Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[TrueLight]

Also, to Constantine, I genuinely would - if you have the time - appreciate your response to the content discussed in those two links I gave earlier:

Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1988 Clarification of the “Ratzinger Proposal”

and

The reply from poster ajk on this Byzcath forum thread on ecclesiology and ecumenism

Thanks!

Thanks for posting the links:

A kind of ecumenical dogma seems to be developing here which needs some attention. Quite likely it began with this train of thought: for intercommunion with the Orthodox, the Catholic Church need not necessarily insist on acceptance of the dogmas of the second millennium. It was presumed that the Eastern Churches have retained the traditional form of the first millennium, which in itself is legitimate and, if rightly understood, contains no contradiction to further developments. The latter after all only unfolded what was already there in principle in the time of the undivided Church. I myself have already taken part in attempts to work out things like this [here he cites what he wrote in 1976 (name removed by moderator)rinciples of Catholic Theology]), but meanwhile they have grown out of hand to the point at which councils and the dogmatic decisions of the second millennium are supposed not to be regarded as ecumenical but as particular developments in the Latin Church, constituting its private property in the sense of “our two traditions”. But this distorts the first attempt to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences. For this way of looking at it actually implies a denial of the existence of the Universal Church in the second millennium, while tradition as a living, truth-giving power is frozen at the end of the first. This strikes at the very heart of the idea of Church and tradition, because ultimately such an age test dissolves the full authority of the Church, which is then left without a voice at the present day. Moreover, one might well ask, in reply to such an assertion, with what right people’s consciences, in such a particular Church as the Latin Church would then be, could be bound by such pronouncements. What once appeared as truth would have to be characterized as mere custom. The claim to truth that had hitherto been upheld would thus be disqualified as an abuse.

His words explain the general malaise I have about the whole thing, especially this part:

Moreover, one might well ask, in reply to such an assertion, with what right people’s consciences, in such a particular Church as the Latin Church would then be, could be bound by such pronouncements. What once appeared as truth would have to be characterized as mere custom.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If you read the statement through you will understand it rejects the immaculate conception on the basis that if it is true then Mary would not have to be saved.

But isn’t this part of the doctrine? That Mary still would need to be saved from this world even though she herself has not sinned?

 

[jmj1984]

But isn’t this part of the doctrine? That Mary still would need to be saved from this world even though she herself has not sinned?

Read what I wrote, its clear it is possible for esteemed theologians and even church fathers to be wrong on these matters.

 

[jmj1984]

Well, sure. Within the eastern Orthodox Church, there’s no uniformity on this matter: some hold a Low Petrine view, some hold a High Petrine view. I was talking about eastern Catholics…

Nor is there uniformity amongst eastern catholics a simple browsing amongst these forums or the internet will suffice to disabuse that notion.

Actually, you’re incorrect. Sorry, jmj, but the thoroughness I have seen from those like Marduk - both in quoting authoritative sources and historical facts - cannot be matched from those whose best argument is, “Well, I haven’t read that…”

You misunderstand I did not say ‘I haven’t read that’ I said ‘It doesn’t exist’ and it doesn’t.

Sometimes. They always build on each other, right? Didn’t Chalcedon clarify Ephesus? Didn’t Vatican II clarify Vatican I?

That very much depends, ecumenical councils are called to deal with doctrinal problems and often deal with disciplinary problems as well. Somtimes there is therefore no need to explicitly reference earlier ecumenical councils or to build on them.

And yes, I’m aware that Church documents sometimes refer to “twenty-one” ecumenical councils, but that is an assumption, not an assertion. Some of the latter fourteen councils didn’t deal with anything universal at all but merely with disciplinary matters of the Latin Church or with Church-state relationships in western and central Europe. Why should they be considered ecumenical? Not every council intended to be ecumenical and ratified by the pope came to be considered ecumenical, you know - even before the East-West Schism. So, “this council thinks it’s ecumenical” isn’t good enough.

Lets be clear every single authoritative document the church has produced on this subject states that there are 21 ecumenical councils so please do not mutilate the truth by claiming church documents ‘sometimes do so’. They don’t do it sometimes they do it always. Now whilst I have provided ample evidence to support the Church’s belief there are 21 ecumenical councils you have not provided a single document that states otherwise.

Second, what makes a council ecumenical is whether a pope accepts it as such, end of. Thats the doctrine of the church and can be seen in any authoritative document which deals with the matter. By this standard there are 21 councils, ergo there are 21 councils. I am not here as an apologist, I am here as a faithful catholic ‘passing on what I have received’ it is my duty simply what the church believes, it is up to you to accept or not. But please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that your view is the same as that of Church.

But jmj, please listen when I expain that this matter is no threat to the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church: even non-ecumenical councils like the Council of Orange (which condemned semi-Pelagianism) or the Council of Rome (which first set the canon of Scripture) can teach with authority. So no eastern Catholic who questions the “ecumenical” status of, say, Trent (which I personally consider ecumenical, by the way) is claiming anything that could ever justify not believing in its teachings.

But it is is, the only reason people advance this point of view is that they subscribe to the idea that councils that did not involve the eastern churches were not ecumenical, as if the Catholic church was not truly universal and as if councils needed to involve schismatics and herectics in order to be ecumenical.Every authoritative document from The Church that has dealt with this argument has rejected it, you cannot in fact cite a single one that says otherwise. That is why this idea is dangerous.

What about councils that don’t deal with anything universally relevant at all but merely with political matters and disciplinary matters of the Latin Church?

As you said I do not trust to my opinion, I obey the Church’s teachings on this matter and what does the church say? That there are 21 ecumenical councils

 

[ConstantineTG]

Read what I wrote, its clear it is possible for esteemed theologians and even church fathers to be wrong on these matters.

And the Church has never went back on dogmatic definitions to “clarify” it?

 

[jmj1984]

And the Church has never went back on dogmatic definitions to “clarify” it?

What do you mean gone back? When something is declared De Fide, thats it, the discussions over. There is no going back by definition.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the Catechism of the entire Catholic Church…all 21 or so sui juris Churches that make up the Catholic Church. It is the Universal Catechism.

Mortal sin is mortal sin.

Venial sin is venial sin.

 

[jmj1984]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the Catechism of the entire Catholic Church…all 21 or so sui juris Churches that make up the Catholic Church. It is the Universal Catechism.

Mortal sin is mortal sin.

Venial sin is venial sin.

:clapping:

 

[ConstantineTG]

What do you mean gone back? When something is declared De Fide, thats it, the discussions over. There is no going back by definition.

But isn’t that what we did with indulgences? Not that we reversed indulgences, but for hundreds of years we think that issuing specific time periods attached to indulgences was the right way to do it. And recently the Church went back on it and said that is not the proper way to handle it. So while the theological core of indulgences hasn’t changed, how its handled and implemented did. Which is essentially what Dogmatic Definitions do anyway. What has been believed in the past is not changed, but a definition is given to clarify. And thats not the end of it. In the future there can be further clarifications as long as the core of the belief remains unchanged.

 

[jmj1984]

But isn’t that what we did with indulgences? Not that we reversed indulgences, but for hundreds of years we think that issuing specific time periods attached to indulgences was the right way to do it. And recently the Church went back on it and said that is not the proper way to handle it. So while the theological core of indulgences hasn’t changed, how its handled and implemented did. Which is essentially what Dogmatic Definitions do anyway. What has been believed in the past is not changed, but a definition is given to clarify. And thats not the end of it. In the future there can be further clarifications as long as the core of the belief remains unchanged.

No, what the church did was to disabuse protestant notions that these indulgences are worth ‘100 days off purgatory’ as if time existed in purgatory. Regardless indulgences having a time period was not a doctrine or De Fide. Your analogy does not therefore hold up to examination.

'**(2) The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life. But in the Catholic doctrine that Divine revelation is addressed to the human mind and expresses real objective truth, dogmas are immutable Divine truths. It is an immutable truth for all time that Augustus was Emperor of Rome and George Washington first President of the United States. So according to Catholic belief, these are and will be for all time immutable truths — that there are three Persons in God, that Christ died for us, that He arose from the dead, that He founded the Church, that He instituted the sacraments. We may distinguish between the truths themselves and the language in which they are expressed. The full meaning of certain revealed truths has been only gradually brought out; the truths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.

(3) We are bound to believe revealed truths irrespective of their definition by the Church, if we are satisfied that God has revealed them. When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith. (See HERESY).

(4) Finally, Catholics do not admit that, as is sometimes alleged, dogmas are the arbitrary creations of ecclesiastical authority, that they are multiplied at will, that they are devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, that they are obstacles to conversions. Some of these are points of controversy which cannot be settled without reference to more fundamental questions. Dogmatic definitions would be arbitrary if there were no Divinely instituted infallible teaching office in the Church; but if, as Catholics maintain, God has established in His Church an infallible office, dogmatic definitions cannot be considered arbitrary. The same Divine Providence which preserves the Church from error will preserve her from inordinate multiplication of dogmas. She cannot define arbitrarily. We need only observe the life of the Church or of the Roman pontiffs to see that dogmas are not multiplied inordinately. And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation, they cannot be considered devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, or reasonable obstacles to conversions, on the contrary, the authoritative definition of truth and condemnation of error, are powerful arguments leading to the Church those who seek the truth earnestly.
Dogma and religion**’ from the Catholic Encylopedia, which before people say otherwise a perfectly reliable and authoritative source. Anyone who says otherwise is seriously ignorant.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, what the church did was to disabuse protestant notions that these indulgences are worth ‘100 days off purgatory’ as if time existed in purgatory. Regardless indulgences having a time period was not a doctrine or De Fide. Your analogy does not therefore hold up to examination.

That was my point. The belief can be “redefined” without touching the core. You can put new clothes on a person without changing the person. That is why Eastern Catholics have their own traditions, theology and belief. The person underneath is the same, the clothing is different. Not everything in dogmatic definitions is de fide. If you read closely, there are what is the core belief, and there are the elaborations based on Western theology. What you have been rambling about the past few pages is that you can’t seem to separate one from the other. But the Church is clear on what is essential and what is not. And the Churches, West and East, have already agreed on these matters.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the Catechism of the entire Catholic Church…all 21 or so sui juris Churches that make up the Catholic Church. It is the Universal Catechism.

Mortal sin is mortal sin.

Venial sin is venial sin.

Bzzz, wrong. The CCC is clearly a Western theological material. The Ukrainian Catholic Church has its own official Catechism which was just released this past June. Its still in Ukrainian only and would have an English version sometimes in the future. This will present a truly Eastern Catechism for use not only by the Ukrainian Catholics but quite possibly all Byzantine Rite Catholics as well.

 

[jmj1984]

That was my point. The belief can be “redefined” without touching the core. You can put new clothes on a person without changing the person. That is why Eastern Catholics have their own traditions, theology and belief. The person underneath is the same, the clothing is different. Not everything in dogmatic definitions is de fide. If you read closely, there are what is the core belief, and there are the elaborations based on Western theology. What you have been rambling about the past few pages is that you can’t seem to separate one from the other. But the Church is clear on what is essential and what is not. And the Churches, West and East, have already agreed on these matters.

Seeing as you cant marshal any authorities to support your point of view, I’m afraid you’re the one who’s been rambling.

 

[jmj1984]

Bzzz, wrong. The CCC is clearly a Western theological material. The Ukrainian Catholic Church has its own official Catechism which was just released this past June. Its still in Ukrainian only and would have an English version sometimes in the future. This will present a truly Eastern Catechism for use not only by the Ukrainian Catholics but quite possibly all Byzantine Rite Catholics as well.

And this is exactly the kind of separatist spirit I mentioned earlier, you want:

1. Your own catechism
2. Your own different and separate list of ecumenical councils
   3)Your own different interpretation of De Fide dogmas and in fact completely different De Fide dogmas

Well I’m sorry friend but it doesnt work like that, we’re not the anglican communion after all.

 

[TrueLight]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the Catechism of the entire Catholic Church…all 21 or so sui juris Churches that make up the Catholic Church. It is the Universal Catechism.

Mortal sin is mortal sin.

Venial sin is venial sin.

You would think, right?

Bzzz, wrong. The CCC is clearly a Western theological material. The Ukrainian Catholic Church has its own official Catechism which was just released this past June. Its still in Ukrainian only and would have an English version sometimes in the future. This will present a truly Eastern Catechism for use not only by the Ukrainian Catholics but quite possibly all Byzantine Rite Catholics as well.

I would love to read it in English. Because if any of the De Fide teaching is at odds, then the Latin Church should not be expected to assent to De Fide teaching on pain of sin.

And this is exactly the kind of separatist spirit I mentioned earlier, you want:

1. Your own catechism
2. Your own different and separate list of ecumenical councils
   3)Your own different interpretation of De Fide dogmas and in fact completely different De Fide dogmas

Well I’m sorry friend but it doesnt work like that, we’re not the anglican communion after all.

Which brings me back to the same point.

What is the point of communion? Is it just a peace treaty?

 

[jmj1984]

Which brings me back to the same point.

What is the point of communion? Is it just a peace treaty?

I would be VERY surprised if those who originally came into The Catholic Church and those that received them used the same arguments and language as some Eastern Catholics do these days. It goes back to my point about what ‘genuine traditions’ are, clearly they cannot contradict De Fide teaching.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

what makes a council ecumenical is whether a pope accepts it as such, end of. Thats the doctrine of the church and can be seen in any authoritative document which deals with the matter.

False. That requirement is indeed necessary but is not sufficient.

A pope confirmed the decrees of the Council of Sardica and intended it to be ecumenical. Yet it is not regarded as ecumenical by anyone.

 

[jmj1984]

False. That requirement is indeed necessary but is not sufficient.

A pope confirmed the decrees of the Council of Sardica and intended it to be ecumenical. Yet it is not regarded as ecumenical by anyone.

I see no evidence anywhere that the Pope accepted or promulugated the council as ecumenical.

 

[Mojo674]

Excuse me, but I believe it is this bickering of Westerners that Eastern Catholics aren’t Catholic which causes the most pain with Christ. We are brothers and sisters, are brothers and sisters different yes, are they one family yes, so they have separate beliefs but they are one. A good analogy about the Church are the Four Gospels. If some of you Roman Catholics believe we only need 1 expression of theology and spirituality then why do we have 4 Gospels. The point? Each Gospel is written for a different audience, culture, and location. Just as the four Evangelists do not contradict each other, the Eastern, Oriental, and Western Churches don’t either. If you want another less religious example, take the hand. When you make a fist what do you have? One fist. But what makes up that fist? Five separate fingers which aren’t exactly alike and can perform functions in various capacities. No finger is less a finger than the other, and when they all come together they are one fist. Therefore you have 5 different ways to be a finger, which all come together as 1 fist, and they are all rooted in one hand. Enough with this, “It is De Fide you must believe” we aren’t denying it, but it isn’t part of our patrimony. How would you like it if we imposed the Eastern fasting regulations, or the concept of energies, essence, and theoria upon you? You don’t ascribe to toll houses, heck that concept is dominant really in the Russian Orthodox Church, do the Russians say that the Greek Orthodox are heretics for not believing in it? NO. How about iconography, all Westerners should have Byzantine iconography. This wouldn’t be acceptable in the West now would it? So quit, arguing and starting learning about the East. I shall give you some advice, you can’t learn and truly understand Eastern theology and spirituality without taking yourself out of the Western mentality. Come at it with a tabula rasa, you must see how the East lives it. Also jmj the Eastern Divine Liturgy teaches much of the theology and spirituality, so technically it is an authority within the church. That is why it has not been changed since the 1st millenia.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And this is exactly the kind of separatist spirit I mentioned earlier, you want:

1. Your own catechism
2. Your own different and separate list of ecumenical councils
   3)Your own different interpretation of De Fide dogmas and in fact completely different De Fide dogmas

Well I’m sorry friend but it doesnt work like that, we’re not the anglican communion after all.

Look, if we want to be separatists, it is sssoooooo easy for us to become Orthodox. In fact, going to an OCA parish would probably be better for me than being in a Ukrainian Catholic one because I’m ethnically out of place.

And its not that I want our own Catechism, the UGCC did come out with her own Catechism. I can assure you that I did not tell His Beatitude Lubomyr to make one

stjosaphateparchy.org/news061.html