Accepted doctrines and dogma (papal infallibility, et al)

[josephdaniel29]

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.

Wow.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Crazzeto,

Which is more important - accepting the dogmatic teachings of the 14 councils (though it should be noted that several of these “ecumenical” councils were purely disciplinary in nature - i.e., with regards to the internal workings of the LATIN Church), or calling them “Ecumenical?”

Can one distinguish the ecumenical nature of a council, on the one hand, from the teachings that flow from it, on the other?

I propose we can and we should. I am, of course, applying a distincitly Oriental approach to the matter. For example, the Oriental Orthodox are willing to accept the dogmatic Truths proposed by the four councils after the first three, but are not inclined to call those four Councils “Ecumenical.” (Of course, as a Catholic, I personally do accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils as such — plus a few others besides ).

Blessings,
Marduk

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.

 

[mardukm]

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.

(though, of course, Orientals are rather closer to the Latins on the issue of Original Sin).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[twf]

Aramis:

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.

I hope and pray that this myth dies. Why so many Latin Catholics seem to believe this at the grassroots level I will never know…but I, as a Latin Catholic, strongly protest that this is the Latin teaching or tradition. Our Blessed Lady died…plain and simple…this is a fact as far as I am concerned, and I think you would be hard pressed to find a Latin bishop who would state otherwise…
I have been to Rome, the heart of Latin Christendom, and in the major basilica of St. Mary’s Major, the first of all shrines to Our Blessed Lady for all Latin Catholics, there is a very large and prominent indisputable depiction of the Dormition of the Mother of God…as far as I am concerned: case closed. Other depictions of Our Blessed Lady’s Dormition can be found throughout the Latin churches of the Eternal City…and elsewhere throughout the world. To deprive Our Blessed Lady of the glory of sharing in Her Son’s resurrection (which requires physical death…) is a travesty…and perhaps even heresy. The dogmatic definition itself doesn’t explicitly state that Our Blessed Lady died, but our Catholic faith isn’t limited to dogmatic definitions. If one reads the text of Munificentissium Deus it becomes clear that Pope Pius believed, as should all Catholics, that Mary first died prior to Her blessed Assumption. Not to mention…the entire dogma is founded on the tradition of the Dormition…there is NO other tradition in the Church and any statement to the contrary is a modern novelty. Please forgive the ignorance of individual Latins who may feel otherwise…but I think this myth has absolutely no foundation whatsoever.

 

[ciero]

Aramis:
I hope and pray that this myth dies. Why so many Latin Catholics seem to believe this at the grassroots level I will never know…but I, as a Latin Catholic, strongly protest that this is the Latin teaching or tradition. Our Blessed Lady died…plain and simple…this is a fact as far as I am concerned, and I think you would be hard pressed to find a Latin bishop who would state otherwise…
I have been to Rome, the heart of Latin Christendom, and in the major basilica of St. Mary’s Major, the first of all shrines to Our Blessed Lady for all Latin Catholics, there is a very large and prominent indisputable depiction of the Dormition of the Mother of God…as far as I am concerned: case closed. Other depictions of Our Blessed Lady’s Dormition can be found throughout the Latin churches of the Eternal City…and elsewhere throughout the world. To deprive Our Blessed Lady of the glory of sharing in Her Son’s resurrection (which requires physical death…) is a travesty…and perhaps even heresy. The dogmatic definition itself doesn’t explicitly state that Our Blessed Lady died, but our Catholic faith isn’t limited to dogmatic definitions. If one reads the text of Munificentissium Deus it becomes clear that Pope Pius believed, as should all Catholics, that Mary first died prior to Her blessed Assumption. Not to mention…the entire dogma is founded on the tradition of the Dormition…there is NO other tradition in the Church and any statement to the contrary is a modern novelty. Please forgive the ignorance of individual Latins who may feel otherwise…but I think this myth has absolutely no foundation whatsoever.

The Dogmatic definition of the Assumption decidedly left it ambiguous, so as NOT to put to rest the idea that the Theotokos did NOT die. AS far as I’m concerned as an Eastern Christian Mary died…plain and simple…but to say the case is closed for the Western church…I’m not so sure.

 

[smad0142]

Most RC need to read the statement on the Assumption. It does not at all preclude the belief in the Dormition.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m curious, is the most common belief among Catholics then that she did not die?

 

[Hesychios]

I’m curious, is the most common belief among Catholics then that she did not die?

Personally, I think 85 to 95% of Roman Catholics either firmly believe she did not pass through death, or at least assume so without any further thought.

The dormition is almost completely lost on them.

 

[Nine_Two]

Personally, I think 85 to 95% of Roman Catholics either firmly believe she did not pass through death, or at least assume so without any further thought.

The dormition is almost completely lost on them.

Wow, I had no idea it was anywhere near that high.

 

[smad0142]

Having gone through RC Parish Education and schooling from preschool to the university I would say that the percentages for not believing the Dormition are at least 90% and probably 95% or higher. I had never even heard about the Dormition until I started doing my own studying. And if you mention it to most RC they think you’re a heretic, simply because they confuse the Dogma of the Assumption with the idea that Mother Mary never died.

 

[angelic06]

Personally, I think 85 to 95% of Roman Catholics either firmly believe she did not pass through death, or at least assume so without any further thought.

The dormition is almost completely lost on them.

Sources, please. This is the mark of a true scholar, not just someone seeking to stir up a pot of beans. This statement may be true, I’ll admit, but as a Latin Catholic, I demand that others outside my religion produce their numbers before I believe their statements about my (Latin) Church’s expression of the Holy Catholic Faith.

I have read your previous posts, and I am less inclined to believe you on trust.

 

[angelic06]

Wow, I had no idea it was anywhere near that high.

Do the research yourself, and find out what we (Roman) Catholics have to say about ourselves, not what your brethren Orthodox have to say about us. Don’t automatically believe what you someone says merely because he or she is a fellow Orthodox Christian.

 

[RuthByzCat3]

I already said this! Did you read my post?

Never heard of the toll house thing… Some say things like this just to be in disagreement.

I am sorry for the rude nature of this post…

 

[twf]

Personally, I think 85 to 95% of Roman Catholics either firmly believe she did not pass through death, or at least assume so without any further thought.

The dormition is almost completely lost on them.

Perhaps this is only in the United States? I find it hard to imagine that Latin Catholics in Rome, for example, have somehow managed to never notice the countless Latin images of the Dormition in their churches… I don’t recall ever coming across any educated Latin Catholics (as in, have studied theology/Church tradition, whether formally or informally) who question her death…

Just another example of poor catechesis. I still stand by my much earlier post burried somewhere in this thread that the universal tradition of the Catholic Church, East and West, is that She first died in order to share in the resurrection of Her Son. To rob Her of the glory of the resurrection, imho, is a serious offense against the Mother of God. (I apologize for the strong wording, but I feel very passionate about this…the saints of God sharing in the resurrection of Christ is just as important to Latin theology as it is to Eastern theology)

I, as a Latin, firmly reject that there is ANY basis to believe the contrary…as I said earlier, while the dogmatic definition itself does not explicitly state that the Mother of God died, the context of the wider document demonstrates that Pope Pius accepted the tradition of the Dormition, upon which the ENTIRE DOCTRINE is built! Our faith is hardly limited to dogmatic definitions…the Ordinary Magisterium is just as binding, and as far as I can tell, the Ordinary Magisterium of the Latin Church down through the centuries supports the Dormition.

From Pope Pius’ *Munificentissimus Deus *

“In their homilies and sermons on this feast the holy fathers and great doctors spoke of the assumption of the Mother of God as something already familiar and accepted by the faithful. . . . Above all, they brought out more clearly the fact that what is commemorated in this feast is not simply the total absence of corruption from the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary but also her triumph over death and her glorification in heaven, after the pattern set by her only Son, Jesus Christ.” (emphasis added)

This isn’t part of the dogmatic statement itself, but surely the entire document carries authority…the Holy Father was simply restating the constant teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. Our most Blessed Mother died and was then raised to heaven, body and soul, by her Son.

Also…on this old thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=201811 fellow Latins provide ample evidence from the Ordinary Magisterium that it is WITHOUT A DOUBT the teaching of the Latin Church that Our Lady first died… I think it is only in the last few decades, due to misinterpretations of the dogmatic statement, that many have been misled to believe that She may have bypassed death completely…

 

[TrueLight]

I am totally confused.

I’m not sure I really understand the difference between the Eastern Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, aside from the fact that the Eastern Catholic is in communion with Rome. Is that the only difference?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am totally confused.

I’m not sure I really understand the difference between the Eastern Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, aside from the fact that the Eastern Catholic is in communion with Rome. Is that the only difference?

Ideally, that should be the only difference.

 

[TrueLight]

Ideally, that should be the only difference.

Thanks!

But papal infallibility is not necessarily the case for Eastern Catholics? I’ll shut up after this last question.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks!

But papal infallibility is not necessarily the case for Eastern Catholics? I’ll shut up after this last question.

People correct me if I’m wrong, but its not the Pope’s infallibility in matters of Church teaching and morals that Eastern Catholics tend to disagree with. Its his Supreme Authority over the Church which includes the Eastern Churches.

 

[TrueLight]

People correct me if I’m wrong, but its not the Pope’s infallibility in matters of Church teaching and morals that Eastern Catholics tend to disagree with. Its his Supreme Authority over the Church which includes the Eastern Churches.

Alrighty. Thanks!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

He is incorrect if he believes he can reject Papal infallibility, or the IC, or purgatory. These are articles of faith, or in other words dogma not theology. Theology expresses the dogmatic teaching of the Church in a manner consistant with the particular ancient tradition of the Church. Dogma is an essential truth about God.

Catholics can not be in communion if we do not accept the same dogmas, it is this issue that seperates us from the Orthodox not in communion with Rome. If Eastern Catholics held the same position, we would not be in full visible communion with them, it’s really that simple.

I think it more likely what has happened hear is that we are confusing, very greatly, the terms dogma and theology. A dogma is a truth expressed primarly at Church council, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or in rare case by the Seat of Rome alone via infallible proclimation.

The IC, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, these are all defined as such (By Proclimation, Trent and Vatican I respectivly). No Catholic can deny the essential truth, to do so obstinently makes one a heretic or forces them to be schismatic or both.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that the Most Holy Virgin Mary never had any stain of sin on her soul, from her Conception. This was declared because of a form of an Augustinian notion of Original Sin being a “stain” (if someone could explain what such a “stain” entails, I would be grateful!).

The Eastern Churches have ALWAYS affirmed that Mary was without the slightest shadow of sin and accept a different view of Original Sin than that prevailing in the West. The Eastern Churches, including EC’s, see the “Immaculate Conception” as underlining that Mary was sanctified to the nth degree at her Conception - the emphasis is on sanctification/theosis rather than preventing her from contracting any “stain.”

This Eastern Church view of the Mother of God is actually much higher than the dogma of the IC - the East presupposes that she never had any sin and honoured her Holy and Sanctified Conception with a feastday in the sixth century. The West in England later adopted it. The Orthodox Catholic East does not need to be taught anything by the West with respect to its devotion to the Most Holy and All-Immaculate Mother of God surely! We only wonder what took you Western RC guys so long to see the light in this respect!

As for Purgatory, the East has a very high tradition of prayer for the dead and many liturgical times to pray for the dead. The East accepts that the souls of those in need of purification or the fulfillment of the works of repentance they didn’t do on earth are in a state where they can be prayed for. This state is sometimes called “Hades” in the liturgical services as opposed to the eternal hell that Christ will judge certain souls worthy of at His Second Coming. We can and must pray assiduously for the dead and, once again, the West can teach the East nothing in this regard.

With respect to papal infallibility, the East believes the Church through the Episcopate is infallible - period. Ecumenical Councils, when they have the signatures and approval of the ancient Patriarchates, with Rome being the first among them, express INFALLIBLE truth.

Papal infallibility is never above or separate from the Apostolic teaching of the Church. When the Ven. Pope Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption (very highly honoured in the Eastern Churches from Apostolic times and never in doubt), he consulted with the world’s bishops on this. Was this not a conciliar action, similar to what would be obtained under an EC Council? I think it was.

So when popes clarify doctrines and dogmas for the Latin Church, it is not always the case that such clarification is needed for the Eastern Churches. In fact, is there even one papal dogma to date that affirms something that the Eastern Churches have always believed and, yes, within the perspective of their own legitimate theological, canonical and spiritual traditions?

Roman Catholics, if I may say so, tend to often confuse the Latin expression of doctrine for the doctrine/dogma itself.

This seems to be systemic among Latin Catholics. It is also seen in aspects of the traditionalist Roman Catholic movement, as I am informed by Latin Catholic priest/professors.

Alex