation of dogams such as the Immaculate Conception, but they would have to be in agreement that the fundamental truth that dogma expresses is true.

 

[ciero]

They would have to accept all the dogmatic and doctrinal statements from the councils, including the two ex cathedra statements that have been made. They do not necessairly have to accept our explanation of dogams such as the Immaculate Conception, but they would have to be in agreement that the fundamental truth that dogma expresses is true.

Boy even the Popes haven’t required all that! Maybe you need to go to Rome and teach the Pope his job.

 

[Nine_Two]

Is there something taught by the later Latin Councils that the Eastern Catholic churches don’t accept as part of their patrimony from pre-schism times?

If not, what is there for EC’s to accept from these Councils, that dealt with issues affecting the Western Church only?

The Oriental Orthodox have a similar issue with the Eastern Orthodox - they only accept the first three Councils and say the latter four deal with issues that arose in the Roman-Byzantine province of the Church and had nothing to do with them. Thus, without accepting the 7th Ec. Council, they have and venerate icons.

Where is the schismatic tendency?

Alex

As Catholics love to point out, the issue of icons at the 7th council was an issue of the Eastern Church. I will add to that they accept it completely. There isn’t a unity between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches so whether or not they accept the council or not is irrelevent. Quite frankly from what I know of the Oriental Churches they would have no problem affirming the dictates of that council in their present form, the disagreement there is completely limited to the 4th council.

As to your opening line, certainly there are things in those councils not accepted by Eastern Christians from pre-schism times, one of the most blatent, and which seems to be were Eastern Christians show the most friction with Latins, is on Papal Infallibility.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

That seems to be the official line, and regardless if I agree with it or not, Eastern Catholics seem happy to discard them.

I don’t believe that is true of *all *Eastern Catholics. I know Eastern Catholics who accept all the doctrines of the Roman Pontiff in accordance with canon law, which include the teachings of the extraordinary magisterium manifest in all 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, as well as the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

It appears that there are some Eastern Catholics who dissent with the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. If you have spent any time on these forums, you’ll note that there are also some Latin Catholics who dissent with the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even though they claim communion with the Roman Pontiff. Full communion is dubious, depending upon what it is they are dissenting with.

According to Cardinal Ratzinger, when prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith:

"Whoever obstinately places them doctrines set forth infallibly, de fide credenda] in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law… [e.g. the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff]

Whoever denies these truths doctrines set forth infallibly, de fide tenenda] would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church… [e.g. priestly ordination is reserved only to men]

A proposition contrary to these doctrines sententia certa of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops] can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore ‘tuto doceri non potest’ [unable to be safely taught]. .

(Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Doctrinal Commentary on *Professio Fidei, *29 June 1998, promulgated with *Ad tuendam fidem *by John Paul II)

According to John Paul II:

"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions

… It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that ***dissent from the magisterium ***is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error…" (Pope John Paul II in his speech to the Bishops in 1987)

 

[Seamus_L]

I think you’ll find that many of the dissenters within Eastern Catholicism are converts, a significant number of whom will go on to be Orthodox not in communion with Rome.

 

[ciero]

I think you’ll find that many of the dissenters within Eastern Catholicism are converts, a significant number of whom will go on to be Orthodox not in communion with Rome.

Not in my experience.

 

[josephdaniel29]

What is our commuion based on?

Submission to the Bishop of Rome. Actual unity of faith is secondary.

 

[JohnVIII]

I think you’ll find that many of the dissenters within Eastern Catholicism are converts, a significant number of whom will go on to be Orthodox not in communion with Rome.

I have no clue if it is “a significant number” or not but I am one of these. But I have immensely enjoyed reading here of Eastern Catholics standing up for orthodoxy within the communion of Rome! Nevertheless, as for me, I don’t wish to go to Church to fight over dogma with my brothers in Christ. Rome’s not the only See of St Peter anyway that a Christian could wish to be in communion with.

 

[Aramis]

Here are some of my questions for the EC.

If you don’t believe the teachings of the Church, then why are you Catholic?

And if you don’t believe the teachings of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then what makes you any different from the Orthodox? Because honestly the only things that separate us are a handful of dogmas.

And furthermore if you do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church of God with a Living Authority then why o why do you confine yourselves to the first seven ecumenical councils?

We do. But unlike most Romans, we don’t confuse the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church Sui Iuris, nor the teachings thereof.

Roman Teaching is not all “The Teaching of the Catholic Church.” It is, like Ruthenian Catholic Teaching, or Ukrainian Catholic Teaching, or Melkite Teaching, a superset containing the Holy Catholic Church’s Teaching.

But most Romans, many in ignorance, some in arrogance, and some in malice, believe that the the Church’s universal teaching is the sum total of all Roman Church Teachings, when it is not.

You seem to be making that same error.

 

[sidbrown]

But most Romans, many in ignorance, some in arrogance, and some in malice, believe that the the Church’s universal teaching is the sum total of all Roman Church Teachings, when it is not.

Would you be able to help out us Romans and elaborate a bit as to what are the theological teachings of the universal Catholic Church which are not contained in the Roman Church teachings. I am familiar with the fasting differences, and receiving Communion in both kinds by a spoon, confession at the altar in front of the priest, no musical instrumentation in Church services, the use and importance of icons, and other disciplinary differences, so there is no need to mention those. I am more concerned about the theological teachings of the universal Church which are separate from the Roman Church teachings.

 

[Aramis]

Would you be able to help out us Romans and elaborate a bit as to what are the theological teachings of the universal Catholic Church which are not contained in the Roman Church teachings. I am familiar with the fasting differences, and receiving Communion in both kinds by a spoon, confession at the altar in front of the priest, no musical instrumentation in Church services, the use and importance of icons, and other disciplinary differences, so there is no need to mention those. I am more concerned about the theological teachings of the universal Church which are separate from the Roman Church teachings.

You’ve got it backwards.

There are a great many Roman Teachings which are not Universal:
The Assumption of Mary while alive
The personal stain of original sin.
The fires of Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception of Mary by Elizabeth (Can’t be free of what one isn’t born with)
Amongst a number of others.

The relevant teaching on the Immaculate conception, that Mary was free from all sin, does not, in the Byzantine Teachings, require being free from the effects of Adam’s sin.

On the Assumption: Romans teach she was assumed while alive; the dogma is that she was taken to heaven, body and soul, but not of need before the death of the body. Byzantine Tradition includes her soul in heaven before her body, and her body dead 3 days when it was assumed.

The Personal Stain of Original Sin holds, essentially, that all are born with a mortal sin upon their soul. Eastern theologies generally accept that one needs baptism to become part of the Family of God, and to assuredly open one to the grace needed for Salvation, but not that we have that stain of Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin cast humanity out of the Garden; all outside it suffer death. Even Mary experienced the death of the Body. We are not born filled with sin through Adam and Eve’s sin, we are instead deprived of divine grace, which, had they not sinned, would have been our Birthright, and through baptism, is restored to us.

Byzantine Theosis does not include purgatorial fire. It does include continuing change, continued prayer, continued growing closer to Christ, and continued benefit from the prayers of the faithful and the saints. But it meets the actual dogmatic definition… which merely includes posthumous purification and satisfaction for sins.

Each of the 23 Churches has its own body of teaching; most of them of any given Rite will be very close to others of that same rite.

the majority of differences are far more subtle.

 

[ciero]

You’ve got it backwards.

There are a great many Roman Teachings which are not Universal:
The Assumption of Mary while alive
The personal stain of original sin.
The fires of Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception of Mary by Elizabeth (Can’t be free of what one isn’t born with)
Amongst a number of others.

The relevant teaching on the Immaculate conception, that Mary was free from all sin, does not, in the Byzantine Teachings, require being free from the effects of Adam’s sin.

On the Assumption: Romans teach she was assumed while alive; the dogma is that she was taken to heaven, body and soul, but not of need before the death of the body. Byzantine Tradition includes her soul in heaven before her body, and her body dead 3 days when it was assumed.

The Personal Stain of Original Sin holds, essentially, that all are born with a mortal sin upon their soul. Eastern theologies generally accept that one needs baptism to become part of the Family of God, and to assuredly open one to the grace needed for Salvation, but not that we have that stain of Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin cast humanity out of the Garden; all outside it suffer death. Even Mary experienced the death of the Body. We are not born filled with sin through Adam and Eve’s sin, we are instead deprived of divine grace, which, had they not sinned, would have been our Birthright, and through baptism, is restored to us.

Byzantine Theosis does not include purgatorial fire. It does include continuing change, continued prayer, continued growing closer to Christ, and continued benefit from the prayers of the faithful and the saints. But it meets the actual dogmatic definition… which merely includes posthumous purification and satisfaction for sins.

Each of the 23 Churches has its own body of teaching; most of them of any given Rite will be very close to others of that same rite.

the majority of differences are far more subtle.

Well put Aramis! Happy Lent!

 

[crazzeto]

Alexander’s point is what do those Latin councils teach that the our Byzantine faith handed down to us by our forefathers does not teach? The 14 Latin councils did not address matters that affected the whole Church, just theological issues that were important in the West. Things like rejection of the Real Presence or Purgatory were only issues among the westerners. The East, while using our own terminology, has never denied these things. So we do not need a western council telling us what to believe on these matters when we never went astray in the first place.

As far as I go, I do not deny that Trent, Vatican I, etc were all valid councils and that there is much spiritual benefit to be gained from them. Simply put though, I consider them on the same level as councils like the Council of Carthage and other local Latin councils. Much as I do not expect Latins to accept the degrees of Trullo or the Palamite councils.

The problem comes in, when language like “do not accept”, or “such and such council was for latins only” comes into play. I can appreciate the position of the Eastern Catholic wanting to perserve, maintain and defend the Eastern Tradition. That is fine, an Eastern Catholic has every right to defend their and uphold their theology and they should. I fully admit, many Roman Rite Christians not understanding the difference between theology and dogma well get into trouble by pretending the Eastern Catholic must in full accept and fully integrate into their being all Western theology.

Of course they don’t have to do this, but an Eastern Catholic should not defened their Rite and theology to the point of denying eccumenical council, or pretending they don’t accept the tennants of council. These councils do not deal with internal “latin matters”. They, rather, define dogma in a way which is accepting to the whole universal church. We should all assent fully to the teachings of the council, and then apply our theology, our understanding and expression of the dogmatic teaching to it.

So Alexander says he fully accepts these councils, terrific! Then he should stop pretending these are Latin only affirs, these were not “Latins only” gathering clubs.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

They would have to accept all the dogmatic and doctrinal statements from the councils, including the two ex cathedra statements that have been made. They do not necessairly have to accept our explanation of dogams such as the Immaculate Conception, but they would have to be in agreement that the fundamental truth that dogma expresses is true.

Then we have been in agreement with these teachings even before the Latin Church declared them!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The problem comes in, when language like “do not accept”, or “such and such council was for latins only” comes into play. I can appreciate the position of the Eastern Catholic wanting to perserve, maintain and defend the Eastern Tradition. That is fine, an Eastern Catholic has every right to defend their and uphold their theology and they should. I fully admit, many Roman Rite Christians not understanding the difference between theology and dogma well get into trouble by pretending the Eastern Catholic must in full accept and fully integrate into their being all Western theology.

Of course they don’t have to do this, but an Eastern Catholic should not defened their Rite and theology to the point of denying eccumenical council, or pretending they don’t accept the tennants of council. These councils do not deal with internal “latin matters”. They, rather, define dogma in a way which is accepting to the whole universal church. We should all assent fully to the teachings of the council, and then apply our theology, our understanding and expression of the dogmatic teaching to it.

So Alexander says he fully accepts these councils, terrific! Then he should stop pretending these are Latin only affirs, these were not “Latins only” gathering clubs.

Dear Friend in Christ,

First of all, we are talking about a proposition which Pope Paul VI himself had alluded to as a possible way of looking at the 14 Councils. This is a matter of discussion, not dogmatic pronouncement. I’ve no authority to make such pronouncements. Perhaps one day . . .

And I’m not pretending about anything - please calm down and if this discussion is upsetting to you, then I will withdraw and we can talk about something else. This is Lent, after all.

At no time did I characterize those Councils as “Latins only clubs” or the like. The point is that they were Latin Catholic Councils dealing with important doctrinal and disciplinary issues.

My point is that since the EC churches and the Eastern tradition did not have ITS faith and discipline affected by the factors that led to those Councils, the Councils do not necessarily have to apply to the Churches of the East.

The Immaculate Conception is a case in point. There are other examples. Roman Catholics might wish to give this matter closer attention and see to what extent they are themselves bound by their own theological a priori’s that prevents them from appreciating the Eastern Catholic approach to these things. I have yet to read even one RC poster here demonstrate such an appreciation.

I’ve no interest in developing a situation here for myself where I might be accused of being something I’m not.

So have a great Lent.

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

…Eastern Catholic should not defened their Rite and theology to the point of denying eccumenical council, or pretending they don’t accept the tennants of council…

I think you may be right in terms of ethics. I had accepted the primacy of the Pope, but after a time being in communion with Rome I realized that I did not accept it in the way it was spelled out in every particular in Vatican I. Whether it is right or wrong to be in communion without FULL acceptance of every tenant, not everyone seems to agree. But perhaps what might be more important is that because some (such as you seem to) take offense at this, I do not wish to be the cause of someone’s offense.

These councils do not deal with internal “latin matters”. They, rather, define dogma in a way which is accepting to the whole universal church. We should all assent fully to the teachings of the council, and then apply our theology, our understanding and expression of the dogmatic teaching to it.

So Alexander says he fully accepts these councils, terrific! Then he should stop pretending these are Latin only affirs, these were not “Latins only” gathering clubs.

I only accept 7 Ecumenical Councils (maybe only 6, as I question #4).

According to the criteria set down by Rome (as I understand it) really none of the Eastern Churches have to be a part of the council to make it “ecumenical”! Some understand it to be that only the pope alone is all that is needed for ecumenical authority. Others say that there is a need for collegiality with the pope, but even then collegiality need not be any further than the Roman Church since it is thought that no error can come into the Roman Church. So if this is really true it becomes a very hard thing the Eastern Churches to swallow, that there can be Ecumenical Councils that they are not a part of, but nevertheless must submit to!

I cannot accept a model for universal authority that does not include all autocephalous Churches, or at least all autocephalous Churches who are of St. Peter (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch).

At this point I even feel that I should apologize to anyone who I may have offended within the communion of Rome by me being in communion with Rome yet not coming near enough in acceptance of many of the tenants spelled out in the councils of the West (considered by many to be ecumenical).

Please pray for me during this Great Lent!

 

[smad0142]

Alexander,

My dear friend in Christ, you admirably are an EC who believes in all of those teachings. But as I said in an earlier post I am sure who and I, as practicing EC, know of at least a few EC who reject these dogmas. A perfect example is the OP.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I think at the end of the day, there are no clear cut answers regarding the Pope’s role for the Eastern Catholic Churches and it’s only recently that attention has been given to their image as full churches and not “rites”. What this entails for a Church that has seen itself as the “Church of the West”, still remains to be fully understood. For centuries, the Western Church has carved out a cherished identity, and anything different from that to many is seen as alien and potentially dubious. For those of us who say you can remain in communion with the western church, or even our fellow oriental catholics, how can we snip away the bonds of faith that tie us together and still claim to be one church. At some level, we share the Catholic Faith. It would be no different than the liberal clowns on the other side who chip away at the foundation and continue to claim catholicity.

We affirm communion with and the primacy of the see of Rome, we even go so far as to say he is the mouth of church, and can speak with the keys given to Peter in circumstances. But I don’t think Christ meant for peter to have earthly dominion over his fellow apostles. In fact, isn’t it John that was the beloved disciple, entrusted to care for the blessed and blameless Theotokos?

So we should also remember, though Christ saw Peter fit to be the mouth, he is isn’t above the other apostles, nor is he even more cherished, but Christ singled him out for a special place amongst the 12. We should not cower and whine as eastern catholics, we should not lay undue blame either. But we should stand firm in the belief we are spiritual descendants Thomas, of Andrew, of Bartholomew. These issues of jurisdiction are things of man, consequences of history, and they can sometimes burden us and cause sin to poison the church. The only real way to overcome this is humility and the Holy Spirit’s ministry.