Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[Bluegoat]

Sin is sin is what I said as a Protestant. But it’s my understanding ing that sin is not sin according to Catholic teaching. Is that not correct?

Sorry, last question before I leave the thread.

It partly depends on how you understand what you meant as a Protestant. There is some truth to the idea that “sin is sin”.Any sin is a departure from truth, a sign that we are fallen, and an impediment between us and God, and a sign that we need to be saved by Grace. But many Protestants clearly understand that some sins are much more serious to our relationship with God than others, just as both Catholics and the Orthodox do. And even those who don’t have clear theology on this tend to recognize it in practice.

The (small c) catholic/orthodox position is that sin is a kind of impediment or distance we put between ourselves and God - an embrace of untruth instead of Truth. And in one sense, any sin is a sign of our fallen nature and our need for Grace. On the other hand, some sins reflect a much more serious barrier than others, a real concious choosing of not-God.

Catholics have picked up on the idea of the mortal sin, and developed the idea that sins can then be catagorized into those that represent a complete choice to break with God, and those that do not. Mortal sins are where we have simply chosen, with full knowledge, to break from God’s truth and do our own thing. Having done that, if we die without repenting, we will be outside of God’s Grace which we rejected. Other sins which are more matters of small habit, or done without really thinking, or whatever are not really a fully conscious rejection of God and so do not have this effect.

The Eastern approach is a bit more organic and takes a longer view of the person and sin in his life. It probably is less likely to say that any one act, even if a serious one, always “undoes” our entire relationship with God. If we imagine our ascent to God as a kind of ladder, and we have gone very far up the ladder, even a very serious sin may not cut us of wholly from God’s grace and take us right off the ladder. That is, even a person who commits an act which may seem like an outright rejection of God may not be so clear about that - our motives are often mixed and our understanding incomplete. It also tends to see the less serious sins as potentially more important than we think. (I always think of Screwtape telling Wormwood how one could attempt to separate a “patient” from God via picky eating). It tends not to take the tack that one often sees in the Latin Church of using a list to determine mortal and venial sin, but thinks that both need to be seen in the context of that individual and his or her circumstances to understand how serious the sins are and what to do about them.(So anonymous confession wouldn’t really work well.)

I think you can see that both of these systems are trying to describe the same, received reality. But the images and structures that theologians and mystics have developed are different - and we can trace these approaches back, in some form, all the way to the beginning, although the Latin approach is probably newer overall. It is certainly possible to argue that one approach describes the reality of the faith in a way closer to truth, or is more effective in helping people practically. But both seek to describe the same received truth about sin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Okay, so call me an oath-breaker. I have to gently step back into this thread.

I have a question, and can you please answer it from a personal perspective? It might be a little difficult for you because you were first a Roman Catholic. I’d like to also hear the perspective of a Cradle Eastern Catholic, or even better someone raised Orthodox and is now an Eastern Catholic.

What does it mean to you to be in communion with Rome?

Communion means we agree that our beliefs point to the same true faith Christ passed on through the Apostles.

I haven’t seen anyone saying ‘Western theology’ is all the theology

Is there a mirror nearby?

but on the contrary I have seen many eastern catholics go ‘Eastern theology only…’. All I have done and others is refer to De Fide teaching explained in councils, encyclicals and catechisms. On the contrary Eastern Catholics havent even bothered to counter this but just continously misrepresent what I and others have done whilst claiming thaat it doesnt apply to them and then not explaining why. As for hostility, this is the usual counter of some eastern catholics ‘Why are you so hostile! Woe is me etc…’ without actually answering or providing evidence for anything.

Of course Eastern Catholics go Eastern theology only. That IS our theology. Why would we incorporate Western theology that is not compatible with Eastern spirituality?

Sorry but you are the only one here who continuously misinterpret things by insisting Eastern Christians accept Western theology.

Yeesh, that’s really disturbing. I find that kind of ignorance hard to tolerate.

I really ought to be thankful that I’ve always had enough exposure to the eastern Catholic churches to make that attitude impossible. There’s not a great abundance of eastern Catholics in my home city, but there’s a great Melkite parish that I’ve gone to: Holy Resurrection Melkite Catholic Church.

(But I’ve now moved (for grad school purposes) to another city and state much farther south, and here it’s far less multicultural than where I’m from. Here there are no eastern Christian churches of any kind - just a large quantity of various Protestant churches, one Latin Catholic parish, and one Jewish synagogue.)

To be fair, most Roman Catholics are not aware of the Eastern Catholic Churches. To them, anything not Roman Catholic is not authentically Catholic.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ll have to say it again. Just pick up a copy of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma, and you’ll quickly see how heavily the Universal Church has relied on Eastern theologians. So refreshing to see that we’re the Catholic Church and not the highly divided West and East that some are proposing.

 

[jmj1984]

Communion means we agree that our beliefs point to the same true faith Christ passed on through the Apostles.

Is there a mirror nearby?

Of course Eastern Catholics go Eastern theology only. That IS our theology. Why would we incorporate Western theology that is not compatible with Eastern spirituality?

Sorry but you are the only one here who continuously misinterpret things by insisting Eastern Christians accept Western theology.

My response to this entire thing can be summed up by

I find it amusing how some eastern catholics who are supposed to show the ‘unity of the church’ instead spend their lives trying to wrench the church into two halves, east and west. I have never made reference to western theology, I have made reference to De Fide doctrines, it is you who insist that this is western theology.

As Seamus says and as I have said before The Church relies on both western and eastern theology and both east and western church fathers, the only ones who want to exclude a tradition here are some eastern catholics not western catholics.

Ultimately eastern catholics who subscribe to the idea of ‘Orthodox in Communion With Rome’ want to have their cake and eat it, they want to be in communion with Rome and yet reject Romes faith. They seem to have an almost phobic fear and protestant disdain for anything thats come out of Rome pre-1962 and anything that comes out of it post 1962 that doesn’t agree with their ideas (that being quite a few documents). In fact they pretty much write off the entire western tradition of the church and when they see any developments in the west that arent matched in the east -because the east had either fallen into schism and/or heresy- they reject it automatically regardless of whether it be De Fide, infallible or not.

Of course this criticism does not apply to most eastern catholics

 

[TrueLight]

The Eastern approach is a bit more organic and takes a longer view of the person and sin in his life. It probably is less likely to say that any one act, even if a serious one, always “undoes” our entire relationship with God. If we imagine our ascent to God as a kind of ladder, and we have gone very far up the ladder, even a very serious sin may not cut us of wholly from God’s grace and take us right off the ladder. That is, even a person who commits an act which may seem like an outright rejection of God may not be so clear about that - our motives are often mixed and our understanding incomplete. It also tends to see the less serious sins as potentially more important than we think. (I always think of Screwtape telling Wormwood how one could attempt to separate a “patient” from God via picky eating). It tends not to take the tack that one often sees in the Latin Church of using a list to determine mortal and venial sin, but thinks that both need to be seen in the context of that individual and his or her circumstances to understand how serious the sins are and what to do about them.(So anonymous confession wouldn’t really work well.)

If I’m honest, I’ll have to say this approach makes more sense to me theologically, but that is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I wish it was.

The Roman Catholic church teaches that if you die with an unconfessed mortal sin on your soul, or have not had a chance to at least make a perfect contrition, you are doomed. This is very important dogma.

If the Eastern Catholics say it’s not so cut and dry, then that is completely different.

Either the first approach is truth or it is not. I cannot be told that as a Latin Catholic I have one truth and as an Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome, I have another truth.

So if the approaches reach the same conclusion supposedly, mortal sin vs venial sin cannot be dogma.

 

[ciero]

I’m going to ask this question again…why do all the RC “armchair apologists” have these problems with the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox. Theologies and spiritologies when the Roman Church doesn’t?

My response to this entire thing can be summed up by

I find it amusing how some eastern catholics who are supposed to show the ‘unity of the church’ instead spend their lives trying to wrench the church into two halves, east and west. I have never made reference to western theology, I have made reference to De Fide doctrines, it is you who insist that this is western theology.

As Seamus says and as I have said before The Church relies on both western and eastern theology and both east and western church fathers, the only ones who want to exclude a tradition here are some eastern catholics not western catholics.

Ultimately eastern catholics who subscribe to the idea of ‘Orthodox in Communion With Rome’ want to have their cake and eat it, they want to be in communion with Rome and yet reject Romes faith. They seem to have an almost phobic fear and protestant disdain for anything thats come out of Rome pre-1962 and anything that comes out of it post 1962 that doesn’t agree with their ideas (that being quite a few documents). In fact they pretty much write off the entire western tradition of the church and when they see any developments in the west that arent matched in the east -because the east had either fallen into schism and/or heresy- they reject it automatically regardless of whether it be De Fide, infallible or not.

Of course this criticism does not apply to most eastern catholics

 

[jmj1984]

I’m going to ask this question again…why do all the RC “armchair apologists” have these problems with the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox. Theologies and spiritologies when the Roman Church doesn’t?

Maybe because the Roman Church does? And when people try and say it doesn’t they completely fail to back up their statements. Thats why.

N.B I’m surprised to see you refer to ‘Roman Church’ seeing as you don’t believe Roman Catholic Church and The Catholic Church are interchangeable terms. When I say ‘The Roman Church’ I mean The Catholic Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

My response to this entire thing can be summed up by

I find it amusing how some eastern catholics who are supposed to show the ‘unity of the church’ instead spend their lives trying to wrench the church into two halves, east and west. I have never made reference to western theology, I have made reference to De Fide doctrines, it is you who insist that this is western theology.

As Seamus says and as I have said before The Church relies on both western and eastern theology and both east and western church fathers, the only ones who want to exclude a tradition here are some eastern catholics not western catholics.

Ultimately eastern catholics who subscribe to the idea of ‘Orthodox in Communion With Rome’ want to have their cake and eat it, they want to be in communion with Rome and yet reject Romes faith. They seem to have an almost phobic fear and protestant disdain for anything thats come out of Rome pre-1962 and anything that comes out of it post 1962 that doesn’t agree with their ideas (that being quite a few documents). In fact they pretty much write off the entire western tradition of the church and when they see any developments in the west that arent matched in the east -because the east had either fallen into schism and/or heresy- they reject it automatically regardless of whether it be De Fide, infallible or not.

Of course this criticism does not apply to most eastern catholics

If this criticism does not apply to most then there must be those that it does not apply to. I ask you to specifically dilineate those that it does not apply to or reformulate your thought or perhaps even reframe that this is your opinion based on your experience.

This would require that you identify your understanding, contact, involvement with Eastern Catholics, visiting Eastern Catholic Churches, Dialogue with Easter Catholics. I wait for who is not the most?

 

[CopticChristian]

Communion means we agree that our beliefs point to the same true faith Christ passed on through the Apostles.

Is there a mirror nearby?

Of course Eastern Catholics go Eastern theology only. That IS our theology. Why would we incorporate Western theology that is not compatible with Eastern spirituality?

Sorry but you are the only one here who continuously misinterpret things by insisting Eastern Christians accept Western theology.

To be fair, most Roman Catholics are not aware of the Eastern Catholic Churches. To them, anything not Roman Catholic is not authentically Catholic.

They probably have forgotten that Jesus was an Asian Jew, Christianity is an Eastern Religion, and that the Churches of the East were founded as part of the OHCAC.

It is the Western Mentality of things like the Word Series when the world is not involved or Football in the West that the world plays as Soccer.

 

[jmj1984]

If this criticism does not apply to most then there must be those that it does not apply to. I ask you to specifically dilineate those that it does not apply to or reformulate your thought or perhaps even reframe that this is your opinion based on your experience.

This would require that you identify your understanding, contact, involvement with Eastern Catholics, visiting Eastern Catholic Churches, Dialogue with Easter Catholics. I wait for who is not the most?

If you follow through my argument is fairly evident who it applies to, most if not all of those who subscribe to the Orthodox in Communion with Rome argument, all of those who misunderstand the Papacy and all of those who hold original sin is merely a result of death or that sin is a result of death. And as for who it applies to personally, well thats pretty obvious.

It also self-evidently applies to all those who reject De Fide dogmas as ‘just western expressions’ and those that do not explore or even know of the Western Tradition.

 

[TrueLight]

They probably have forgotten that Jesus was an Asian Jew, Christianity is an Eastern Religion, and that the Churches of the East were founded as part of the OHCAC.

It is the Western Mentality of things like the Word Series when the world is not involved or Football in the West that the world plays as Soccer.

When one starts being patronizing one encourages hostility. How is someone supposed to respond to that?

I’m sure people are well aware that Jesus came from the Middle East.

I totally respect the Orthodox churches as they have Apostolic succession. But they are not in communion with the Vicar of Christ.

Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Vicar of Christ. And that should involve more than a peace treaty.

 

[Seamus_L]

Your problem isn’t really with those of us who are Latin Rite Catholics. It’s with the many within the Eastern Catholic Churches who you accuse of having a “Latin mindset” because they cling to devotions, beliefs, etc that originated in the West, and who have little enthusiasm for the idea that they need to be re-catechised by recent converts, many of whom will be headed to the OCA, ROCOR, Antiochean Orthodox Church, etc in a few years.

 

[steve_b]

http://melkite.org/LATIN-IN.JPG

From a Melkite parish website …

As Milwaukee’s Syrian-Lebanese became more like their German, Polish and Italian neighbors, the parish of St. George became increasingly like the parishes of St. Hedwig, St Stanislaus, and St. Anthony. A Western-style of worship, practices that were like those of the Latin Rite, became common. The list of “latinizations” would include:

1. 
   *]Unmarried priesthood
   *]Statues
   *]Altar rails
   *]Confessional boxes
   *]Stations of the Cross hanging on walls
   *]3-D Crucifixes on walls
   *]Western-style paintings
   *]Suppression of liturgical hours
   *]Suppression of Presanctified in favor of Divine Liturgy
   *]Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil
   *]Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.
   *]Introduction of Western music and polyphonic hymns
   *]Use of musical instruments: church organs
   *]Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers
   *]Truncation of prayers, especially the shortening of psalms in liturgies
   *]Reduction of prostrations and reverences
   *]Use of genuflections and kneeling instead of standing during prayers
   *]Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral
   *]Not distributing the antidoron
   *]Elimination of using hot water during Consecration
   *]Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors, nor having an iconostasis
   *]First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

1. 
   :tiphat:
   
   Now that the issue is defined, with specifics, I have some comments but it would totally derail this thread

 

[steve_b]

They probably have forgotten that Jesus was an Asian Jew, Christianity is an Eastern Religion, and that the Churches of the East were founded as part of the OHCAC.

It is the Western Mentality of things like the Word Series when the world is not involved or Football in the West that the world plays as Soccer.

I concur with TrueLight. This is inflamatory and not helpful.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

To be fair, most Roman Catholics are not aware of the Eastern Catholic Churches. To them, anything not Roman Catholic is not authentically Catholic.

I think fewer and fewer Latin Catholics these days are unaware of the eastern Catholic churches. Ignorance - at least ignorance of their existence - is diminishing, in my experience…

Maybe because the Roman Church does? And when people try and say it doesn’t they completely fail to back up their statements.

The burden of proof is on you, since Rome hasn’t even attempted to censure the eastern Catholic churches on theological matters. That is a fact.

jmj1984, won’t you please consider that - especially in light of the above fact - perhaps you in your personal understanding don’t quite know how to distinguish between what is universally binding and what is the western expression(s) of universally binding teachings? I know I sometimes don’t! And won’t you please consider that the rightful place of mystery and paradox in understanding the mysteries of God, salvation, and His Church may in fact enable more legitimate diversity than might seem possible from a purely intellectual perspective?

If I’m honest, I’ll have to say this approach makes more sense to me theologically, but that is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I wish it was.

The Roman Catholic church teaches that if you die with an unconfessed mortal sin on your soul, or have not had a chance to at least make a perfect contrition, you are doomed. This is very important dogma.

If the Eastern Catholics say it’s not so cut and dry, then that is completely different.

I very much disagree. I don’t think it’s necessarily completely different. Remember that we can’t actually exhaustively comprehend eternity from this earthly side of our existence. C.S. Lewis plays with the ramifications of that fact in many intriguing ways in The Great Divorce - when he plausibly demonstrates through a fictionalized version of the Christian afterlife that there might not actually be a contradiction between seemingly opposing views on such matters.

Don’t you see that our more intellectual, explanatory, Latin approach doesn’t necessarily claim to exhaustively define the things of eternity? For instance, you are of course correct that one unconfessed mortal sin - without perfect contrition - is sufficient to doom someone to hell.

To say it is not so cut-and-dry is not to contradict that teaching, though. It’s simply a reminder that it may not look so black-and-white from the other side of eternity.

Either the first approach is truth or it is not. I cannot be told that as a Latin Catholic I have one truth and as an Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome, I have another truth.

The first approach is most certainly truth. But most likely so is the opposing eastern tradition. Christianity is a religion of transcendent paradox and mystery. The tension between these two views on this matter hardly compares with the tension inherent in the universally shared dogma of the Incarnation itself! That is why I do not see why they cannot coexist as different theological understandings of the degrees and effect of sin.

Let me concretize this with an example: let’s say someone listened to what I was saying, then went around not worrying about his mortal sins because he thought, “Well, maybe it’s not so cut-and-dry anyway, like Fone Bone said.” I’m almost certain that in that context, eastern Christians themselves would say such a man is making a huge mistake and attempting to justify his sinful choices before God in a reprehensible manner.

To conclude, and most importantly, we Latin and Eastern Catholics certainly have the same truth. But it is entirely legitimate with these spiritual matters that touch eternity, divinity, and transcendence that two interpretations of that truth be in tension with each other.

I hope some of that made some sense.

 

[TrueLight]

I think fewer and fewer Latin Catholics these days are unaware of the eastern Catholic churches. Ignorance - at least ignorance of their existence - is diminishing, in my experience…

The burden of proof is on you, since Rome hasn’t even attempted to censure the eastern Catholic churches on theological matters. That is a fact.

jmj1984, won’t you please consider that - especially in light of the above fact - perhaps you in your personal understanding don’t quite know how to distinguish between what is universally binding and what is the western expression(s) of universally binding teachings? I know I sometimes don’t! And won’t you please consider that the rightful place of mystery and paradox in understanding the mysteries of God, salvation, and His Church may in fact enable more legitimate diversity than might seem possible from a purely intellectual perspective?

I very much disagree. I don’t think it’s necessarily completely different. Remember that we can’t actually exhaustively comprehend eternity from this earthly side of our existence. C.S. Lewis plays with the ramifications of that fact in many intriguing ways in The Great Divorce - when he plausibly demonstrates through a fictionalized version of the Christian afterlife that there might not actually be a contradiction between seemingly opposing views on such matters.

Don’t you see that our more intellectual, explanatory, Latin approach doesn’t necessarily claim to exhaustively define the things of eternity? For instance, you are of course correct that one unconfessed mortal sin - without perfect contrition - is sufficient to doom someone to hell.

To say it is not so cut-and-dry is not to contradict that teaching, though. It’s simply a reminder that it may not look so black-and-white from the other side of eternity.

The first approach is most certainly truth. But most likely so is the opposing eastern tradition. Christianity is a religion of transcendent paradox and mystery. The tension between these two views on this matter hardly compares with the tension inherent in the universally shared dogma of the Incarnation itself! That is why I do not see why they cannot coexist as different theological understandings of the degrees and effect of sin.

Let me concretize this with an example: let’s say someone listened to what I was saying, then went around not worrying about his mortal sins because he thought, “Well, maybe it’s not so cut-and-dry anyway, like Fone Bone said.” I’m almost certain that in that context, eastern Christians themselves would say such a man is making a huge mistake and attempting to justify his sinful choices before God in a reprehensible manner.

To conclude, and most importantly, we Latin and Eastern Catholics certainly have the same truth. But it is entirely legitimate with these spiritual matters that touch eternity, divinity, and transcendence that two interpretations of that truth be in tension with each other.

I hope some of that made some sense.

Very good explanation. It makes perfect sense.

As I said, I would tend to go along with the Eastern theology.

Nevertheless, that is not what we as Roman Catholics are taught. I have seen people start threads asking if they for example, masturbate one time and fall asleep and die, will they go to hell? The answer has been a resounding yes! Of course only God knows, but generally the consensus is if you die with an un-confessed mortal sin, you go to hell.

The Latin church is very stringent in its definitions and teachings and to say that it’s okay for the Eastern church to see things differently, causes confusion, I believe.

I feel like I’m repeating myself over and over. But I hope you see my point that the definition of mortal sin and what happens to you if you die with a mortal sin is pretty much set in stone for the Roman church, (no if’s or buts) and we are expected to assent to that. If the Eastern church is in full communion, it cannot be teaching something contrary, or “slightly different” if you’d rather use that term. . No matter how you explain it, it is still a different understanding.

By the way, do you mostly attend an Eastern Catholic church? You seem very pro Eastern theology.

 

[CopticChristian]

If you follow through my argument is fairly evident who it applies to, most if not all of those who subscribe to the Orthodox in Communion with Rome argument, all of those who misunderstand the Papacy and all of those who hold original sin is merely a result of death or that sin is a result of death. And as for who it applies to personally, well thats pretty obvious.

It also self-evidently applies to all those who reject De Fide dogmas as ‘just western expressions’ and those that do not explore or even know of the Western Tradition.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not sure I understand you. It is fairly evident that you have not defined for me specifically as I asked. I am not sure why you cannot answer a simple question with a simple answer. Your answer is argumentative and all I did was ask a question. Are you capable of answering a simple question?

Eastern Catholic
Eastern Orthodox that consider themselves Catholic

What is not obvious to me is who are you referring to when you speak of Eastern Catholics. There are 22 Catholic Churches East and West united under Rome named by Rites. These are the Catholic Churches East and West. When I speak of Eastern Catholic I am speaking of Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean etc.

When you speak of Eastern Catholics are you including Eastern Orthodox or are you referring to the 21 Eastern rite Churches united in Rome? Answer this question please.

 

[TrueLight]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not sure I understand you. It is fairly evident that you have not defined for me specifically as I asked. I am not sure why you cannot answer a simple question with a simple answer. Your answer is argumentative and all I did was ask a question. Are you capable of answering a simple question?

Eastern Catholic
Eastern Orthodox that consider themselves Catholic

What is not obvious to me is who are you referring to when you speak of Eastern Catholics. There are 22 Catholic Churches East and West united under Rome named by Rites. These are the Catholic Churches East and West. When I speak of Eastern Catholic I am speaking of Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean etc.

When you speak of Eastern Catholics are you including Eastern Orthodox or are you referring to the 21 Eastern rite Churches united in Rome? Answer this question please.

I’m sure JMJ will respond shortly.

But I can answer for myself. I am speaking of Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome. All the Eastern rite Catholics.

Why would we be discussing Orthodox who are not in communion? They are not in communion because they have specific issues with Rome, no?

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m sure JMJ will respond shortly.

But I can answer for myself. I am speaking of Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome. All the Eastern rite Catholics.

Why would we be discussing Orthodox who are not in communion? They are not in communion because they have specific issues with Rome, no?

Then you are discussing it would appear controversy that has yet to be settled.

saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/something-to-think-about/

ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/communionWithRome.htm

 

[TrueLight]

Then you are discussing it would appear controversy that has yet to be settled.

saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/something-to-think-about/

ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/communionWithRome.htm

Thanks for the links.

I’m going to repost the first one which I think someone had already posted. Eastern Catholics in this thread, plus a very vocal Roman Catholic have been saying why do Roman Catholics have a problem if the Pope/Rome, does not?

I would like to hear a response to this quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger. Is there a more updated post 1988 document that shows that Rome does not have a problem with some of these things?

Seriously folks. Let’s not play games. Is there anything else that contradicts what is said below?

Anything besides Orientale Lumen, which does not delve into these issues except to express a desire for communion and respect of Eastern tradition?

Thanks.

A kind of ecumenical dogma seems to be developing here which needs some attention. Quite likely it began with this train of thought: for inter communion 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 in Principles 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.