Conception of the Theotokos

[mardukm]

Dear Heliotropium,

Thank you for your response. However I must ask you if you believe truth is subject to region or if you believe truth transcends all of these things and is the same regardless of where you are? Truth by its very nature is suppose to be universal (Catholic) isnt it?

All brother Alex is saying is that the SAME truth is expressed differently according to the different Traditions. The dogma of the IC is nothing more nor less than an affirmation of the SPIRITUAL perfection of Mary throughout her entire earthly existence - from the first moment of her existence to her death.

The Latin Tradition expresses Mary’s spiritual perfection throughout her entire existence in terms of preservation from “Original Sin,” because the Latin Tradition understands Original Sin primarily according to its spiritual effects on humanity.

The Eastern Tradition, however, understands “Original Sin” primarily according to its physical effects on humanity. So the Eastern Tradition would not (and could not) express the dogma of Mary’s spiritual perfection throughout her entire existence in the same way as the Latins.

Nevertheless, the Truth of Mary’s spiritual perfection throughout her entire existence (which is the intent of the Dogma of the IC) is maintained faithfully by both Traditions.

Of course, this also depends on your understanding of the “Immaculate Conception” as a Latin Catholic. Many Latin Catholics think that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s physical conception. This would be a misunderstanding. In fact, the dogma properly refers to her spiritual conception. This misunderstanding is the source of much of the conflict between Catholics and Orthodox over the matter. With the misunderstanding that the dogma of the IC refers to Mary’s physical conception, many Latin Catholics (as well as Orthodox) think the dogma means that Mary did not die or did not have a natural physical origin, and thus was not fully human. A proper understanding of the IC will dispel these misgivings.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

Thank you for your response. However I must ask you if you believe truth is subject to region or if you believe truth transcends all of these things and is the same regardless of where you are? Truth by its very nature is suppose to be universal (Catholic) isnt it?

I have a motto also:

**Regardless if your in the East or the West let Catholics be ONE Church and ONE Faith since this is the best! **

God Bless

This is a good motto which I long to see us to be able to rush to - but for centuries it has been abused to insist that the Eastern Christians adopt the rite and theology of the West. (E.g., “Let’s be one Church - here’s a Rosary to pray before Mass! We’re Catholic - let’s nail some Stations of the Cross to the walls! Standing is an Orthodox custom - let’s hammer some pews into the floor! We’re all Catholic - here’s a catechism entry on the Immaculate Conception!”)

We are not going to have any true unity until the East understands Roman theology, the East returns to her Easterness, and the West understands the difference between the unchangeable truth of the Faith and the manner (Eastern or Western) in which it is expressed.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is a good motto which I long to see us to be able to rush to - but for centuries it has been abused to insist that the Eastern Christians adopt the rite and theology of the West. (E.g., “Let’s be one Church - here’s a Rosary to pray before Mass! We’re Catholic - let’s nail some Stations of the Cross to the walls! Standing is an Orthodox custom - let’s hammer some pews into the floor! We’re all Catholic - here’s a catechism entry on the Immaculate Conception!”)

We are not going to have any true unity until the East understands Roman theology, the East returns to her Easterness, and the West understands the difference between the unchangeable truth of the Faith and the manner (Eastern or Western) in which it is expressed.

I see you put the requirement that the East understands Roman theology but have no corresponding requirement that the West understands Eastern theology.

 

[Heliotropium]

I see you put the requirement that the East understands Roman theology but have no corresponding requirement that the West understands Eastern theology.

See this is my point exactly. Its like one side saying respect my theology, and the other side saying respect my theology, when we should be in union with our theology. Things like Original Sin should be understood on a univeral level between the two sides and not Original sin according to the West, or Original Sin according to the East. It should just be Orginal Sin According to The Catholic Church regardless if your East, West, North, South, South East, South West, North East, or North West Catholics. Same goes for the IC, and every other doctrine of faith. Who knows how much Divine Revelation God has withheld from us on account of our pride!

 

[Heliotropium]

This is a good motto which I long to see us to be able to rush to - but for centuries it has been abused to insist that the Eastern Christians adopt the rite and theology of the West. (E.g., “Let’s be one Church - here’s a Rosary to pray before Mass! We’re Catholic - let’s nail some Stations of the Cross to the walls! Standing is an Orthodox custom - let’s hammer some pews into the floor! We’re all Catholic - here’s a catechism entry on the Immaculate Conception!”).

Thats because people dont understand that while you can have unity in Doctrine you can also have a difference in rubrics. The Mass is the very example of the unity we are suppose to have. The Canon of the Mass (doctrine) is the same between both sides but the rubrics on how Mass is celebrated can still be diverse (Standing, sitting, Sations of the Cross, Rosary, Icons, Gregorian Chant, Byzantine Chant, etc). Unity in doctrine doesnt take away from diversity in customs.

 

[Heliotropium]

Dear Friend,

Truth is one and universal.

Glad we agree

However, truth is expressed differently depending on one’s perspective which is often conditioned by any number of influences.

The Latin West and its scholastic tradition has always had an eager desire to be able to explain as much as possible. The Christian East has always preferred to ponder the Mystery of Christian Revelation. Indeed, it is best to step back and adore the Divine Mystery without trying to explain it in human philosophical terms…

True but if its truth then regardless of how its expressed, both sides should be able to come to the EXACT SAME conclusion and agree 100%. For example I can use different analogies to explain my point but if my conclusion isnt exactly the same at the end then it becomes lost doesnt it? 2+2=4 and 3+1=4 yet regardless of how you came to this there should be no argument on what 4 is or if 4 should be accepted.

This is what caused the Great Schism between East and West.

Nah I believe it was good old fashion PRIDE.

Truth is one and universal - it is also often beyond human reasoning.

Sometimes its beyond human reasoning but thanks to the Holy Spirit and Divine Revelation we dont have to worry about that do we.

And it is agreed that “let there be one Church.” However, that Church is not uniform but allows for, and excels in, theological variety. Let not one Church impose its traditions on another!.

Alex

By all means friend I agree. In fact I think we should be one Church with one Tradition. Hows that for universal huh? Just think unity in doctrine and theology regardless of where you went. I could go to Italy and be taught the same thing and in the same way as if I went to Greece, Russia, China, India, America, and etc. It would be beautiful but instead I just hear a lot of “no thats not how we do it” or “thats not what we beleive exactly based on our traditions”.

 

[josephdaniel29]

By all means friend I agree. In fact I think we should be one Church with one Tradition. Hows that for universal huh? Just think unity in doctrine and theology regardless of where you went. I could go to Italy and be taught the same thing and in the same way as if I went to Greece, Russia, China, India, America, and etc. It would be beautiful but instead I just hear a lot of “no thats not how we do it” or “thats not what we beleive exactly based on our traditions”.

The problem with that approach it that it’s always the Latin traditions that are expected to be adopted. Adopt our traditions, adopt our explanations, in some cases adopt our liturgical practices, submit to our patriarch…and by the way, if you refuse to do these things it’s because you are prideful.

 

[guanophore]

See this is my point exactly. Its like one side saying respect my theology, and the other side saying respect my theology, when we should be in union with our theology.

No, this is not necessary All that is necessary is that we have unity in doctrine. Theology presents many and varied ways of understanding and explaining the doctrine, but there is plenty of flexibility in Theology.

Things like Original Sin should be understood on a univeral level between the two sides and not Original sin according to the West, or Original Sin according to the East. It should just be Orginal Sin According to The Catholic Church regardless if your East, West, North, South, South East, South West, North East, or North West Catholics. Same goes for the IC, and every other doctrine of faith. Who knows how much Divine Revelation God has withheld from us on account of our pride!

The fact is that the Apostles went in all directions over the world. In the communities they established, the faith has been faithfully passed down and preserved by those to whom it was committed. These communities have various perspectives on the concepts that were passed to them by the Apostles. The doctrine is the same, but how people understand it varies. There is nothing wrong with this.

The lack of tolerance you are demonstrating is what caused the Schism in the first place. The West wanted the East to emulate their haircuts and liturgical calendar. These things are different in different cultures.The doctrine of the faith transcends culture.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There are different schools of theological thought in the Western Church.

Then look at the various charisms of the religious orders. We all look at things very differently.

 

[guanophore]

True but if its truth then regardless of how its expressed, both sides should be able to come to the EXACT SAME conclusion and agree 100%. For example I can use different analogies to explain my point but if my conclusion isnt exactly the same at the end then it becomes lost doesnt it? 2+2=4 and 3+1=4 yet regardless of how you came to this there should be no argument on what 4 is or if 4 should be accepted.

There is a tendency on the part of the West to insist that the East “agree” by using the same language, reasoning, customs, and practices.

Nah I believe it was good old fashion PRIDE.

Indeed. The kind of pride that insists on concepts such as “transubstantiation”.

Sometimes its beyond human reasoning but thanks to the Holy Spirit and Divine Revelation we dont have to worry about that do we.

But many do, and in the West, there is more of a tendency to attempt to research and put human understanding into the Divine Mysteries. Then the findings of these intellectual pursuits are improperly imposed upon the Eastern brethren, who are content to leave them as Mysteries.

By all means friend I agree. In fact I think we should be one Church with one Tradition. Hows that for universal huh? Just think unity in doctrine and theology regardless of where you went. I could go to Italy and be taught the same thing and in the same way as if I went to Greece, Russia, China, India, America, and etc. It would be beautiful but instead I just hear a lot of “no thats not how we do it” or “thats not what we beleive exactly based on our traditions”.

Well, perhaps you still have some places to travel?

 

[Cecilianus]

I see you put the requirement that the East understands Roman theology but have no corresponding requirement that the West understands Eastern theology.

I thought I had said that. Overlooking on my part. Yes, I did mean that the West needs to understand Eastern theology - although before understanding our theology, it would be nice if they would even recognize its existence or care.

 

[Cecilianus]

See this is my point exactly. Its like one side saying respect my theology, and the other side saying respect my theology, when we should be in union with our theology. Things like Original Sin should be understood on a univeral level between the two sides and not Original sin according to the West, or Original Sin according to the East. It should just be Orginal Sin According to The Catholic Church regardless if your East, West, North, South, South East, South West, North East, or North West Catholics. Same goes for the IC, and every other doctrine of faith. Who knows how much Divine Revelation God has withheld from us on account of our pride!

Except that even the term “Original Sin” is part of the Western expression of the doctrine. It’s a bit like saying “Things like the Immaculate Conception should be understood on a universal level between the two sides”, or “Concepts like transubstantiation need to be understood as Catholic doctrines rather than as Eastern or as Western ones”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Heliotropium,

True but if its truth then regardless of how its expressed, both sides should be able to come to the EXACT SAME conclusion and agree 100%. For example I can use different analogies to explain my point but if my conclusion isnt exactly the same at the end then it becomes lost doesnt it? 2+2=4 and 3+1=4 yet regardless of how you came to this there should be no argument on what 4 is or if 4 should be accepted.

You want us to focus on the 4, yet it seems you are the one insisting on focusing on the 2+2 and the 3+1. As mentioned to you, all the Traditions agree that Mary was spiritually perfect throughout her existence. Is that not the “4” that you should be focusing on?

Now, you have a point that “Original Sin” is also a dogma of the Faith. But can you not imagine that perhaps even this dogma of the Faith can be expressed differently in the different Traditions, and that there is actually a Truth to the teaching that is even more basic than the different theological language we use to express it, a Truth we all share and upon which we are united?

I would humbly ask you to look at the teaching of Trent on the matter of Original Sin (Trent expresses the seminal dogma of the Catholic Church on the matter of Original Sin). If you have any questions as to the orthodoxy of the Eastern Tradition’s expression of it, come back here and ask, “Trent teaches this. Is there any contradiction with what you teach?” I guarantee you there will not be any contradition, and not because the Eastern Tradition must submit itself to the Latin Tradition, but because both Traditions express - and have always expressed - the ONE TRUTH faithfully, despite differences in theological language (granted, there are polemicists who claim differently, but we’ll cross that bridge when and if we come to it).

By all means friend I agree. In fact I think we should be one Church with one Tradition. Hows that for universal huh? Just think unity in doctrine and theology regardless of where you went. I could go to Italy and be taught the same thing and in the same way as if I went to Greece, Russia, China, India, America, and etc. It would be beautiful but instead I just hear a lot of “no thats not how we do it” or “thats not what we beleive exactly based on our traditions”.

I hope you can understand that “doctrine” and “theology” are simply man’s way of expressing God’s eternal Truth. “Doctrine” and “theology” is the language of man. They are the “2+2” and “3+1” in the equation you gave previously. In our search for unity, we need to look beyond the language of man to the eternal Truth and subsequent Faith that we hold together. Please have a look at my signature line below, and see if that moves your conscience at all in regards to this topic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Heliotropium]

Dear Heliotropium,

You want us to focus on the 4, yet it seems you are the one insisting on focusing on the 2+2 and the 3+1. As mentioned to you, all the Traditions agree that Mary was spiritually perfect throughout her existence. Is that not the “4” that you should be focusing on?

The example I was giving with the 2+2 and 3+1 was to illustrate that while the East and the West may have different theological styles they should however still in the end agree doctrinally on “4”. However this isn’t the case is it if the West holds the Immaculate Conception as doctrine but the East doesn’t.

Although I must say I love the impression that I’m getting from my Eastern Orthodox brothers that us Western Catholics like to delve imprudently into the Divine Mysteries because we foolishly believe we can explain every aspect of the said Mysteries, while on the other hand the prudent and pious Eastern Catholics simply adore the Mysteries and that by doing so they truley respect their beauty.

 

[mardukm]

However this isn’t the case is it if the West holds the Immaculate Conception as doctrine but the East doesn’t.

Which “East” do you mean? The Eastern Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox?

If you mean the Eastern Catholics, exactly what way do they not accept the IC? I would agree they do not accept the doctrine (i.e., the theological language, the “1+3”), but you would be hard pressed to defend a claim that they do not accept the dogma (i.e., the theological TRUTH underlying the doctrine, the “4”).

Didn’t you admit that the “4” is all that matters? If they accept the “4,” why must you insist that they accept the “1+3”? Can they not accept the “4” by adhering to “2+2”?

BTW, I have come across EO who accept the Truth of the IC, but simply reject the proscription of the dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Heliotropium]

Which “East” do you mean? The Eastern Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox?

If you mean the Eastern Catholics, exactly what way do they not accept the IC? I would agree they do not accept the doctrine (i.e., the theological language, the “1+3”), but you would be hard pressed to defend a claim that they do not accept the dogma (i.e., the theological TRUTH underlying the doctrine, the “4”).

Didn’t you admit that the “4” is all that matters? If they accept the “4,” why must you insist that they accept the “1+3”? Can they not accept the “4” by adhering to “2+2”?

BTW, I have come across EO who accept the Truth of the IC, but simply reject the proscription of the dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

I was referring to Easter Orthodox. I sometimes by habit just say Easter Catholics because our Orthodox brethren are Catholic too. It’s a slip up by me and I will try to correct it from now on. I’m not debating the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome. From what I’m hearing though is it shouldn’t matter if we are unified on how we came to the conclusion but rather that we are unified on the conclusion itself. However I don’t understand why we wouldn’t want to standardize things since wouldn’t there be a lesser chance of falling into error :slapfight: thus creating a greater unity? :hug3: For example if both sides agreed on what Original Sin is wouldn’t it help for everyone to reach the same conclusion regarding other dogmas that or connected to it (ex the IC)? :newidea:

I mean I can’t see Jesus teaching the dogmas of the faith to the Apostles with two different styles of theology. Could you see him telling the Apostles or disciples that there are two theologies behing Original Sin one A and one B? Something tells me if Christ did that the Bible would be a whole lot bigger thats for sure. Although I wonder if when the Apostles asked Christ to explain how to arrive at those dogmas so they could explain it to others, if Christ just said to them; Amen Amen I say to you the theology for how we got to these dogmas doesnt matter as long as in the end the people accept the dogma. I dont know about you but something about that doesnt seem right just like how it doesnt seem right in our present day . Oh well I guess

God Bless

 

[mardukm]

Dear Heliotropium,

I was referring to Easter Orthodox. I sometimes by habit just say Easter Catholics because our Orthodox brethren are Catholic too.

For a Latin Catholic, that’s a wonderful admission. My own opinion is expressed here:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7597546&postcount=325 at the very end of the post. I have absolutely no problem referring to individual Orthodox Christians as Catholic. But I confess that I would always do a double-take if one were to refer to the institutional Orthodox Churches as Catholic.

It’s a slip up by me and I will try to correct it from now on. I’m not debating the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome. From what I’m hearing though is it shouldn’t matter if we are unified on how we came to the conclusion but rather that we are unified on the conclusion itself. However I don’t understand why we wouldn’t want to standardize things

From what I’m reading, standardization is merely your preference, but you are not insisting that it is a necessity?

since wouldn’t there be a lesser chance of falling into error :slapfight: thus creating a greater unity? :hug3:

I would disagree that standardization of theology is of the esse of unity. I’ve always maintained that the spiritual fruit of understanding can be the only basis for unity.

For example if both sides agreed on what Original Sin is wouldn’t it help for everyone to reach the same conclusion regarding other dogmas that or connected to it (ex the IC)? :newidea:

I concede that IF we all had the same theology, then we would be in more agreement on the dogmas. But the problem with that premise is that it is not based on reality. The fact is, the different theologies already exist. We have to work with that reality. Now, given that reality, what do you suppose will be the best road to unity?
(1) tell all other Traditions that they are wrong and impose your own upon them; or
(2) seek to understand those theological Traditions in order to determine the common Faith that exists among the different Traditions.

I mean I can’t see Jesus teaching the dogmas of the faith to the Apostles with two different styles of theology. Could you see him telling the Apostles or disciples that there are two theologies behing Original Sin one A and one B? Something tells me if Christ did that the Bible would be a whole lot bigger thats for sure. Although I wonder if when the Apostles asked Christ to explain how to arrive at those dogmas so they could explain it to others, if Christ just said to them; Amen Amen I say to you the theology for how we got to these dogmas doesnt matter as long as in the end the people accept the dogma.

Actually, Jesus specifically taught that those who are not against you are for you. And St. Paul himself taught us not to argue over words, but rather to be united in the Faith.

Again on the topic of Original Sin, off the top of my head, I can give you a distinction among the different Traditions. Both the Oriental and Latin Traditions use the theologcial language of God’s Justice to express the concept of Original Sin. The Eastern Tradition does not do this (though there are strains within the Eastern Tradition that also accept this language). I can’t speak for the Assyrian Tradition conclusively, but I suspect they are similar to the Oriental and Latin Traditions on the matter. Again, among those who utilize the language of God’s Justice, the Latin Tradition alone utilizes the language of guilt. Now, when the Latins use the term “guilt,” non-Latins normally think that this means that humanity inherited Adam’s own guilt for his own sin of disobedience. But a study of the case would demonstrate that this non-Latin understanding of the Latin teaching would be incorrect.

Using that example, since the Latin Tradition alone utilizes the language of “guilt,” would you say that the road to unity would consist of the Latins rejecting their theological language - to align it with the theological language of the other Traditions, thereby ensuring “unity” according to your view - or would it consist of the non-Latins giving an effort to UNDERSTAND what the Latins mean, and thereby accept the orthodoxy of the Latin theological terminology?

And there are numerous examples of this difference in theological language (not just with regards to Original Sin) among the several Traditions, examples which require not just the spiritual fruit of understanding from non-Latins towards their Latin brethren, but also the Latins towards their non-Latin brethren, the Easterns toward their Oriental brethren, the Orientals toward their Assyrian brethen, etc., etc. etc.

I dont know about you but something about that doesnt seem right just like how it doesnt seem right in our present day

It seems to me that the only ones who find difficulty in the concept of unity in Faith despite different theological Traditions, are those who prefer to argue over words which serves no useful purpose (according to the exhortation of St. Paul - see my signature line below) To repeat, the spiritual fruit of understanding is the best (if not only) road to unity. We need to understand each other in humility, instead of trying to impose our unique theologies on others in pride.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[crazzeto]

I would disagree that standardization of theology is of the esse of unity. I’ve always maintained that the spiritual fruit of understanding can be the only basis for unity.

mardukm,

I always enjoy your postings because I learn so much with them. With regard to this specific point, I can’t possibily agree more with you. All Catholics in Communion with Rome are one in Doctrine (as it were), but as you rightly point out we have different ways of expressing the doctrine. These are our traditions, as long as our traditions agree then we are fully united as Christ prayed.

I love the model of the Trinaty for expressing Christian unity (why wouldn’t I, God expressed it!). We are one in Doctrine, we don’t disagree in fundamental truth. But you can’t go so far as saying the Father is the Same as the Son, nor the Son the same as the Holy Spirit. So goes for each faith tradition in communion with Rome.

We testify to the same truths, but with a different spirituality and theology. We are the same, yet unique.

God bless,

 

[Heliotropium]

From what I’m reading, standardization is merely your preference, but you are not insisting that it is a necessity?

Correct. I couldnt say its a 100% necessity since if that was the case we wouldnt see Eastern and Western Catholics in communion with each other on dogma. However I’m not denying that standardization in theology is the better option.

I would disagree that standardization of theology is of the esse of unity. I’ve always maintained that the spiritual fruit of understanding can be the only basis for unity.

I dont agree of course. If we were united on theology we would be united in dogma 100% of the time since we would all reach the same conclusion by the use of this ONE theology. I think by our pride we have severly retarded the flow of Divine Revelation.

I concede that IF we all had the same theology, then we would be in more agreement on the dogmas. But the problem with that premise is that it is not based on reality.

Well no its not the reality we live in but it could be with a little humility and Gods grace.

The fact is, the different theologies already exist. We have to work with that reality. Now, given that reality, what do you suppose will be the best road to unity?
(1) tell all other Traditions that they are wrong and impose your own upon them; or
(2) seek to understand those theological Traditions in order to determine the common Faith that exists among the different Traditions…

Option 3! We get rid of these stupid titles such as “Eastern” and “Western” which have done nothing more than divide us rather than unite us, and we just call ourselves Catholics (which means universal…I have personally found it odd that we call ourselves Catholics but then add Eastern and Western to denote where we stand theologically…kind of an oxymoron really). We then follow the Chair of Saint Peter as our Shepherd on Earth and by doing so ACCEPT whatever THEOLOGICAL process the Church’s Magisterium uses to reach our dogmas as being our one infallible theology given to us by the Holy Spirit.

There it is really that simple. No more Eastern Theology or Western theology since those titles have finally been done away with. The only thing left is One Magisterial Theology which ALL Catholics accept as their One Theology in our One Church giving us our One Tradition.

Also contrary to popular belief Liturgical rubrics can still vary while having theological unity. The Mass is living proof of that. We all agree theologically and dogmatically on the Canon of the Mass but that doesnt take away from our diversity in the Liturgy. And while the Mass is living proof of the beauty of this unity we Catholics can have we still for some reason act like its impossible for us to be united in theology while keeping diversity customs.

 

[Cecilianus]

Correct. I couldnt say its a 100% necessity since if that was the case we wouldnt see Eastern and Western Catholics in communion with each other on dogma. However I’m not denying that standardization in theology is the better option.

I dont agree of course. If we were united on theology we would be united in dogma 100% of the time since we would all reach the same conclusion by the use of this ONE theology. I think by our pride we have severly retarded the flow of Divine Revelation.

There are two major problems with this assertion. The first is that the differences in theology are often differences in emphasis and perspective - the East and West use different language in keeping with the organic development of theological thought in their respective traditions. You’re generally not going to see Western theologians using a whole lot of Greek terminology (e.g., “energies”), or Eastern theologians using a whole lot of words from Latin. What needs to occur is not uniformity of expression, but theological understanding. To be “united on theology” so often means “force the Greeks to say the filioque” or “force the Latins to remove the interpolation from the Creed”. In neither case does anyone reach the same conclusion, or any conclusion at all - no theological understanding has been reached. Same goes with the ancestral sin.

Second, there is no “flow of Divine Revelation”; Divine Revelation has ended, and development of doctrine can only take place by the unfolding of what we already unconsciously knew. The Pope and the Ecumenical Councils cannot define a doctrine if they do not have the authority to do so. In the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption it was very carefully worded to avoid making any statement one way or the other as to whether the Theotokos passed away before her body was received into Heaven - thus seeming to permit both the Latin and the Orthodox views (which are respectively that she did not have to die because she was sinless and free from Original Sin, and on the Orthodox side that as a human subject to Original Sin she was subject to death, albeit a painless and peaceful death).

The Pope also refused to arbiter in the doctrinal disagreements between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, and ordered that neither side accuse the other of heresy. Like it or not, there are real doctrinal differences in the Church - not just along East-West lines, but also between Dominicans and Jesuits, and between Dominicans and Franciscans. Priests in these religious orders were at one time forbidden to write views contrary to those promulgated by their particular order.

Option 3! We get rid of these stupid titles such as “Eastern” and “Western” which have done nothing more than divide us rather than unite us, and we just call ourselves Catholics (which means universal…I have personally found it odd that we call ourselves Catholics but then add Eastern and Western to denote where we stand theologically…kind of an oxymoron really). We then follow the Chair of Saint Peter as our Shepherd on Earth and by doing so ACCEPT whatever THEOLOGICAL process the Church’s Magisterium uses to reach our dogmas as being our one infallible theology given to us by the Holy Spirit.

What you are suggesting in practice is that we all become Roman Catholics. We are not going to accept Roman theological formulation at the price of our own, equally legitimate tradition. The “theological process” that the Church of Rome uses to formulate its doctrine follows Latin theological reasoning, which is not even universal much less infallible. We have the right to (and are right to) express these doctrines following lines of thought natural to ourselves.

It is common in America at any rate for Roman Catholics simply to identify themselves as “Catholic” and act as if their rite were identical to the universal Church, while Byzantine Catholics have to constantly affirm what rite they are and explain at great lengths why we are actually Catholic. What you are suggesting will in practice given this pervasive mentality lead to the complete Latinization of the Greek Church and the destruction of all the rites but the Roman.

There it is really that simple. No more Eastern Theology or Western theology since those titles have finally been done away with. The only thing left is One Magisterial Theology which ALL Catholics accept as their One Theology in our One Church giving us our One Tradition.

This illusory “Magisterial Theology” is Western theology. The Pope is a Western bishop, after all (and nothing wrong with that).

Also contrary to popular belief Liturgical rubrics can still vary while having theological unity. The Mass is living proof of that. We all agree theologically and dogmatically on the Canon of the Mass but that doesnt take away from our diversity in the Liturgy. And while the Mass is living proof of the beauty of this unity we Catholics can have we still for some reason act like its impossible for us to be united in theology while keeping diversity customs.

There are very, very different theological emphases in the Byzantine Liturgy from the Roman.