M
mardukm
Guest
I was recently asked by a relatively new member who is attracted to the Maronite Church to give an account of how an Oriental views the Catholic Dogmas (it’s on the Public Message board in my account if anyone wants to see). The following will be concise summaries of my thoughts. I know long-time members are already aware of my views on the matter, so please bear with me as the following will probably be old news.
ON PAPAL PRIMACY
The Oriental Tradition has a High Petrine understanding of ecclesiology. See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5376939&postcount=248
To Orientals, terms like “supreme authority” pose no problem, because we don’t understand “supreme” in the same way that many Latins and many Easterns do. To us, it simply means “highest.” In contrast, many Latins and many Easterns interpret “supreme” to mean “highest and only,” which denotes absolutism. To the Oriental Tradition, “supreme” does not preclude, and in fact includes, the notion of collegiality. Collegiality is the ecclesiological principle of the Catholic Church, understood either universally or locally – i.e., the supreme authority in the Church is a college of bishops in union with its supreme head bishop.
The distinction between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church is that whereas the Oriental Orthodox understand the supreme office to end at the Patriarchal level, the Catholic Church understands that there is a supreme office for the universal Church as well. In addition, the Catholic Church understands this supreme office to have been instituted by Christ in the person of St. Peter, and handed down through the Apostolic Succession.
ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
Like the Primacy, this matter also revolves around an Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine view. See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6662978&postcount=59 And as with the Primacy, the Oriental Tradition is of the High Petrine view. Now, the term “infallibility” is not explicitly found in Tradition; rather, we have descriptions of the church in Rome as one where “the Faith cannot fail,” etc. See St. Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, etc.
Simply put, being an advocate of the High Petrine view, I cannot conceive of an infallible body without an infallible head. The Absolutist and Low Petrine proponents are able (for some reason I personally cannot fathom) to easily divorce the body from the head, and vice versa. The High Petrine view does not do this.
ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
Many Eastern Orthodox apologists understand that the real cause of disagreement is the different conceptions (no pun intended) in East and West on the definition of Original Sin. On that basis, the Oriental Tradition has less reason to reject it than the Eastern Tradition because the Oriental understanding of Original sin is practically identical to the Western understanding.
Easterns, while not denying the detrimental spiritual effects, understand physical death to be the sine qua non of original sin. Since the Blessed Mother died, then she necessarily had original sin. In distinction, Westerns and Orientals, while not denying the detrimental physical effects, understand spiritual death (i.e., deprivation of Grace) to be the sine qua non of original sin (btw, a view also held by such imminent Eastern Fathers as St. Gregory Palamas). Unlike many Easterns, Westerns and Orientals don’t often view physical death as an evil. Pope St. Athanasius, for instance, taught that physical death is the natural condition of human nature even before the Fall, and Adam and Eve were preserved from death by Grace. The Syrian Tradition has an even less morbid understanding of physical death, seeing it as the gateway to eternal life.
Hence, to an Oriental (and Latin), that Mary died does not necessarily denote the presence of Original Sin. Interestingly, Eastern Fathers such as St. Andrew of Crete (who called Mary the “Immaculate Fruition” from a barren womb) and St. Gregory Palamas (who said Mary was she from whom Christ obtained flesh that was both “new and ours”) had no problem with the Immaculate Conception.
CONTINUED
ON PAPAL PRIMACY
The Oriental Tradition has a High Petrine understanding of ecclesiology. See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5376939&postcount=248
To Orientals, terms like “supreme authority” pose no problem, because we don’t understand “supreme” in the same way that many Latins and many Easterns do. To us, it simply means “highest.” In contrast, many Latins and many Easterns interpret “supreme” to mean “highest and only,” which denotes absolutism. To the Oriental Tradition, “supreme” does not preclude, and in fact includes, the notion of collegiality. Collegiality is the ecclesiological principle of the Catholic Church, understood either universally or locally – i.e., the supreme authority in the Church is a college of bishops in union with its supreme head bishop.
The distinction between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church is that whereas the Oriental Orthodox understand the supreme office to end at the Patriarchal level, the Catholic Church understands that there is a supreme office for the universal Church as well. In addition, the Catholic Church understands this supreme office to have been instituted by Christ in the person of St. Peter, and handed down through the Apostolic Succession.
ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
Like the Primacy, this matter also revolves around an Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine view. See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6662978&postcount=59 And as with the Primacy, the Oriental Tradition is of the High Petrine view. Now, the term “infallibility” is not explicitly found in Tradition; rather, we have descriptions of the church in Rome as one where “the Faith cannot fail,” etc. See St. Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, etc.
Simply put, being an advocate of the High Petrine view, I cannot conceive of an infallible body without an infallible head. The Absolutist and Low Petrine proponents are able (for some reason I personally cannot fathom) to easily divorce the body from the head, and vice versa. The High Petrine view does not do this.
ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
Many Eastern Orthodox apologists understand that the real cause of disagreement is the different conceptions (no pun intended) in East and West on the definition of Original Sin. On that basis, the Oriental Tradition has less reason to reject it than the Eastern Tradition because the Oriental understanding of Original sin is practically identical to the Western understanding.
Easterns, while not denying the detrimental spiritual effects, understand physical death to be the sine qua non of original sin. Since the Blessed Mother died, then she necessarily had original sin. In distinction, Westerns and Orientals, while not denying the detrimental physical effects, understand spiritual death (i.e., deprivation of Grace) to be the sine qua non of original sin (btw, a view also held by such imminent Eastern Fathers as St. Gregory Palamas). Unlike many Easterns, Westerns and Orientals don’t often view physical death as an evil. Pope St. Athanasius, for instance, taught that physical death is the natural condition of human nature even before the Fall, and Adam and Eve were preserved from death by Grace. The Syrian Tradition has an even less morbid understanding of physical death, seeing it as the gateway to eternal life.
Hence, to an Oriental (and Latin), that Mary died does not necessarily denote the presence of Original Sin. Interestingly, Eastern Fathers such as St. Andrew of Crete (who called Mary the “Immaculate Fruition” from a barren womb) and St. Gregory Palamas (who said Mary was she from whom Christ obtained flesh that was both “new and ours”) had no problem with the Immaculate Conception.
CONTINUED
.
He never said that it was, you just misread what he said.