I knew that post wouldn’t “read” correctly. I suppose I should defer from this discussion until I’m less tired and my intellect is functioning better. I was attempting to say that Venerable Pius XII confirmed a doctrine rather than turned a pious devotion into a defined belief. I understand that the 1950 apostolic constituion would have issued anathemas. **I don’t think he was saying it was a 20th century innovation, after all we do believe in it as well. However the anathema on disagreement to it is something new last century.
I personally assent to the teaching of the Dormition of the Theotokos, as I suspect the overwhelming majority of Eastern Christians. I entirely disagree with your assertion that to deny the Dormition/Assumption equates with denying God’s total love for us, and I fail to see how assent to this teaching should be tied to one’s salvation.If its dogma, yes. If it isn’t, it will still be sketchy for someone to not believe in the Assumption because it is needed in order to complete God’s full love for humanity. If we deny the Assumption, we basically deny God’s total love for us.
The Dormition is an ancient and venerable tradition. The thing which I am pointing out is that prior to its dogmatizing within your very own Church, it bore the status of a probable opinion, something which was considered impious to deny, but not something which was taught with absolute certainty, as with something which is taught de fide. This is similar to our position on the matter, for it is a teaching which is not quite at the same level as homoousianism, dyophisitism, the hypostatic union, etc., the latter being taught with the utmost certainty as being intimately related to our salvation in a manner which the Dormition is not.IIRC the Venerable Pius XII published an infallible decree confirming the dogma of the Assumption. I think prior to that it was still a belief of the Latin Church; not a 20th century innovation.
No, it absolutely is part of tradition, and I’m not sure I’d call it a personal option. It is a teaching of the church, and active opposition will get you in trouble, but silent doubt is permitted.Am I correct to infer that you’re saying that for Holy Orthodoxy it is a matter of personal option whether one believes the Dormition or not? When you say it’s not in the teachings of Christ, I know it’s not in Scripture; however, we Latins believe its part of Tradition. I know Orthodox accept Tradition, too. Are you saying it’s not a part of Orthodox Tradition?
I’m going to read Munificentissimus deus again (it’s been a long time since I last read it) and see why Venerable Pius XII is defining it as a dogma that we’re bound to believe.No, it absolutely is part of tradition, and I’m not sure I’d call it a personal option. It is a teaching of the church, and active opposition will get you in trouble, but silent doubt is permitted.
When I say it isn’t a teaching of Christ I mean it isn’t one of those things that Christ said we must believe, accept, or do in order to receive salvation. Which is why the idea of anathema against disbelief makes no sense to me.
This question seems a bit of a non-sequitor. Many things that are considered true are not taught as a matter of dogma. Pope Pius XII had his reasons for defining the aforementioned dogma, whether or not we entirely know what those reasons were; it wasn’t just “I believe this is true, so I have to define it dogmatically”.If Eastern Orthodox believe in the Assumption/Dormition, why do they object to it being taught as a matter of dogma?
I don’t understand how the Orthodox determine when the Spirit is guiding them (and I believe they would consider themselves as more Spirit led than Catholics). Besides a past connection with history, what differentiates the method described above from the individual interpretation common among our protestant brothers and sisters?The Greek part of the Church has a different mindset to the Latin half. At the risk of over-generalisation, the Latin Romans tend to be more juridical, seeking to define as much in logical terms as possible. Also, subsequent fall of the Empire and the coalescing of authority in the Bishop of Rome as the only remaining leader in a fragmenting civilisation, gave rise to a risk of different strands of Arianism & other heresies brought on by invaders to permeate into the Church. As a result, Latin Catholics in those days refined their definitions to exclude as much misunderstanding as possible. This probably explains the centralising tendency of the Catholic Church when faced with any alternative theology.
The Greek mindset preferred to allow the Spirit to imbue us with the understanding and thus finding words unnecessary or even a hindrance to the purpose. In some ways, you may say that the contrast is similar to what we in Asia find between the pragmatic Chinese and the philosophical Indian, with all the attendant goods and bads of each position. You will notice the majority of Christological debates in the early Church and subsequent defections of Nestorians and Monophysites over them took place in the Greek half. Just an observation, not making any value judgement on anything that happened in that distant past.
Therefore, the Orthodox objects not to the doctrine but the necessity to define the doctrine. They see such things are best left to the Spirit to guide us.
Also, the Orthodox believes in a form of conciliarism, where the ecumenical council is the highest decision-making body in the church, not the Pope acting alone. As such, such a doctrine could only be promulgated by an ecumenical council of the church as a whole, including the Orthodox bishops of course. At the very least, maybe a promulgation by the Pentarchy of the five patriarchs. Definitely not by the Pope by himself, as was done in 1950. In their eyes, another example of the unilateral actions of the very monarchical First among Equals.
While that is true (from the Catholic point of view), it is also a bit of an easy, and slippery answer to claim origin from the Holy Spirit. You can answer anything with “The Holy Spirit told us to”. That’s fine and well, but we can make the same claim (we haven’t made it Dogma because the Holy Spirit is leading us). Discussion is impossible if we use that answer.If the Church believes she is led by the Holy Spirit, then isn’t the issuance of a dogma the work of the Holy Spirit?
Since the Church cannot err on faith and morals, the options I can think of are:
A) The dogma was established by the work of the Spirit. It was not the Pope’s personal opinion, and we have to accept by faith.
B) The dogma was the Pope’s personal opinion, and there is logic behind it.
As a thought experiment, could we have (had we been so luck as to live in the times of the apostles) applied this same logic to all teachings? Teachings about the bible for example? If the Church “in the east” (east of me who is objecting anyhow) defines as doctrine the books of Timothy or Titus as scripture, and I find useful and traditional things there, but nothing that really adds to my understanding of efficacy of the incarnation, would that be a sign that the leadership in the east is being overly dogmatic? Overreaching their authority?I think the real question is, why did the west feel the need to define it as dogma and attach an anathema to it. It is neither logically nor practically necessary for salvation. Whether Mary was assumed doesn’t change the plan of salvation or affect it in any way.
The development of patristic thought (atleast in the east) is based around the incarnation and life of Christ. The assumption is irrelevant to the development. It finds its place in the liturgical cycle of the Church, not in the development of dogma. The only time Mary is brought up in a dogmatic sense is when it comes to her as theotokos or as mother of God. Those have a bearing on our understanding of Christ and salvation. So St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote a treatise on Mary the mother of God, and some of his twelve anathemas speak specifically about her being theotokos or mother of God. He insisted on this in contrast to the Nestorians, who divided Christ. All dogma is related to the Incarnation of Christ. It is always a question of who is Christ, and what is his relationship to us. Even when it gets into the iconoclast controversy, it is a question of the efficacy of the Incarnation.
Not sure where you got that from. That is certainly not something we believe. In fact the disagreements between Church leadership were at their worst in the first several centuries, not after.My understanding of a main Orthodox belief is that after the first couple of church councils, the disagreements between church leadership were so bad that they have prevented the Holy Spirit from speaking to the whole world through the ecumenical councils. Which sounds like effectively accepting that Christ’s church has been broken.
Is it for us to determine when the Spirit is guiding us? That seems to be a difference between east and west; the east accepts that the Spirit guides the Church but makes no declaration on a specific time when He does, the west on the other hand declares specific points in time to be guided by the Spirit. For the west the councils and the pope are infallible. When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, he is being guided by the Spirit and speaks infallibly. There is no infallibility in the east. The east trusts that the Spirit leads the Church, and knows that the Spirit will breath where he wills.I don’t understand how the Orthodox determine when the Spirit is guiding them (and I believe they would consider themselves as more Spirit led than Catholics). Besides a past connection with history, what differentiates the method described above from the individual interpretation common among our protestant brothers and sisters?
My understanding of a main Orthodox belief is that after the first couple of church councils, the disagreements between church leadership were so bad that they have prevented the Holy Spirit from speaking to the whole world through the ecumenical councils. Which sounds like effectively accepting that Christ’s church has been broken.
Scripture isn’t about dogma. We don’t read the bible because we can glean certain dogmas from the text. So just because a book doesn’t make any statements about the Incarnation doesn’t make it any less a part of the bible.As a thought experiment, could we have (had we been so luck as to live in the times of the apostles) applied this same logic to all teachings? Teachings about the bible for example? If the Church “in the east” (east of me who is objecting anyhow) defines as doctrine the books of Timothy or Titus as scripture, and I find useful and traditional things there, but nothing that really adds to my understanding of efficacy of the incarnation, would that be a sign that the leadership in the east is being overly dogmatic? Overreaching their authority?
Thanks Nine_Two. I guess I mean that even if the disagreements were hottest and heaviest during the early centuries, they were resolved by the councils. If the councils did not resolve disagreements about doctrine definitively, there doesn’t seem to be any point to having a ecumenical council. And if the church use to have, but no longer has any means to teach and define in this way for all Christianity, it is not functioning.Not sure where you got that from. That is certainly not something we believe. In fact the disagreements between Church leadership were at their worst in the first several centuries, not after.
We are lead by the Holy Spirit, and it speaks to the Church through a number of ways, but as you mention, our history is important to us, and the first test to see if something is from the Holy Spirit is to ask if it is consistent with Tradition, since God will never contradict himself.
And proclaiming dogma that doesn’t reflect directly on God, is something that is not consistent with Tradition.
I don’t understand the difference between a “dogma” and a traditional teaching handed down and given official approval by the Church. My interpretation of your previous post was that the Church is unable to hand down or ratify any teachings that don’t directly add to our understanding of the incarnation. Or at least that it never has traditionally. My understanding is that for Catholics and Orthodox Christians, which books are in the bible is a “dogma”, even if you have a different word for it. I did not mean to imply that we are reading the scripture to “glean dogma”, but rather that the Church does teach, by the Holy Spirit, in ecumenical councils, things which are not limited to the incarnation. For example, teachings about entire books of the bible.Scripture isn’t about dogma. We don’t read the bible because we can glean certain dogmas from the text.
Would it be fair to say then, based on this post, you cannot point to a specific historical instance where the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into a greater understanding of the truth? And as a follow up, if this is the case, does anyone know if this is held to be a traditional and common belief among Orthodox Christians of most branches? Eastern Christianity has always had a certain kind of appeal to me, and I think it would help me to understand our Eastern brothers and sisters a little better.Is it for us to determine when the Spirit is guiding us? That seems to be a difference between east and west; the east accepts that the Spirit guides the Church but makes no declaration on a specific time when He does, the west on the other hand declares specific points in time to be guided by the Spirit. For the west the councils and the pope are infallible. When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, he is being guided by the Spirit and speaks infallibly. There is no infallibility in the east. The east trusts that the Spirit leads the Church, and knows that the Spirit will breath where he wills.
There are things the Church teaches, and ways that the Church lives and celebrates the Christian life, but these aren’t dogma. There is no anathema attached to them, so the failure to believe them or follow them doesn’t seperate a person from the Church. The declaration on the Immaculate Conception says that those who,I don’t understand the difference between a “dogma” and a traditional teaching handed down and given official approval by the Church. My interpretation of your previous post was that the Church is unable to hand down or ratify any teachings that don’t directly add to our understanding of the incarnation. Or at least that it never has traditionally. My understanding is that for Catholics and Orthodox Christians, which books are in the bible is a “dogma”, even if you have a different word for it. I did not mean to imply that we are reading the scripture to “glean dogma”, but rather that the Church does teach, by the Holy Spirit, in ecumenical councils, things which are not limited to the incarnation. For example, teachings about entire books of the bible.
But we do have an agreed upon Authority - Tradition, that which has come before. There can be no greater authority. Aside from that we have the consensus of the hierarchs, both present and past, to guide us in our interpretation of that Tradition.Thanks Nine_Two. I guess I mean that even if the disagreements were hottest and heaviest during the early centuries, they were resolved by the councils. If the councils did not resolve disagreements about doctrine definitively, there doesn’t seem to be any point to having a ecumenical council. And if the church use to have, but no longer has any means to teach and define in this way for all Christianity, it is not functioning.
For your commentary on “dogma”, it doesn’t seem possible to resolve this without an agreed upon authority. If I lived back in the traditional times, and the Apostles tell me to “abstain from strangled meat and blood” like they did in Ch 15 of the book of Acts, I think if I very much enjoyed my strangled meat and blood stew it would be tempting to brush them off by saying “your arbitrary dogmas don’t apply to me”, but I don’t think it would be he right mindset if I considered myself a member of the Church. But I can see how if I thought they were over reaching their authority it would make sense.