Do Eastern Catholics believe in Mortal/Venial sin?

[RyanBlack]

The article is actually by Father Boghossian, a Ruthenian, not Father Scott.

I had the right priest. His name is Fr. Scott Boghossian. In the Eastern Churches, the tradition is to refer to priests by their first names, not their last names.

 

[RyanBlack]

How small? As I understand it, the Ukrainian Catholic Church is ~5 million worldwide. Are we talking 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, of that number?

My church has only 4 eparchies (dioceses). Our membership is estimated around 650,000. Actual regular attendance is probably considerably less.

 

[RyanBlack]

Are Ukrainian Catholics in Canada & the U.S, somehow a different species of Ukrainian Catholic than Ukrainian Catholics are in Ukraine?

For clarification, are you saying then, the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine is different from the Ukrainian Catholic Church in say Canada or the U.S? Or are you saying in order for a catechism to be “THE” offical Ukrainian Catholic catechism, it must be printed in Ukraine in the language of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine?

See SyroMalankara’s reply.

 

[Marty_E]

The 1850s Keenan Catechism, with imprimatur, denied dogma proclaimed in our day:
biblelight.net/keenan.htm

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.

Which was correct.

The current teaching is that the Holy Father on certain matters may make an ex cathedra statement which is received, proclaimed, and enforced by the bishops of the Church, which adds to the statement quoted.

It is the College headed by the Holy Father which teaches.

.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Which was correct.

The current teaching is that the Holy Father on certain matters may make an ex cathedra statement which is received, proclaimed, and enforced by the bishops of the Church, which adds to the statement quoted.

It is the College headed by the Holy Father which teaches.

.

Would it not be disingenuous of me to quote the pre-1870 ‘official’ catechism as the rightful version, even there was an update made and additional teachings and corrections since that time?

Why is not also disingenuous of the same to be done for an unofficial local catechism written by a single priest in English, with a simple imprimatur and no Synodal Authority from decades past?

 

[Peter_J]

The 1850s Keenan Catechism, with imprimatur, denied dogma proclaimed in our day:
biblelight.net/keenan.htm

It might be correct, but that sentence would nevertheless greatly scandalize typical Catholics, because of the way it is put.

 

[Marty_E]

Would it not be disingenuous of me to quote the pre-1870 ‘official’ catechism as the rightful version, even there was an update made and additional teachings and corrections since that time?

Why is not also disingenuous of the same to be done for an unofficial local catechism written by a single priest in English, with a simple imprimatur and no Synodal Authority from decades past?

I assume that folks do take the time to update themselves on matters such as the Vatican I Council and the proclamation of the Assumption.

I use old catechisms with no qualms, but one does need to keep in mind what has happened since it was printed.

A 30 year old catechism has nothing to be updated dogmatically.

.

 

[steve_b]

Are Latins in the US a different species than Latins in Rome?

The Latin rite is the same worldwide.
Syro:

A major catechism has to be approved by the sui iuris Church’s Holy Synod and it’s head. Minor catechisms, while useful, are not “official” to the same level. It isn’t that difficult.

The 1850s Keenan Catechism, with imprimatur, denied dogma proclaimed in our day:
biblelight.net/keenan.htm

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.

It was later edited after the dogma was proclaimed in 1870.

Both are ‘official’ for it’s day. Were Latins in 1869 and 1870 a different species of Latin?

If you do a search on CAF on Keenan, you’ll come up with a boatload of posts. Some of that activity is mine, back in 09.

The answer to the question is No. Keenan is correct. Given how the question is understood, It shows the lack of understanding that exists particularly with protestants, in what the Church actually teaches on infallibility. And Keenans catechism as a result gets lots of play from the anti Catholic crowd, like the SDA’s (seventh day adventists).

Here’s the definition of papal infallibility

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
     http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
     
     For the pope to make an infallible statement then, he must
     1. • in exercise of his office
        • **define a doctrine concerning faith or morals **
        • that must be held by the whole church
        If that does NOT happen, infallibility is not on the table.
        
        Here’s an example of an infallible statement Re: women priests
        
        The language the pope uses makes this an infallible statement. (emphasis mine)
        
        “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
        
        http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...i_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

 

[Peter_J]

The Latin rite is the same worldwide.

If you do a search on CAF on Keenan, you’ll come up with a boatload of posts. Some of that activity is mine, back in 09.

The answer to the question is No. Keenan is correct. Given how the question is understood, It shows the lack of understanding that exists particularly with protestants, in what the Church actually teaches on infallibility. And Keenans catechism as a result gets lots of play from the anti Catholic crowd, like the SDA’s (seventh day adventists).

Here’s the definition of papal infallibility

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
     …

1. • 
     With that in mind, you can probably see how some (not all of course) Catholics would be surprised by “no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.”

 

[steve_b]

With that in mind, you can probably see how some (not all of course) Catholics would be surprised by “no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.”

Even that is an incorrect statement.

 

[steve_b]

With that in mind, you can probably see how some (not all of course) Catholics would be surprised by “no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.”

Let’s look at this another way. Take the doctrine of the Trinity. What about those who didn’t believe in the Trinity before the doctrine was defined? Were they in heresy? No. After it is defined, then that’s a different story…true?

The anti Catholic will say, you Catholics change the faith. You invent all kinds of doctrines that weren’t there from the beginning!!!

To which a Catholic might respond, Is something true only after it is defined or is it always true? The Church sees truth as truth. Truth doesn’t change. Growth in understanding truth doesn’t change truth. Truth is exposed (not invented) and it becomes more understandable over time.

So to your point, bottomline, articles of faith become “articles of the Catholic faith” when they have been authoritatively defined and imposed. And until an element of faith is defined, it has no penalties of heresy attached to it if one doesn’t assent to it.

The CCC defines heresy as " the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"

I think this whole problem being discussed comes from how non Catholics and anti Catholics distort the Catholic faith through their ignorance of the faith.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Let’s look at this another way. Take the doctrine of the Trinity. What about those who didn’t believe in the Trinity before the doctrine was defined? Were they in heresy? No. After it is defined, then that’s a different story…true?

The anti Catholic will say, you Catholics change the faith. You invent all kinds of doctrines that weren’t there from the beginning!!!

To which a Catholic might respond, Is something true only after it is defined or is it always true? The Church sees truth as truth. Truth doesn’t change. Growth in understanding truth doesn’t change truth. Truth is exposed (not invented) and it becomes more understandable over time.

So to your point, bottomline, articles of faith become “articles of the Catholic faith” when they have been authoritatively defined and imposed. And until an element of faith is defined, it has no penalties of heresy attached to it if one doesn’t assent to it.

The CCC defines heresy as " the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"

I think this whole problem being discussed comes from how non Catholics and anti Catholics distort the Catholic faith through their ignorance of the faith.

Exactly, so as of now, there is no penalty imposed for misunderstanding that the so-called Ukrainian Catechism from one diocese with some misleading, although not heretical, information in there. When the English translation of the UGCC Catechism from 2011/2012 becomes available, there may be - and even if there is no penalty, it would be wrong to reference the older local catechism as more accurate than the newer Synodal Catechism. However, even if the newer Synodal Catechism is “official”, this does not mean everything it contains is authentically Traditional to the Ukrainian Church - it may have accrued latinisms that need further revision to remove.

 

[Peter_J]

Let’s look at this another way. Take the doctrine of the Trinity. What about those who didn’t believe in the Trinity before the doctrine was defined? Were they in heresy? No. After it is defined, then that’s a different story…true?

The anti Catholic will say, you Catholics change the faith. You invent all kinds of doctrines that weren’t there from the beginning!!!

To which a Catholic might respond, Is something true only after it is defined or is it always true? The Church sees truth as truth. Truth doesn’t change. Growth in understanding truth doesn’t change truth. Truth is exposed (not invented) and it becomes more understandable over time.

So to your point, bottomline, articles of faith become “articles of the Catholic faith” when they have been authoritatively defined and imposed. And until an element of faith is defined, it has no penalties of heresy attached to it if one doesn’t assent to it.

The CCC defines heresy as " the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"

I think this whole problem being discussed comes from how non Catholics and anti Catholics distort the Catholic faith through their ignorance of the faith.

Good post (as far as I can tell from a quick read-through). Keep in mind, I’m not saying that all Catholics would have a problem with “no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.”

 

[steve_b]

Exactly, so as of now, there is no penalty imposed for misunderstanding that the so-called Ukrainian Catechism from one diocese with some misleading, although not heretical, information in there. When the English translation of the UGCC Catechism from 2011/2012 becomes available, there may be - and even if there is no penalty, it would be wrong to reference the older local catechism as more accurate than the newer Synodal Catechism. However, even if the newer Synodal Catechism is “official”, this does not mean everything it contains is authentically Traditional to the Ukrainian Church - it may have accrued latinisms that need further revision to remove.

A catechism is what it is. It teaches and explains the faith. If it has the authority to be on the shelf because of a bishop’s imprimatur, then it is at least worthy of it’s name.

Seems to me, the issue ought to be

• Do you find any doctrine or dogma or teaching that isn’t there that should be there?
• Do you find a doctrine or dogma or teaching in there that should NOT be there?

 

[RyanBlack]

A catechism is what it is. It teaches and explains the faith. If it has the authority to be on the shelf because of a bishop’s imprimatur, then it is at least worthy of it’s name.

Seems to me, the issue ought to be

• Do you find any doctrine or dogma or teaching that isn’t there that should be there?
• Do you find a doctrine or dogma or teaching in there that should NOT be there?

Teaching and explaining the faith don’t take place in a cultural vacuum.

Of course integrity to the faith is of primary importance in a catechism. However, a catechism that is for a particular church ought to reflect the patrimony of that particular church. For example, if my Ruthenian church had its own catechism, I would object to the use of the term “Mass,” rather than “Divine Liturgy.” My objection would not be that there is anything wrong with the term “Mass,” but that our term for the celebration of the Eucharist is “Divine Liturgy.” On the other hand, there is no reason for a catechism for Latin Catholics to use the term “Divine Liturgy,” since “Mass” would be the proper term for Latin Catholics.

 

[steve_b]

Teaching and explaining the faith don’t take place in a cultural vacuum.

Of course integrity to the faith is of primary importance in a catechism. However, a catechism that is for a particular church ought to reflect the patrimony of that particular church. For example, if my Ruthenian church had its own catechism, I would object to the use of the term “Mass,” rather than “Divine Liturgy.” My objection would not be that there is anything wrong with the term “Mass,” but that our term for the celebration of the Eucharist is “Divine Liturgy.” On the other hand, there is no reason for a catechism for Latin Catholics to use the term “Divine Liturgy,” since “Mass” would be the proper term for Latin Catholics.

Actually your objection is overstated
1330 , 1386 , 1389 , 2176

 

[RyanBlack]

Actually your objection is overstated
1330 , 1386 , 1389 , 2176

I was talking about a hypothetical Ruthenian catechism, not the CCC. If there were such a thing, it should refer to the celebration of the Eucharist as the Divine Liturgy, not as the Mass. Or, if there were a Ruthenian catechism, it should refer to the Marian feast that occurs on the 15th of August as the Dormition, not the Assumption. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with the term “Mass,” nor is there anything wrong with the Feast of the Assumption. However, within the Byzantine tradition, they should not take the place of our own authentic terminology.

 

[PrayerforMercy]

I still do not understand:

If the theosis (emphasis) between venial and mortal sin is different, what is that difference?

If the terminology between venial and mortal sin is different, what is that difference?

I read through four pages of debates over what makes something an official catechism, what is the authority and how many members of the Ukrainian Catholic Church are there.

I don’t care.

Does any one know the answer? I really need to know.

Sorry to be crabby.

 

[Bookcat]

Do Eastern Catholics believe in Mortal/Venial sin?

Yes they do. They are Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

They are Catholics.

Perhaps the question should have been “Do Catholics believe in Mortal/Venial sin?”