Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[jmj1984]

But TrueLight, Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Not ALL Eastern Catholics believe that and certainly not the Church itself.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Not ALL Eastern Catholics believe that and certainly not the Church itself.

All I’m going to say is this- if Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox in Communion with Rome, than what are they?

And here we go!

 

[jmj1984]

All I’m going to say is this- if Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox in Communion with Rome, than what are they?

And here we go!

Orthodox reconciled to Rome? or Rather… Eastern Catholics!

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Orthodox reconciled to Rome? or Rather… Eastern Catholics!

Wait… so Eastern Catholics are reconciled to Rome… making them Orthodox in Communion with Rome. And Orthodox in Communion with Rome are reconciled… making them Eastern Catholics…

Huh. Who knew?!

 

[jmj1984]

Wait… so Eastern Catholics are reconciled to Rome… making them Orthodox in Communion with Rome. And Orthodox in Communion with Rome are reconciled… making them Eastern Catholics…

Huh. Who knew?!

…No. Eastern Catholics are just Eastern Catholics. I’m not getting into it anymore because thats a topic for a different thread. But as not all the views and disciplines of the Orthodox Church are completely reconciliable with the doctrine of Rome I can’t see how 'Orthodox in communion with Rome’ would work. Regardless nowhere near the majority of Eastern Catholics subscribe to the idea and that is after all all it is, an idea not a doctrine or a dogma.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

…No. Eastern Catholics are just Eastern Catholics. I’m not getting into it anymore because thats a topic for a different thread. But as not all the views and disciplines of the Orthodox Church are completely reconciliable with the doctrine of Rome I can’t see how 'Orthodox in communion with Rome’ would work. Regardless nowhere near the majority of Eastern Catholics subscribe to the idea and that is after all all it is, an idea not a doctrine or a dogma.

And I won’t get into it, either. I don’t want to derail the thread. And I’m sure that if I search I could find many threads on this issue.

And I apologize if I seemed to be goading you. That certainly wasn’t my intent.

God bless, friend

 

[jmj1984]

And I won’t get into it, either. I don’t want to derail the thread. And I’m sure that if I search I could find many threads on this issue.

And I apologize if I seemed to be goading you. That certainly wasn’t my intent.

God bless, friend

God Bless

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

These two concepts are related and are explained as much in Vatican I, the pope has universal jurisdiction in order to support the church. Some Eastern Catholics would object regardless, they just don’t like Papal supremacy full stop.

Yes, I realize that. It can be frustrating when even eastern Catholics say things like, “I don’t believe in papal supremacy.” Sometimes their rhetoric is frustratingly unhelpful, but what they do believe about the Petrine primacy - at least if they hold a patristic, historically responsible High Petrine view - is indeed compatible with what I - and the Vatican Councils, too - consider to be the content/teaching of “papal supremacy.”

So yes, sometimes eastern Catholics say things that at best need clarification. But honestly, when they actually explain what they do believe about papal primacy, I discover that there is no reason to question that they actually do hold all that the Church requires in the sense of papal supremacy.

It’s just the term they don’t like, because it often has Absolutist Petrine connotations.

If remember correctly his view wasn’t unopposed, especially not by Latin Catholics.

That’s certainly true. But it doesn’t change the demonstrable fact that he had the luxury of claiming as an ally the Official Relatio, the papacy’s official interpretation of Vatican I. If the popes themselves and the Roman bureaucracy officially approves of the High Petrine view… well, at best it’s the word of some lay Catholics against the pope.

Then so far as the definition of Original sin accepts that original sin is not a result of death nor is death the only result of Original Sin there is no problem.

This can be a tricky issue. But I’ve never been given by eastern Catholics a reason to think that they deny what Florence, Trent, the papal declaration of the Immaculate Conception, etc. teach.

I admit that sometimes it’s not so easy with those not in communion with Rome. I have read Orthodox websites that assert that the Mother of God was indeed conceived with original sin. These websites are silly and ridiculous, of course, because they’re trying to play ball within a theological framework that is alien to their tradition’s.

They also ignore that Orthodox thought itself has evolved on this. There were plenty of Orthodox bishops and theologians in the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries (I think I’ve got the timeframe right) who believed wholeheartedly in the Immaculate Conception. Even within eastern Orthodoxy, there’s no consensus.

So don’t let the machinations of polemicists get you down, my friend.

Ut Unum Sint has to be read in the light of tradition and clarifications from the CDF which explicitly state otherwise or at least do as regards certain interpretations

We also have to acknowledge that actions speak louder than words: Rome has not even attempted to censure the eastern churches on these matters. Not saying they agree with everything every lay Internet easterner says, but they’re aware that these are complicated issues that are still being worked out. As such, “Your side is just wrong” is, when it comes to East/West issues, most likely going to fail to do justice to any issue.

Lets be clear the terms in the Ex Cathedra as regards Original Sin are the same defined and put forward De Fide by the council of trent. So no, Eastern Catholics don’t get to have a different view of Original sin, the same way they don’t get to choose which councils are ecumenical or not, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

See, this is where you’re just going to have to accept that it’s more complicated than that. Eastern Catholics don’t deny what Trent teaches, but the way it defines things like original sin may not use the terminology and perspectives of their tradition. Rome wants them to preserve their theological patrimony, so if that includes their interpreting original sin according to different parameters, then not only do they “get to” but they should.

There is also legitimate ambiguity concerning how many councils are ecumenical. As far as I’m concerned, many easterners raise legitimate reasons for considering at least some of the latter fourteen councils to be general councils of the Latin Church. They’re not entirely right in my view, however, because in my opinion by their standards there would only have been two or even just one - yet they profess seven… see? Complicated issues.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I would love to see a document that states the basic belief that is necessary for an Eastern Church to be in union with Rome. That is the part I am having difficulty with.

And quite understandably so. There is real ambiguity here, at least at this point. Bishops and theologians on both sides have enough trouble with this stuff that it’s not unsurprising that we will too.

However, in my opinion, if you are Catholic, you cannot have opinions that conflict with Catholic Dogma. What if I agree more with the East’s theology about the way in which God protected Mary from sin. Can I choose to believe that? I’m told I can’t because I’m entering the Latin church.

I don’t see why you can’t hold eastern views on original sin and the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Honestly, the Orthodox call her the All-Holy Theotokos. If original sin is any kind of stain or inherited guilt, she can’t be All-Holy if she was conceived with that… as with other issues, I think polemicists fabricate incompatibility out of paranoia. Ignore the polemicists.

All I’m going to say is this- if Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox in Communion with Rome, than what are they?

Exactly. By being in communion with - and yes, in submission to - the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, they are being more Orthodox, not less Orthodox. It seems to me that the first millennium Byzantine Christians loved the pope of Rome and often happily relied on his help against heretics and wayward emperors.

Case in point: Pope Honorius I, widely considered to have acquiesced to a promotion of heretical Monothelite views (even the old Catholic Encyclopedia asserts that no Catholic has a right to defend Pope Honorius), would have done better if he had intervened more strongly in the theological dispute in Constantinople that they needed his help in solving. It was precisely his lax leadership that was a problem…

 

[jmj1984]

Yes, I realize that. It can be frustrating when even eastern Catholics say things like, “I don’t believe in papal supremacy.” Sometimes their rhetoric is frustratingly unhelpful, but what they do believe about the Petrine primacy - at least if they hold a patristic, historically responsible High Petrine view - is indeed compatible with what I - and the Vatican Councils, too - consider to be the content/teaching of “papal supremacy.”

But we can both agree some Catholic hold an identical view to the Orthodox as regarding Papal Primacy and NOT the ‘High Petrine View’

That’s certainly true. But it doesn’t change the demonstrable fact that he had the luxury of claiming as an ally the Official Relatio, the papacy’s official interpretation of Vatican I. If the popes themselves and the Roman bureaucracy officially approves of the High Petrine view… well, at best it’s the word of some lay Catholics against the pope.

The only demonstrable fact is that he had the benefit of his opinion of what the relatio said.

This can be a tricky issue. But I’ve never been given by eastern Catholics a reason to think that they deny what Florence, Trent, the papal declaration of the Immaculate Conception, etc. teach.

I admit that sometimes it’s not so easy with those not in communion with Rome. I have read Orthodox websites that assert that the Mother of God was indeed conceived with original sin. These websites are silly and ridiculous, of course, because they’re trying to play ball within a theological framework that is alien to their tradition’s.

We also have to acknowledge that actions speak louder than words: Rome has not even attempted to censure the eastern churches on these matters. Not saying they agree with everything every lay Internet easterner says, but they’re aware that these are complicated issues that are still being worked out. As such, “Your side is just wrong” is, when it comes to East/West issues, most likely going to fail to do justice to any issue.

Frankly the Vatican has got more important things to deal with, especially when its teaching is clear on these matters. Neither does ‘Well the Vatican hasn’t said anything so it must be alright’ constitute an argument. There are plenty of bishops during the 60’s-80’s who held what must at best be described as heterodox positions but were never censured or only after some considerable period of time. Even recently one can point to an australian bishop who believed women could be made priests and that the sacrament of confession should be replaced by some public ceremony of confession and was only made to retire after decades of holding these positions.

See, this is where you’re just going to have to accept that it’s more complicated than that. Eastern Catholics don’t deny what Trent teaches, but the way it defines things like original sin may not use the terminology and perspectives of their tradition. Rome wants them to preserve their theological patrimony, so if that includes their interpreting original sin according to different parameters, then not only do they “get to” but they should.

The problem is that no one has ever said that it is legitmate to define things in a different way, the only documet people who do so can point to is Ut Unum Sint which they either misinterpret or must be read in the light of infallible statements that say otherwise. So no they don’t get to just as Luther didn’t get to misinterpret Original sin and neither did the other reformers.

There is also legitimate ambiguity concerning how many councils are ecumenical. As far as I’m concerned, many easterners raise legitimate reasons for considering at least some of the latter fourteen councils to be general councils of the Latin Church. They’re not entirely right in my view, however, because in my opinion by their standards there would only have been two or even just one - yet they profess seven… see? Complicated issues.

No friend they’re not complicated issues, the church believes there are 21 ecumenical councils. Its no use hiding behind the excuse of ‘its more complicated’ than that or ‘theres a divergence of opinion’ Its only complicated if you can’t submit to the church. For example women priests is a ‘complicated issue’ and yet women cannot be priests regardless of the divergence of opinions or complicatedness of the issue, the same applies to contraception, abortion etc…

 

[ConstantineTG]

So in other words no you are just going to make unsubstantiated claims and then claim that it doesn’t matter what lay people say anyway. How very un Vatican 2 of you!

And sorry but any logical person can see that beliefs contrary to any catechism of the church and any ecumenical council are condemned. Aside from this I’m sorry but there is no consensus on these issues amongst Eastern Catholics so there’s no point spinning that old tired argument. Aside from this anyone can see how absurd it is interpreting that as carte Blanche to contradict the church on De Fide issues.

Again, where does it say that our beliefs are contradictory? The reason that the Churches are in communion because we have affirmed that we essentially believe in the same thing. But that doesn’t mean we have to believe in the same exact theology.

 

[jmj1984]

Again, where does it say that our beliefs are contradictory? The reason that the Churches are in communion because we have affirmed that we essentially believe in the same thing. But that doesn’t mean we have to believe in the same exact theology.

When you started debating with me all I said was

1. The idea that original sin is merely death or a result of death is not the view of the church
   2)The refusal to accept the Popes Universal, supreme, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction is not catholic
   3)The refusal to accept 21 councils as ecumenical

Now if an Eastern Catholic accepts this, as I believe most eastern catholics do, then there is no contradiction in beliefs. Otherwise there is a self-evident contradiction

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would love to see a document that states the basic belief that is necessary for an Eastern Church to be in union with Rome. That is the part I am having difficulty with.

You can go read the declarations of union between particular Churches and Rome. Union of Brest is the best place to start.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM

By the way, regarding the argument about laity discussing things that the Pope is happy with, there are very few priests or religious that are on this forum, so all discussions are laity discussing documents, giving their opinions etc.

Its fine when lay people discuss. There is a problem when lay people try to speak with an authority reserved to Bishops.

What little I know of Orthodoxy is beautiful. In fact, I’m waiting for my Art of Prayer book, and I’m sure I’ll be buying a prayer rope soon.

Get one from our master beadsman, Mr. Phillip Rolfes. PM him.

However, in my opinion, if you are Catholic, you cannot have opinions that conflict with Catholic Dogma. What if I agree more with the East’s theology about the way in which God protected Mary from sin. Can I choose to believe that? I’m told I can’t because I’m entering the Latin church.

There is no conflict. Some people just make it sound like there is a conflict if we do not believe in what the RCs believe word for word. Its not that way.

Truth is truth.

Maybe the answer lies in the choice between being an Eastern Catholic or being Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Its the same thing. Unless by Eastern Catholics you mean “Roman Catholics with an Orthodox Liturgy”. Thats a gross misrepresentation of what Eastern Catholics are.

 

[ConstantineTG]

When you started debating with me all I said was

1. The idea that original sin is merely death or a result of death is not the view of the church

I never questioned this. But we have a different understanding of how sin and death came into the world, therefore original sin is not compatible with our theology. That is all I’m saying. We do not reject original sin on the basis that it is wrong or heretical, we do not think of it that way. It fits the Western theology, but not the Eastern.

2)The refusal to accept the Popes Universal, supreme, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction is not catholic

We do not refuse it. The problem is Latin Catholics who make the Pope’s authority to be more than what it really is.

3)The refusal to accept 21 councils as ecumenical

Now if an Eastern Catholic accepts this, as I believe most eastern catholics do, then there is no contradiction in beliefs. Otherwise there is a self-evident contradiction

First, tell me what is new belief defined in the later 14 councils that we do not already believe in?

 

[jmj1984]

I never questioned this. But we have a different understanding of how sin and death came into the world, therefore original sin is not compatible with our theology. That is all I’m saying. We do not reject original sin on the basis that it is wrong or heretical, we do not think of it that way. It fits the Western theology, but not the Eastern.

But we know that the Church has taught it De Fide, that is it requires ALL Catholics to believe it.

We do not refuse it. The problem is Latin Catholics who make the Pope’s authority to be more than what it really is.

Or Eastern Catholics who lessen the Popes authority from what it really is

First, tell me what is new belief defined in the later 14 councils that we do not already believe in?

I don’t have to, the councils are ecumenical councils, thats the belief of the church to say otherwise is to say that the church is wrong and that you and your interpretation of your tradition is right

As for making a list, it would take some time to go through all the councils and do the list justice but off the top of my head:

1)Original Sin
2)Papal Supremacy and Primacy

The former applies only to those Eastern Catholics that believe Original sin is merely mortality or a result of it. And the latter to those who believe in a so called ‘Low Petrine View’ or even I would argue to some peoples interpretation of the ‘High Petrine View’

 

[ConstantineTG]

But we know that the Church has taught it De Fide, that is it requires ALL Catholics to believe it.

Or Eastern Catholics who lessen the Popes authority from what it really is

I don’t have to, the councils are ecumenical councils, thats the belief of the church to say otherwise is to say that the church is wrong and that you and your interpretation of your tradition is right

As for making a list, it would take some time to go through all the councils and do the list justice but off the top of my head:

1)Original Sin
2)Papal Supremacy and Primacy

The former applies only to those Eastern Catholics that believe Original sin is merely mortality or a result of it. And the latter to those who believe in a so called ‘Low Petrine View’ or even I would argue to some peoples interpretation of the ‘High Petrine View’

So you’re saying there is something NEW defined during the later 14 councils?

 

[jmj1984]

So you’re saying there is something NEW defined during the later 14 councils?

I notice you conveniantly ignore the rest of what I’ve said.

Your question is a trick question, a trap, one which I will not fall into.

We both know that the church does not teach ‘new’ things it merely more faithfully expounds the deposit of faith. However these doctrines that more faithfully expound the deposit of faith may seem new, but they are in fact merely legitmate doctrinal development, this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, most clearly expounded by Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman. Now to deny these doctrines which more faithfully expound the deposit of faith is wrong, it is a sin against Divine Faith and hence against God. It was not wrong to deny these doctrines when they were mere theological opinions but as soon as they were proclaimed De Fide it became a sin against Divine Faith to do so. For example St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the immaculate conception, he did not sin in so doing because the immaculate conception had not yet been declared De Fide. However it would be absurd for someone to claim that because St Thomas Aquinas did not believe this I am going to follow the ‘Genuine Thomistic tradition’ and deny it as well. Why? Because it is now De Fide and we must submit to the doctrine of the church which does not allow us liberty in this matter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I notice you conveniantly ignore the rest of what I’ve said.

Your question is a trick question, a trap, one which I will not fall into.

We both know that the church does not teach ‘new’ things it merely more faithfully expounds the deposit of faith. However these doctrines that more faithfully expound the deposit of faith may seem new, but they are in fact merely legitmate doctrinal development, this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, most clearly expounded by Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman. Now to deny these doctrines which more faithfully expound the deposit of faith is wrong, it is a sin against Divine Faith and hence against God. It was not wrong to deny these doctrines when they were mere theological opinions but as soon as they were proclaimed De Fide it became a sin against Divine Faith to do so. For example St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the immaculate conception, he did not sin in so doing because the immaculate conception had not yet been declared De Fide. However it would be absurd for someone to claim that because St Thomas Aquinas did not believe this I am going to follow the ‘Genuine Thomistic tradition’ and deny it as well. Why? Because it is now De Fide and we must submit to the doctrine of the church which does not allow us liberty in this matter.

See, thats the problem here. You think its a trap because you think this debate is about who can outwit the other, rather than seeking the truth.

If there is nothing new defined, then what is it in our belief that is not already compatible with what the West believes? Because the faith has already been defined in the Deposit of Faith handed down by the Apostles, why does it matter whether we accept a council or not? We already believe what is defined in a council, why does it matter?

For example, the Assumption. The Dormition is a Great Feast in the East. So what if we do not accept Munificentissimus Deus? We already believe in what is defined there.

 

[jmj1984]

See, thats the problem here. You think its a trap because you think this debate is about who can outwit the other, rather than seeking the truth.

If there is nothing new defined, then what is it in our belief that is not already compatible with what the West believes? Because the faith has already been defined in the Deposit of Faith handed down by the Apostles, why does it matter whether we accept a council or not? We already believe what is defined in a council, why does it matter?

For example, the Assumption. The Dormition is a Great Feast in the East. So what if we do not accept Munificentissimus Deus? We already believe in what is defined there.

Well you’ll pardon for being supicious when you ignore everything else I’ve written and capitalise the word ‘new’.

And I’ve just explained why. Its akin to a thomist going ‘I’m going to follow the genuine tradition of St Thomas and deny the Immaculate Conception’, that is an absurdity. As I explained above whilst denying the Immaculate Conception was possible for St Thomas Aquinas because it was not yet De Fide it is not possible for us.

It’s also important to deal with another important underlying basis for your points. Western Catholics do NOT just believe western theology, the theology of the church is UNIVERSAL belonging neither to the east nor to the west but including both. The Catholic Church being the true Chuch of Christ accepts the testimony of all the church fathers east and west and believes that there is a consensus of support from the fathers both east and west supporting all its doctrines. To divide the church as if to say that the western church only uses and can only use western church fathers and vice-versa is totally foolish and opposed to the view of The Church. This appears to be an unhealthy habit of some Eastern Catholics, whilst the Catholic Church cites numerous church fathers from every school of theology east and west they will cite only a few eastern theologians in defence of their view. Some even commit the self-evident absurdity of quoting those that have been implicitly condemned by the church’s rejection of their view or that formulated their views after the schism of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

There are dozens of different theological traditions within the Catholic Church, Thomistic, Augustinian etc… Now whilst these theological traditions may disagree on matters that are not De Fide, as regards those that are De Fide any disagreements must be set aside and the doctrine of the church accepted. It is no different with those that wish to follow a particular Eastern Tradition which they claim shows that they do not need to believe in the doctrine of original sin or papal supremacy or primacy.

Lastly this idea of ‘returning to your genuine traditions’, can anyone show that this was meant to be anything more than liturgical and disciplinary? Is there anywhere where the Church authorises eastern catholics to believe different De Fide doctrines from the rest of the Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well you’ll pardon for being supicious when you ignore everything else I’ve written and capitalise the word ‘new’.

And I’ve just explained why. Its akin to a thomist going ‘I’m going to follow the genuine tradition of St Thomas and deny the Immaculate Conception’, that is an absurdity. As I explained above whilst denying the Immaculate Conception was possible for St Thomas Aquinas because it was not yet De Fide it is not possible for us.

It’s also important to deal with another important underlying basis for your points. Western Catholics do NOT just believe western theology, the theology of the church is UNIVERSAL belonging neither to the east nor to the west but including both. The Catholic Church being the true Chuch of Christ accepts the testimony of all the church fathers east and west and believes that there is a consensus of support from the fathers both east and west supporting all its doctrines. To divide the church as if to say that the western church only uses and can only use western church fathers and vice-versa is totally foolish and opposed to the view of The Church. This appears to be an unhealthy habit of some Eastern Catholics, whilst the Catholic Church cites numerous church fathers from every school of theology east and west they will cite only a few eastern theologians in defence of their view. Some even commit the self-evident absurdity of quoting those that have been implicitly condemned by the church’s rejection of their view or that formulated their views after the schism of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

There are dozens of different theological traditions within the Catholic Church, Thomistic, Augustinian etc… Now whilst these theological traditions may disagree on matters that are not De Fide, as regards those that are De Fide any disagreements must be set aside and the doctrine of the church accepted. It is no different with those that wish to follow a particular Eastern Tradition which they claim shows that they do not need to believe in the doctrine of original sin or papal supremacy or primacy.

Actually no, St. Thomas could not have denied the Immaculate Conception because it was already a held belief at the time. Thats my point. The Eastern belief on Mary, for example, already says that she is immaculate and pure from conception to dormition, a virgin for all eternity. So what does the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception change or oppose to what we already believe? The Immaculate Conception did not introduce anything new, so St. Thomas could not have denied it. At most is that he would have a different way of defining it, which is what the East has. But to hold a belief that Mary is tainted by sin would have been heretical even during his time. If you believe that St. Thomas could have actively denied the Immaculate Conception in a way that he can believe that Mary was tainted by sin, then it proves that the Immaculate Conception is a new belief defined only in recent times. And that by itself shows its heretical since we cannot add anything new to the faith especially at the dogmatic level. What happened is just a dogmatic definition, not a new dogma.

Lastly this idea of ‘returning to your genuine traditions’, can anyone show that this was meant to be anything more than liturgical and disciplinary? Is there anywhere where the Church authorises eastern catholics to believe different De Fide doctrines from the rest of the Church?

Returning to tradition is a complete return to it. What use is a Liturgy if it is not supported by belief behind it? The Liturgy is essential in the Eastern Faith. If the Liturgy is not in sync with the belief, then its nothing more than going through the motions of rubrics for celebration, its empty, its meaningless. In the East, the Liturgy is the basis of catechesis. What we believe is reflected in how we worship.