Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition in the Orthodox Church

[UncleBill]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on ‘infallibility’: ‘The validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached’ (emphasis mine).

Amen.

Do you still not get it? The Orthodox believe the THEOTOKOS was and is without sin
.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

It seems to me that the Orthodox do not have a problem with Catholic dogma, it’s that Catholic dogma is proclaimed outside of a major council without consultation of the Orthodox.

 

[dzheremi]

No, we have problems with both. Of course, were the Orthodox consulted on any of the dogmas that now divide our churches, chances are they would not have risen to that point (most Orthodox I know point out that they wouldn’t necessarily have problems with things like the IC being a matter of personal opinion, since we of course also think that the Theotokos is without sin, we just don’t dogmatize how exactly it is so), but sadly that’s not what happened.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

No, we have problems with both. Of course, were the Orthodox consulted on any of the dogmas that now divide our churches, chances are they would not have risen to that point (most Orthodox I know point out that they wouldn’t necessarily have problems with things like the IC being a matter of personal opinion, since we of course also think that the Theotokos is without sin, we just don’t dogmatize how exactly it is so), but sadly that’s not what happened.

Perhaps a more accurate depiction then would be to say that Orthodox do not have a problem with Catholic **doctrine **as long as we do not dogmatize any of it without a meeting of the minds with the Orthodox.

For example, it’s okay for Catholics to hold the view that Mary was immaculately conceived and that belief is not contrary to Christian faith, but to formally state emphatically that she was immaculately conceived is where the Orthodox draw the line on such matters.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Perhaps a more accurate depiction then would be to say that Orthodox do not have a problem with Catholic **doctrine **as long as we do not dogmatize any of it without a meeting of the minds with the Orthodox.

For example, it’s okay for Catholics to hold the view that Mary was immaculately conceived and that belief is not contrary to Christian faith, but to formally state emphatically that she was immaculately conceived is where the Orthodox draw the line on such matters.

Your summary seems fair. Here’s Bishop Kallistos Ware’s framing of the problem:
Bishop Kallistos:

The Orthodox Church calls Mary all-holy, immaculate, free from actual sin. The Orthodox Church has never made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter of the Immaculate Conception. In the past, individual Orthodox theologians have made statements that, if not definitively affirming the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception, at any rate closely approach it. But since 1854, the great majority of Orthodox reject it as necessary; as implying a false understanding of original sin; as suspecting the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam and Eve, putting her in a different class. However, if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe it, he could not be termed a heretic for doing so

If the bishop’s description of the status quo is accurate, it raises the following questions:

1. Does the Immaculate Conception imply a specifically Latin understanding of original sin?
2. What do the Orthodox think this Latin ‘false understanding of original sin’ consists of?
3. Do Catholics actually teach/believe what the Orthodox say they do?

This all seems quite resolvable.

 

[GaryTaylor]

it’s okay for Catholics to hold the view that Mary was immaculately conceived and that belief is not contrary to Christian faith, but to formally state emphatically that she was immaculately conceived is where the Orthodox draw the line on such matters.

Dogma became the issue. The Immaculate Conception itself in a known in the history in the Church, for example Greece, Russia and the Anglican Church. Somewhat similar argument with the wording of the creed.

 

[Peter_J]

If Sacred Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit why does the Orthodox Church differ with the Catholic Church in doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception?

I’m trying understand the logic of this question. Why would the statement “Sacred Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit” lead us to expect everyone to agree?

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps a more accurate depiction then would be to say that Orthodox do not have a problem with Catholic **doctrine **as long as we do not dogmatize any of it without a meeting of the minds with the Orthodox.

So the Orthodox agree with Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy (UOJ)? That’s good to know!

 

[Vico]

If Sacred Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit why does the Orthodox Church differ with the Catholic Church in doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception?

I realise they are not in conformity with the Pope but do we need agree they have apostolic succession hence the Holy Spirit is with them in their Episcopal office?

The Church of Christ which subsists in the Catholic Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from errors in morals or (infallible) teachings. Other Christian churches and ecclesial communities, and even other faiths, have some elements of truth. Churches with valid apostolic succession have all the Holy Mysteries. Those without the apostolic succession do not have the absolution of the Holy Mystery of Confession so can not be certain of their salvation.