Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[TrueLight]

Do you think Anglicans should receive in the Catholic Church?

No I don’t.

But don’t forget, Orthodox can in fact receive communion in Latin Catholic churches and as was pointed out, it is very easy for an Orthodox to be received into the Latin church.

Rome is bending over backwards to have the Orthodox be in communion with her and apparently the feeling is not mutual.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Awesome response.

Very helpful.

However, that is your understanding. No Eastern Catholic in this thread laid it out as clearly as you did and as confidently. Could it be you are extremely benevolent and is giving the benefit doubt where none should be given?

Is this what you wish were the Eastern Catholic viewpoint?

I’m not sure - to which part of my reply were you referring?

Is that really the only obligation?

Not necessarily. It’s the only obligation suggested in the Ratzinger Proposal, but that proposal itself is just one idea; it’s not like it’s official in any sense.

Wow, I totally disagree with the above.

Hmm, maybe I phrased it poorly. Here is the text of the infallible definition of the dogma of our Lady’s Immaculate Conception:

*"Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart."*

I think my argument, TrueLight, is that even the thinking of which I said I approved above is in no sense actually guilty of “thinking otherwise than as has been defined” by Pope Pius IX. But look at the text of the dogmatic definition: what Catholics are bound to believe is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was even from the moment of her conception “preserved free from all stain of original sin.”

So how would a Catholic from the eastern tradition understand that? Their view on original sin doesn’t really include any “stain” of inherited guilt… so it’s not that they deny the definition. No, they fully confess and believe in the sinlessness - throughout her whole life - of the Blessed Virgin Mary; they address her with great love as the All-Holy Theotokos. It’s just that their theology has no real place for what the dogmatic definition insists the Blessed Virgin Mary’s conception was free from.

So I think by default, they are in harmony with the definition… but if they don’t want to say, “I believe she was conceived free from the stain of original sin” because that would make it sound like they believe in the western concept of a “stain of original sin,” then I think they’re not wrong not to want to phrase it in that way.

Does any of that make sense? If not, that’s okay, I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.

I don’t know about that example, the matter of the IC/ original sin, etc. is not a simple argument any way one looks at it, so I don’t think it makes a good one post demonstration.

Yeah, you might be right. I hope it works, though, at least as an example of how it’s not as simple as, “Do you believe in this dogma? Yes or no.”

However, I think you can see the problems that arise when some people make the claim that Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the same things. Obviously that cannot be true, as demonstrated by this disconnect between Roman Catholics and various Eastern Catholics.

I think that claim requires clarification, Hesychios.

Do Latin Catholics and Orthodox believe the same thing? No, of course not; the whole point of staying true to one’s theological patrimony assumes that there are real and important differences in belief.

The claim that I do agree with, though, is that neither the Latin nor the Byzantine theological patrimony is heterodox from the other’s perspective. That’s not really the same at all as claiming that we “believe the same things.”

Patriarch Bartholomew (a good personal friend of the current Pope, by the way) went so far as to maintain publicly that the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox Catholic church are ontologically different. That has to mean for us to mix the two is not going to work out very well much of the time, it will be problematic.

I have great esteem and admiration for the Ecumenical Patriarch, but I respectfully disagree with him on that. I think that the Latin tradition is far more flexible than its outwardly syllogistic manner makes it seem to the East.

But then, that’s probably obvious from my participation in this thread…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I am always amazed that converts from Orthodoxy to Roman catholicism are notnormally required to have any additional theological training whatever, they can almost always be received through confession/communion.

And see, to me that makes perfect sense. As I said before, I’m not blind to the greatness of the differences between our two traditions, but I fail to see heterodoxy for two reasons:

(a) When some Catholics claim there’s heterodoxy on the part of the East, I find their assertions lacking in credibility for the very reasons I’ve laid out in this whole thread.

and from the other side…

(b) When Orthodox claim any heterodoxy on the part of the western Catholic tradition, I usually feel that what they say distorts rather than does justice to western theology. In other words, I think what they view as heterodox are mere caricatures of western theology. As a lifelong Latin Catholic, I feel I have the credibility to judge that matter at least as well as those who are not a part of that tradition.

We can’t be in communion with those who do not agree fundamentally, that’s an old Christian mandate. It creates difficulties. This thread demonstrates some aspects of that pretty well.

And see, that’s where you and jmj actually agree and where I disagree with you both.

7 are recognized by both Catholics and Orthodox together. If you really want to be technical about it, there are only two truly Ecumenical Councils where all Apostolic Christian Churches participated. After the second, the Assyrian Church of the East left.

An astute observation, Constantine! I’ve had the same thought myself…

We should look at the least common denominator. I’m taking both perspectives here. The issue will not be resolved if we just keep looking at this from the point of view of one side. The 7 Ecumenical Councils, both sides agree that they are ecumenical. So that is what we will take as universally accepted. Everything else, because only one side sees it as an ecumenical council, then we shouldn’t push it to the other side to accept that point of view.

It is a little more difficult than that, though. I agree in practice that the West shouldn’t push the East to accept its developments, but on a theoretical level Rome will and indeed must insist that lack of communion with the Orthodox Church cannot intrinsically prevent the Catholic Church from teaching universally - from exercising the Apostolic authority to bind and loose. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be held hostage through schism…

Well, I have met Eastern Christians who thought that the West simply had to become Eastern. They were quite scandalized to discover that the Western Rite Orthodox didn’t fast according to the same rules as the East, and felt that this, among other things, meant they were not really Orthodox. And I am thinking a few people rather than just one.

I didn’t find that very encouraging.

Indeed. The insertion of an explicit epiclesis into the Orthodox Church’s “western rite” also comes to mind as a “Byzantinization” if you will… sort of the opposite of a Latinization.

Rome is bending over backwards to have the Orthodox be in communion with her and apparently the feeling is not mutual.

I agree, for the most part. Obviously every person is different, but there are certainly significant amounts of Orthodox Christians who feel that way.

I also agree with you that Rome is “bending over backwards” for this matter. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both put the current praxis of the Roman primacy/supremacy on the table… but as yet to no avail.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

As to why we should not share the Holy Eucharist, I will say that the two communions work on different operating principles.

To be a Papal communicant, or Roman Catholic, one has to be under the Pope. It is usually considered necessary to believe that the individual must be under the Pope in order to be a communicant. This holds the church together. This puts all Roman Catholic bishops and laity into one organization, regulated by the central office on Vatican hill. It is an ideal they cultivate, and it is very impressive.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I disagree specifically with the penultimate sentence in the above quote. The “central office on Vatican hill” has no business micromanaging the autonomous eastern churches whose bishops are in communion with the pope of Rome, and - I believe - no desire to do so…

Bishops of the Roman Catholic church are hired, appointed to serve in cities, and transferred by the Pope, eventually retiring with the Pope’s permission, all along governing their Sees according to canonical norms established and promulgated by a Pope and his aides in Rome. Those who are not appointed directly by the Pope are appointed by others who are delegated to this responsibility by the Pope.

As patriarch of the Latin Church he does indeed do all those things within that church. And for practical reasons, he sometimes is directly involved with eastern churches as well. But it’s just not true that he does any of that within the patriarchal eastern churches, whose autonomy I believe represents the ecclesiological ideal.

Of course as a Catholic I believe in his supreme authority. But there are plenty of episcopal responsibilities that bishops possess by divine prerogative, by virtue of their ordination, and not in any sense by papal “delegation.” The bishops of the Second Vatican Council voted by an overwhelming majority for the schema on the Church to assert that the body or “college” of bishops as a unit holds supreme authority in the Church. The pope is simply the head of that body apart from whom they cannot act. But you must acknowledge, Hesychios, that from the Catholic perspective bishops and their churches’ synods are not deputies of the pope.

To be Orthodox, or in other words to commune with Orthodox, one has to believe what Orthodox believe. It has always been this way. It is why the early church excommunicated (stopped communing) some people, those people stopped believing what Orthodox Catholics believed (in some way) so they could not come to the table. The highest ideal is to receive the Apostolic Faith, preserve and follow it, and pass it on. If we should err in some way our fellows will call us on it and break communion, and we don’t want that. We could not change this principle now after 2000 years, as an operating principle it holds the communion together.

I agree.

Orthodox are one faith, organized in regional synods which govern themselves. Structurally these synods act as strategic partners with their fellow synods and with a common purpose. This system was not invented at any time, there is no point in history where one could say that it started, it is simply a continuation of the early church structure into modern times. Some synods die out, some grow and bud off new ones, but they rely on mutual recognition as fellow believers and that is why the believers of one church are welcome to receive in the other churches and why the bishops of different synods can concelebrate the liturgy when they gather. There was a time when the Church at Rome, the church in Spain and the church in Gaul all participated in this same system.

And the Latin Church continued to function that way long after the first millennium. Recall the Synod of Bishops of the medieval Catholic Church, which Pope Paul VI thankfully re-established after the Second Vatican Council. Marduk once pointed out that even Unam Sanctam was promulgated in a synod of bishops. The fact is that even in the high Middle Ages, the pope only very rarely exercised his supreme authority in a monarchic manner. History attests to this fact time and time again…

It is not the norm for all Orthodox to be a part of one corporate structure, it has never been that way. Some see this as a weakness, but it has continually worked and the theology is consistently uniform.

I know the west explains its ecclesiology through much more legalized, “corporate” terminology. But I think the Catholic Church’s structure is not just well-organized but also - for the reasons I stated above - quite consistent with the episcopal collegiality you’ve just described.

 

[jmj1984]

Hmm, maybe I phrased it poorly. Here is the text of the infallible definition of the dogma of our Lady’s Immaculate Conception:

*"Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart."*

I think my argument, TrueLight, is that even the thinking of which I said I approved above is in no sense actually guilty of “thinking otherwise than as has been defined” by Pope Pius IX. But look at the text of the dogmatic definition: what Catholics are bound to believe is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was even from the moment of her conception “preserved free from all stain of original sin.”

So how would a Catholic from the eastern tradition understand that? Their view on original sin doesn’t really include any “stain” of inherited guilt… so it’s not that they deny the definition. No, they fully confess and believe in the sinlessness - throughout her whole life - of the Blessed Virgin Mary; they address her with great love as the All-Holy Theotokos. It’s just that their theology has no real place for what the dogmatic definition insists the Blessed Virgin Mary’s conception was free from.

Am I the only one that see’s a problem with this? There are several elements to the infallible declaration on the immaculate conception:

1. ‘by a singular grace and privilege’ i.e that this is completely unique
   2)‘in view of the merits of jesus christ’ i.e it is because of Jesus Christ not of anything that the BVM herself has done, thereby refuting the argument that this somehow makes her equal to God or not needing salvation
   3)‘was preserved free from all stain of orginal sin’ i.e is not guilty for the sin of Adam and thus would not to be baptised as the ‘guilt’ that is washed away in baptism was never present in the BVM.
2. ‘Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart’ i.e no one may think or believe otherwise.

If i may therefore make several salient points:

1)Any theology which does not accept the idea of Jesus Christ producing a ‘superabundance of merits’ or the ‘treasury of merits’ which the church has access to it condemned because it is irreconciliable with the second part of the definition
2)Any theology which reduces original sin just to mortality, a result of death or concupiscence is likewise irreconciliable with the definition as the BVM was preserved from all stain of original sin that is both the loss of sanctifying grace and the concupiscence.
3)Pope Pius IX does not allow for any other explanations of the doctrine as he clearly states ‘Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us’

To reduce the definition to merely meaning that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sinless and All-Holy is therefore a gross oversimplification. Now I know that this is not incompatible with all eastern views of original sin as some believe that all men do suffer from a loss of sanctifying grace as well as from concupiscence. That view even if it does not use the word ‘stain’ is perfectly reconciliable with what the Pope teaches, others may not be.

Lastly it is worth pointing out that Infallible statements by their very nature apply to the entire church, Pope Pius IX when defining the doctrine did it for both eastern and western churches using the language and theology he chose. To unpick his words or simplify matters in an attempt to claim that the encyclical does not contradict at least some views of original sin in the east is very rash and clearly condemned by The Pope himself. Further he was aware of the Eastern Churches and their theology, yet he still chose to use the theology which is more western and to bind the whole church to this dogma.

 

[Hesychios]

No I don’t.

But don’t forget, Orthodox can in fact receive communion in Latin Catholic churches and as was pointed out, it is very easy for an Orthodox to be received into the Latin church.

But the Anglicans do just the same for Roman Catholics.

Rome is bending over backwards to have the Orthodox be in communion with her and apparently the feeling is not mutual.

Anglicans are bending over backwards to have the Roman Catholics be in communion with her and apparently the feeling is not mutual.

 

[TrueLight]

But the Anglicans do just the same for Roman Catholics.
Anglicans are bending over backwards to have the Roman Catholics be in communion with her and apparently the feeling is not mutual.

Great, but irrelevant. We’re speaking of Orthodox and Rome.

I was responding to Blue.

Either way it shows there is a difference in theology and if Orthodox want to be in communion with Rome, the theologies should align.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Fone,
I don’t have as much time as I need, but for as long as I can I will make quick additional remarks …

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I disagree specifically with the penultimate sentence in the above quote. The “central office on Vatican hill” has no business micromanaging the autonomous eastern churches whose bishops are in communion with the pope of Rome, and - I believe - no desire to do so…

Actually though, it claims the right to, and whether or not it does is not up to anyone but the Pope.

As patriarch of the Latin Church he does indeed do all those things within that church.

Well, that’s just it. He doesn’t have a right to do that throughout the western church either (according to the early canons), and historically it doesn’t show up until many centuries later. But he does try, and then the system was beginning to be extended into the east, all illicit from an Orthodox point of view.

And for practical reasons, he sometimes is directly involved with eastern churches as well. But it’s just not true that he does any of that within the patriarchal eastern churches, whose autonomy I believe represents the ecclesiological ideal.

He can do this because the Pope (his predecessors and successors) control the canons. They write the new canons, the canons every bishop must abide by … and they are not suggestions, there is no wiggle room. These are the law. The entire code of canon law is a rewrite, one would be hard pressed to identify the oldest canons, and when and where they were formulated.

The eastern patriarchs (only a few eastern churches actually have patriarchs) are not allowed to appoint or confirm any bishops in their own synod until they have asked for and received communion from the Pope. It is quite clear that this is not how the early church functioned, and it represents someone’s ideal, of course, but not the church’s ideal nor divine prerogative for the bishops.

Of course as a Catholic I believe in his supreme authority.

The keyword here is believe.

That is exactly what I am referring to when I say it has become a dogma.

If the churches of the west simply decided to organize themselves in this way as a practical matter (indeed, that is probably what really happened), then it could be understood.

But once you claim that it is this way because God intended it, and one must believe and obey or one is out of the church and under risk of damnation, well then, that’s a whole newr kettle of fries. You have made it into a dogma.

… a taught belief that the early church did not know, it is new and not Apostolic Teaching.

As a discipline, that would not be so hard to understand. The church can make such arrangement if it chooses and change them as needed, but not as a dogma. You, of course, are free to accept this, in fact you must. But it is not Apostolic teaching, and can not be a dogma according to Holy Orthodoxy.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Decrees of Vatican Council of 1870AD

This is not a doctrine that saves people, it can only damn people.

From the Eastern Code of Canon Law, promulgated by His Holiness the Pope of Rome, the CCEO …

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 46

1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

 

[CopticChristian]

I did say this above and oh dear I’m getting sandalised over the internet This wouldnt happen to be what the papal legates did to the patriarch of constantinope that started the whole schism in the first place would it?

Maybe if you actually bothered to provide some evidence for your statements rather than make ad hominem attacks and argue ab absurdam we’d get somewhere but you haven’t or can’t.

And as for doing what Jesus told the apostles to do in a town where they were not received, all I can say is how childish can you get? Doing that on an internet forum to someone who has only ever asked for evidence and has not insulted your faith at all (and don’t say otherwise that would be an untruth) is well just wow.

Has anyone else noticed that commencing with this post the discussion concerning Schism, Orthodox and the like derailed the discussion from Eastern Catholics belief in Venial and Mortal sin to the post by true light and what follows. It is all interesting however not addressing the original posting.

Great, but irrelevant. We’re speaking of Orthodox and Rome.

I was responding to Blue.

Either way it shows there is a difference in theology and if Orthodox want to be in communion with Rome, the theologies should align.

Do Eastern Catholics believe in Mortal and Venial sin. The question has been answered. Now were talking about Orthodox, Rome, Schismatics, ad hominem???

 

[TrueLight]

Has anyone else noticed that commencing with this post the discussion concerning Schism, Orthodox and the like derailed the discussion from Eastern Catholics belief in Venial and Mortal sin to the post by true light and what follows. It is all interesting however not addressing the original posting.

Do Eastern Catholics believe in Mortal and Venial sin. The question has been answered. Now were talking about Orthodox, Rome, Schismatics, ad hominem???

Actually the thread moved in a certain direction way before the JMJ post you quoted or before anything I had to say.

Maybe what followed should be a different thread but in my opinion what eastern Catholics believe about sin is intertwined with what they are required to believe by Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

Great, but irrelevant. We’re speaking of Orthodox and Rome.

I don’t think it is irrelevant at all. Roman Catholics do not shed a tear over the fact that Anglicans cannot receive communion until they convert to Catholic doctrine. There is a serious logic to that.

Orthodox can’t make an exception. Orthodox cannot establish formal communion with either Anglicans nor Roman Catholics. Both must convert, it is a weighty matter.

We note that the Roman Catholic church will accept communion of individual Orthodox almost unconditionally, and it actually should (… and the Orthodox persons should refuse the offer). The Orthodox church is the Roman Catholic church’s past, for the Roman Catholic church to reject the Orthodox would be like rejection of it’s own Apostolic origins, rejecting it’s own past.

It can not do that.

Either way it shows there is a difference in theology and if Orthodox want to be in communion with Rome, the theologies should align.

I agree completely, if the Roman Catholic church wants to be in communion with Holy Orthodoxy, the theologies should align.

 

[Bluegoat]

No I don’t.

But don’t forget, Orthodox can in fact receive communion in Latin Catholic churches and as was pointed out, it is very easy for an Orthodox to be received into the Latin church.

Rome is bending over backwards to have the Orthodox be in communion with her and apparently the feeling is not mutual.

Roman Catholics are welcome to receive in Anglican churches, and it is pretty easy for a Catholic to come to the Anglican Church - in fact I know quite a few who have.

 

[TrueLight]

… for the Roman Catholic church to reject the Orthodox would be like rejection of it’s own Apostolic origins, rejecting it’s own past.

Never thought of it like that. Something to ponder.

 

[Hesychios]

Has anyone else noticed that commencing with this post the discussion concerning Schism, Orthodox and the like derailed the discussion from Eastern Catholics belief in Venial and Mortal sin to the post by true light and what follows. It is all interesting however not addressing the original posting.

True enough.

But if the claim has been made that one can be Orthodox and yet in communion with Rome, I think the answer is no, and I think you will probably agree.

Therefore, it stands to reason all Eastern Catholics are bound to accept all dogmatic pronouncements of the Latin church, the Popes and the Latin Councils, and the Latin understanding of those pronouncements as they are given. They really have no choice, they must obey their bishops with teaching authority who must follow their Pope.

However, there definitely are Eastern Catholics who do not believe everything the Latin church teaches, nor understand it the way Latin Catholics do. What is to be done about that?

 

[Bluegoat]

Great, but irrelevant. We’re speaking of Orthodox and Rome.

I was responding to Blue.

Either way it shows there is a difference in theology and if Orthodox want to be in communion with Rome, the theologies should align.

It’s completely to the point. You wanted to know why the Orthodox don’t communicate Catholics, despite the fact that Catholics are willing to communicate and accommodate the Orthodox.

It is for precisely the same reasons that the Catholics don’t communicate the Anglicans, though Anglicans are willing to communicate and accommodate the Catholics.

The logic is identical. If you understand how you, as a Catholic, feel about the Anglicans, you understand how the Orthodox feel about you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Everyday that you do not sit for one hour with yourself and think about the day’s sins and your shortcomings to help raise yourself up again, then do not count that day as part of your life” St. Issac the Syrian

Those “shortcomings” we in the Catholic Church call “Venial”.

There is “no” conversion of the CC coming. There is NO CONVERSION of the EO coming. There is communion period. There is only ONE Holy Apostolic church. Believe it or not YOU are in it. The true Churchs of Christ remain on Earth exactly were they were from day ONE. There they will remain.

When man’s ego, that would be the “WE” put our foolish misconception aside, their will be better COMMUNICATION. However, there will still be a Church in Rome,Greece, in Russia, in Egypt etc.

What did God say about these churchs? They will remain because HE placed them their. His followers will have that and they will Never be refused to come.

What we do not agree on has ZIP to do with what GOD placed on EARTH. Its just what we do not agree on. I do not always agree with my brother, however you can pick your friends but you cannot pick your family. Maybe someday your brother will also be your friend.

 

[Bluegoat]

True enough.

But if the claim has been made that one can be Orthodox and yet in communion with Rome, I think the answer is no, and I think you will probably agree.

Therefore, it stands to reason all Eastern Catholics are bound to accept all dogmatic pronouncements of the Latin church, the Popes and the Latin Councils, and the Latin understanding of those pronouncements as they are given. They really have no choice, they must obey their bishops with teaching authority who must follow their Pope.

However, there definitely are Eastern Catholics who do not believe everything the Latin church teaches, nor understand it the way Latin Catholics do. What is to be done about that?

I don’t know, on the one hand I think the Latin church has developed some clearly innovative doctrines, and so I don’t thing they are compatible with orthodox, or Orthodox belief. But the idea that there can be more than one theological expression of the faith is, IMO, pretty basic, and we can see it from early on in the Church.

In a way I find it a bit funny, because it seems to me that confusing what are really not meant to be dogmatic ideas with dogmas has been a big problem for the Latin Church in the past, and caused a lot of problems. But these days I see that attitude more with Orthodoxy, and it just seems, well, unorthodox. It’s almost like for some people they have switched places.

 

[jmj1984]

Those “shortcomings” we in the Catholic Church call “Venial”.

There is “no” conversion of the CC coming. There is NO CONVERSION of the EO coming. There is communion period. There is only ONE Holy Apostolic church. Believe it or not YOU are in it. The true Churchs of Christ remain on Earth exactly were they were from day ONE. There they will remain.

What did God say about these churchs? They will remain because HE placed them their. His followers will have that and they will Never be refused to come.

What we do not agree on has ZIP to do with what GOD placed on EARTH. Its just what we do not agree on. I do not always agree with my brother, however you can pick your friends but you cannot pick your family. Maybe someday your brother will also be your friend.

'**I, N, with a firm faith believe and profess each and everything which is contained in the Creed which the Holy Roman Church maketh use of. To wit:

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary: and was made man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

I also profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.

I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.

I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.

I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated.

I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honour and veneration is to be given them.

I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.

I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.

This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life, I do so profess and swear to maintain with the help of God. And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and professed by all those over whom I have charge. I N. do so pledge, promise, and swear, so help me God and these Holy Gospels.**’ Creed of Pius IV, approved and infallibly proclaimed by Vatican I.

There is only true church of Christ and that we call The Catholic Church or as the creed does The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.

 

[TrueLight]

It’s completely to the point. You wanted to know why the Orthodox don’t communicate Catholics, despite the fact that Catholics are willing to communicate and accommodate the Orthodox.

It is for precisely the same reasons that the Catholics don’t communicate the Anglicans, though Anglicans are willing to communicate and accommodate the Catholics.

The logic is identical. If you understand how you, as a Catholic, feel about the Anglicans, you understand how the Orthodox feel about you.

I actually didn’t know that Anglicans communicate Catholics so I didn’t fully understand your question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

'**I, N, with a firm faith believe and profess each and everything which is contained in the Creed which the Holy Roman Church maketh use of. To wit:

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary: and was made man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

I also profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.

I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.

I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.

I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated.

I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honour and veneration is to be given them.

I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.

I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.

This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life, I do so profess and swear to maintain with the help of God. And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and professed by all those over whom I have charge. I N. do so pledge, promise, and swear, so help me God and these Holy Gospels.**’ Creed of Pius IV, approved and infallibly proclaimed by Vatican I.

There is only true church of Christ and that we call The Catholic Church or as the creed does The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.

Your point?