Does a convert to Eastern Catholicism need to affirm post schism doctrines and dogma?

[JesusforMadrid]

The difference is we are not asking you to accept a single dogma that the Western Church didn’t hold in common with us during the first millennium of the Church.

But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for ‘there is one body and one Spirit.’ - The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895

This seems sensible: to engender a pre Schism unity, the churches need to embrace a pre Schism theology.

Yet how could Rome do that without jettisoning its post Schism dogma that it has declared infallibly.

Could Rome maintain certain dogmas as essential for Latin Catholicism but not essential for communion with Rome?

 

[5Loaves]

It’s certainly no more “hateful” than placing us in the “Non-Catholic” religions section.

I wouldn’t call that placement “hateful” but I seriously resent it.

At one point I thought I’d have a little fun and change my religion profile to read “Catholic in communion with Constantinople.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear JesusforMadrid,

Which “innovations” do you see in modern Orthodox Christianity that were not present in the Early Church?

1. a near-democratic ecclesiology which extolls the judgment of bishops by laymen without benefit of a synod (a characteristic of the Low Petrine view).
2. relegation of the office of head bishop to one of mere honor (on any level) with no real jurisdiction.
3. rejection of the doctrine of substitutionary Atonement
4. rejection of the dogma of the IC as a heresy
5. claiming that consecration in unleavened bread is not holy and valid.
6. claiming that those who baptize in the names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with an orhodox understanding of the Trinity do not have a valid baptism.
   Just to name a few

Do the Orthodox admit this?

I have met EO online who support the High Petrine view instead of the Low Petrine view.

There are EO, as reflected in the Ravenna Commission, who admit that the position of head bishop is more than just one of mere honor, and grant that the papacy in the first millenium as protos of the bishops exercised a measure of real authority throughout the Church.

There are EO online who admit and accept the orthodoxy of the Cathlic position on Original Sin and the Atonement.

There are EO who do not assign heterodoxy to the IC.

There are EO who do not oppose the consecration of unleavened bread.

In short, I think there are a lot of EO out there who are very fair-minded about how they view themselves and the Catholic Church.

If true, doesn’t that contravene the Orthodox claim to represent the authentic, orthodox faith of the Early Church?

Not necessarily. These innovations exist within EO’xy, but not all innovations are necessarily heterodox, nor are these innovations necessarily representative of EO’xy as a whole (as already indicated above). It’s the same with the Catholic Church. There are extreme beliefs within certain quarters of the Catholic Church, but they certainly don’t define what the Catholic Church teaches officially and Magisterially. I grant the same consideration to the Orthodox (EO and OO), though I believe it is an advantage in the Catholic Church that one can identify official and Magisterial teaching more readily than in the other Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

The difference is we are not asking you to accept a single dogma that the Western Church didn’t hold in common with us during the first millennium of the Church.

But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for ‘there is one body and one Spirit.’ - The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895

Yes you’re asking the Western Church to abandon its views and beliefs. As I said, the stalemate is pride on both sides, but less so with Rome because she has started to make concessions. I’d have to question why the Orthodox is content with a divided Church.

 

[Seamus_L]

The simplest answer is that it all depends on who you ask.

 

[Hesychios]

… For too long we have had to apologize to Rome for our traditions, theologies, spirituality, etc., and for too long we have sought “permission” to restore within our Churches that which is rightfully ours; granted, however, that the momentum for restoration never came from Rome, but has always come from within the Eastern Catholic Churches (one need only look at the reforms set in motion by Metropolitan Sheptytsky, or look at the history of the Melkites)…

As a model for church unity and governance it is an extremely bad one, and an invalid example because it is a NEW model. It does not replicate the ecclesiology of the pre-schism church (although it has satisfied the needs of the bishops of Rome).

If the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church were ever to reconcile there would be no question of the bishop of Rome allowing the east to keep it’s traditional spirituality, theology and praxis. The man does not have a right to interfere and would not be consulted in such matters.

If there were a reconciliation between the Orthodox Catholics and the Roman Catholics there would be no question of the Vatican appointing bishops for the east, nor approving Metropolitans, nor erecting dioceses/eparchies/exarchates. The bishop of Rome would simply not be consulted.

If the Orthodox Catholics and the Roman Catholics ever in the future agree to share communion, or even to concelebrate, there would be no regulation of the liturgies or the canons by the bishop of Rome, and his acceptence or approval of eastern councils of bishops would not be needed for them to come into effect.

 

[crazzeto]

As a model for church unity and governance it is an extremely bad one, and an invalid example because it is a NEW model. It does not replicate the ecclesiology of the pre-schism church (although it has satisfied the needs of the bishops of Rome).

If the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church were ever to reconcile there would be no question of the bishop of Rome allowing the east to keep it’s traditional spirituality, theology and praxis. The man does not have a right to interfere and would not be consulted in such matters.

I suppose I can understand why you might feel this way, however this isn’t true. The fact of the matter is that Rome has always been the final court of appeal in matters of doctrinal squabbles, because as the fathers so clearly state the faith of Rome has never failed (and never will).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe this thread is way way off topic.

The question is if someone who converts to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches has to affirm what the Catholic Church Teaches.

This is not about reunion with the Orthodox or really any issue with the Orthodox. I find it perplexing that so many Orthodox posters feel a need to comment on this when it really is not a question for them. (I believe this is one of the issues that caused the creation of the Eastern Catholicism forum and the relegation of the Orthodox questions/issues to the non-Catholic forum, after all, in today’s usage of language by Catholics, the Orthodox are not Catholics, just as evidenced here that the Orthodox do not view Catholics as Orthodox).

IMHO a Catholic is a Catholic, whether Eastern or Western, and must affirm all Catholic Teachings. Now those teachings may be colored and influenced by the individual Catholics spirituality and theological traditions, but affirmation is required.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I find it perplexing that so many Orthodox posters feel a need to comment on this when it really is not a question for them.

This question was asked back at the very beginning of the thread.

Could one basically affirm Eastern Orthodox rather than Latin theology and be able to become an Eastern Catholic church.

If the question is can an Eastern Catholic affirm Orthodox rather than Latin theology, it seems to me it’s perfectly reasonable to have people who actually do affirm Orthodox theology (i.e. the Orthodox) comment on the topic.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

The fact of the matter is that Rome has always been the final court of appeal in matters of doctrinal squabbles,

No, it has not always been so. Disputants can and did appeal to many offices for arbitration, not just the one at Rome. Usually the major doctrinal squabbles were settled in Council, and often they could be settled without council through the Metropolitans or local synods.

… because as the fathers so clearly state the faith of Rome has never failed (and never will).

The early Fathers did not witness what happened to it later, so they could not have commented on it.

Anyway, FWIW I am in general agreement with brother David. There is no such thing as an Orthodox in communion with Rome and anyone who wants to be in communion with Rome must affirm all Roman Catholic Teachings, even if they are not taught them and don’t want to believe them. There is no option out of that.

That should be a word of caution to any Protestants out there who want to be in communion with Rome without believing everything the bishops of Rome teach. It is not possible to escape that responsibility by becoming an eastern Catholic. All eastern Catholics must affirm what the bishops of Rome teach.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

That should be a word of caution to any Protestants out there who want to be in communion with Rome without believing everything the bishops of Rome teach. It is not possible to escape that responsibility by becoming an eastern Catholic. All eastern Catholics must affirm what the bishops of Rome teach.

If true, that is rather bad news for those of us who find ourselves attracted to Orthodoxy/Byzantine Catholicism but live in locales without an Orthodox presence.

 

[Ghosty]

If true, that is rather bad news for those of us who find ourselves attracted to Orthodoxy/Byzantine Catholicism but live in locales without an Orthodox presence.

Any locale without an Orthodox presence is far less likely to have an Eastern Catholic presence. How would you join an Eastern Catholic Church if there wasn’t one nearby?

Peace and God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

As much as I accept and respect ByzCath’s point, I think that AL raised some issues that merit continuing discussion.

First, I take his point, to some extent, on the Zoghby initiative. The pithy statement was clearly heuristic. It leaves too much unstated to be sufficient for much of anything, but it did lead to a fuller elaboration by the Melkite Synod, as Ghosty has pointed out on many occasions. Unfortunately, it is quoted like a mantra by some. But what do they mean; what is their elaborated thinking? What is their understanding of what the Orthodox Church teaches? And how do they know? This central question cannot be answered authoritatively by the enthusiastic quoters. Or, frankly, by the opponents.

AL made another interesting point about “Orthodox in communion with Rome” but profoundly overstates it, in a revealing way. Incidentally, I like ByzCath would identify myself as a Byzantine Catholic or Greek Catholic rather than Orthodox in communion with Rome - mainly from habit and history. But AL protests much too much. Many if not all of the EO’s who grouse about our use of “Orthodox”, are fantastically reticent about its use by non-canonical Orthodox groups – including, the various true and genuine Orthodox jurisdictions (and, until very recently, ROCOR), as well as the Oriental Orthodox. For the latter group, there is the finding of fundamental Christological heresy in their theology by an ecumenical council. That finding sealed the division of the churches. There is NO ecumenical council that sealed the division of the Catholic and EO churches. (So who is actually teaching what about Catholic heresy and on what authority?) So what is the real problem that explains the hostility of the EO’s to the Catholic Church and in particular the Greek Catholic Churches? That is worth some sincere reflection.

“You can’t artificially reconstruct what the first millennium looked like in the 20th century. You also can’t functionally ape Latin praxis for two centuries, then decide to get to know yourself all over again by reading a lot of Orthodox literature, then proclaim yourself Orthodox. You can’t swap out a Latin mitre for a “Byzantine” one after obtaining PERMISSION to rediscover your Eastern roots, then read all of our literature, and then come to us dressed up like us and tell us that you’re Orthodox. That’s called role-playing and costume-wearing. If your church was Orthodox, you would be in communion with the Orthodox churches.”

Well, yes and no. As much as I am profoundly grateful, in all sincerity, to all who come to our churches, I am not an enthusiast of the totally inorganic way that some approach it – like the chef who learns to cook from a book. Even in areas of agreement on goals, there is often a complete disjunction on tactics between those who have a strong sense of continuity within and intimacy the community, and those who have been recently excited about by what they have read in some book and whose relationships are limited and often more virtual than real. But AL, let’s be honest. However much this may be a problem in Eastern Catholic churches in America, that problem is a mote compared to the corresponding log jam in Eastern Orthodoxy in America. What chutzpah for you to raise this point.

More importantly, you go way beyond what is factually supportable, well into the realm, of fantasy for the sake of polemical insult. Functional aping of Latin Praxis for two centuries, “PERMISSION”, “role-playing and costume-wearing” - this is all not only vicious, but to those of us who have roots in these churches that reach throughout these centuries, it is readily understood to be just sound and fury signifying nothing.
And do you apply the same criticisms to ACROD? Or to all of your recent converts. I read this rant and wonder: has Orthodoxy in America degenerated to the point that kool-aid of Romophobia is the sine qua non, the very essence of the church, sufficient to absolve everything else (even findings of Christological heresy). This is what your outburst represents. You write: “to truly embrace the fullness of Orthodox theology … is to reject the filioque clause in the Symbol of the Faith” That is such an empty criterion of fullness. Who teaches it?

 

[dvdjs]

Would a convert to Eastern Catholicism need to affirm, for example, the Latin teachings on purgatory, treasury of merit and indulgences? Would he need to affirm papal infallibility? How about recent Marian dogmas (e.g. the immaculate conception)?

Dear Jesus for Madrid. This is really a matter that you should discuss with a priest. Indeed the discussion would need to be very specific in order to understand your issues and the correct response in light of them. It is hard to fathom why “words of caution” would be given in the absence of that detail .

As a Greek Catholic, I would tell you this. I don’t know much academic theology nor any academic theologians. Like most of the people in my community, my theological training is from our prayers and our liturgy. This means that the issues of affirming Western theological constructs is really a moot point. No Catholic ought to deny them, but our outlook is shaped by our practice. As others have said, we pray for the dead with the conviction that our prayers are efficacious for their salvation. We have the greatest esteem for the Theotokos and repeatedly affirm her as immaculate - and never as immaculate but only after some point in her existence. We certainly understand the church as infallible and the Pope as the leader and spokesman of the church. So you tell me is this an affirmation?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Dear Jesus for Madrid. This is really a matter that you should discuss with a priest. Indeed the discussion would need to be very specific in order to understand your issues and the correct response in light of them. It is hard to fathom why “words of caution” would be given in the absence of that detail .

As a Greek Catholic, I would tell you this. I don’t know much academic theology nor any academic theologians. Like most of the people in my community, my theological training is from our prayers and our liturgy. This means that the issues of affirming Western theological constructs is really a moot point. No Catholic ought to deny them, but our outlook is shaped by our practice. As others have said, we pray for the dead with the conviction that our prayers are efficacious for their salvation. We have the greatest esteem for the Theotokos and repeatedly affirm her as immaculate - and never as immaculate but only after some point in her existence. We certainly understand the church as infallible and the Pope as the leader and spokesman of the church. So you tell me is this an affirmation?

Yes, I could speak to a priest. But that suggests that the answer is not clear and that there is some local discretion allowed.

A number of people have provided very thoughtful answers on this and I am grateful. It seems that the consensus is one of either two positions:

1. Yes, an Eastern Catholic needs to affirm post schism doctrines and dogma. ByzCath, amongst others, suggests this position.

IMHO a Catholic is a Catholic, whether Eastern or Western, and must affirm all Catholic Teachings. Now those teachings may be colored and influenced by the individual Catholics spirituality and theological traditions, but affirmation is required.

1. Maybe: formally, yes, although in practice no, which seems to be your position, as you suggest:

This means that the issues of affirming Western theological constructs is really a moot point. No Catholic ought to deny them, but our outlook is shaped by our practice.

Is this a sort of theological “don’t ask, don’t tell”, i.e. as long as you don’t actively deny Latin doctrines and dogma, you don’t need to embrace and teach them.

What this does suggest, however, is that the answer to my question is not “no”. One cannot formally deny post schism doctrines and dogma–e.g. papal infallibility–and be an Eastern Catholic.

Which does also suggest, as some of the Orthodox posters have written, that the idea of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” would seem to be an oxymoron. Orthodoxy is more than just Byzantine rite, and the Orthodox would deny post schism doctrines and dogma. A person in such a position would not, it would seem, be welcome as an Eastern Catholic. I think that rubric may be misleading and certainly confused me.

I hope I am not misinterpreting anybody in my summary. I fear this subject is more contentious than I had hoped.

 

[mardukm]

Dear JesusforMadrid,

Yes, I could speak to a priest. But that suggests that the answer is not clear and that there is some local discretion allowed.

A number of people have provided very thoughtful answers on this and I am grateful. It seems that the consensus is one of either two positions:

1. Yes, an Eastern Catholic needs to affirm post schism doctrines and dogma. ByzCath, amongst others, suggests this position.
2. Maybe: formally, yes, although in practice no, which seems to be your position, as you suggest: Is this a sort of theological “don’t ask, don’t tell”, i.e. as long as you don’t actively deny Latin doctrines and dogma, you don’t need to embrace and teach them.

What this does suggest, however, is that the answer to my question is not “no”. One cannot formally deny post schism doctrines and dogma–e.g. papal infallibility–and be an Eastern Catholic.

Which does also suggest, as some of the Orthodox posters have written, that the idea of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” would seem to be an oxymoron. Orthodoxy is more than just Byzantine rite, and the Orthodox would deny post schism doctrines and dogma. A person in such a position would not, it would seem, be welcome as an Eastern Catholic. I think that rubric may be misleading and certainly confused me.

I hope I am not misinterpreting anybody in my summary. I fear this subject is more contentious than I had hoped.

Aren’t you begging the question? You automatically assume that Eastern and Latin theology are inherently incompatible. By what standard or rationale do you make that assumption? I think that is a fair question to ask.

I will flatly state, at the risk of correction, that most Eastern and Oriental Catholics have no problem accepting the post-schism dogmas in light of Eastern or Oriental theology. To be sure, there are tensions between certain interpretations, especially where extremists are involved. But there IS a way to find the common ground, and many of us have found it. For over 1500 years, the Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox could not see eye to eye on the physis issue. But now we are in agreement because we learned to look beyond the local theological formulations and grasp the common universal (i.e., Catholic) Faith that binds us. The same can be said on the filioque issue (notwithstanding those who are ignorant of the official dialogue on the matter). And there is now finally some groundwork being made on the papal issues, as well.

To conclude - being an Eastern or Oriental Catholic - being an Orthodox in communion with Rome - is not an oxymoron. No concessions need to be made to accept that paradigm. All that is needed is the spiritual fruit of understanding. Speaking of which, if you need help finding the common ground between Latin and Eastern/Oriental theologies on particular issues, feel free to ask. I would suggest doing so on different threads for each topic. To be sure, what you ask will probably already have been discussed and resolved several times in the past, but if you are sincere in your search for knowledge and understanding about the Catholic Church, we will be more than willing to take the time to give an answer for the Faith that lies in us.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Aren’t you begging the question? You automatically assume that Eastern and Latin theology are inherently incompatible. By what standard or rationale do you make that assumption? I think that is a fair question to ask.

I am assuming that some post Schism doctrines and dogma, as defined by the Latin West, are incompatible with pre-Schism doctrines and dogma, at least those embraced in the East. My standard is logic (hopefully): one cannot say that “belief in A” and “belief in Not A” are compatible theologies. To take the most blazing example, one cannot believe that the Pope is both infallible and not infallible when speaking ex cathedra, can one? One cannot believe that the Theotokos was both immaculately conceived and not immaculately conceived. I am sure that on all points, one can negotiate some intermediate ground. However, doing so requires concessions and my interest is really if one can enter the Eastern Catholic church without making such concessions.

I will flatly state, at the risk of correction, that most Eastern and Oriental Catholics have no problem accepting the post-schism dogmas in light of Eastern or Oriental theology. To be sure, there are tensions between certain interpretations, especially where extremists are involved.

Since I belong to neither, I will let others respond on this point, but I am surprised.

Speaking of which, if you need help finding the common ground between Latin and Eastern/Oriental theologies on particular issues, feel free to ask. I would suggest doing so on different threads for each topic. To be sure, what you ask will probably already have been discussed and resolved several times in the past, but if you are sincere in your search for knowledge and understanding about the Catholic Church, we will be more than willing to take the time to give an answer for the Faith that lies in us.

Thank you. That is very generous.

 

[mardukm]

Dear JesusforMadrid,

I am assuming that some post Schism doctrines and dogma, as defined by the Latin West, are incompatible with pre-Schism doctrines and dogma, at least those embraced in the East. My standard is logic (hopefully): one cannot say that “belief in A” and “belief in Not A” are compatible theologies. To take the most blazing example, one cannot believe that the Pope is both infallible and not infallible when speaking ex cathedra, can one? One cannot believe that the Theotokos was both immaculately conceived and not immaculately conceived. I am sure that on all points, one can negotiate some intermediate ground. However, doing so requires concessions and my interest is really if one can enter the Eastern Catholic church without making such concessions.

Thanks for the more detailed explanation.

As far as papal infallibility, the common non-Catholic misconception is that the Pope’s infallibility is completely personal and separate from the infallibility of the Church. But that is not what V1 taught, and it clearly states it. When the Pope exercises infallibility, he is exercising nothing more nor less than the the infallibility of the Church. That is what V1 explicitly teaches. On the level of logic, how logical is it to claim that the head bishop of the Church does not share in the infallibility of the Church when he declares something as spokesman of the Church for the Church? No theological concessions necessary.

As far as the IC, the apparent theological tension is over the definition of Original Sin. But that is a matter of definition, not a truly theological difference. That bears some more discussion, obviously, but I can confidently state that no “concession” is necessary, theologically speaking, for an Eastern to accept the IC.

Thank you. That is very generous.

I pray you find the time and inclination to take up the offer.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Jesus for Madrid. This is really a matter that you should discuss with a priest. Indeed the discussion would need to be very specific in order to understand your issues and the correct response in light of them. It is hard to fathom why “words of caution” would be given in the absence of that detail .

As a Greek Catholic, I would tell you this. I don’t know much academic theology nor any academic theologians. Like most of the people in my community, my theological training is from our prayers and our liturgy. This means that the issues of affirming Western theological constructs is really a moot point. No Catholic ought to deny them, but our outlook is shaped by our practice. As others have said, we pray for the dead with the conviction that our prayers are efficacious for their salvation. We have the greatest esteem for the Theotokos and repeatedly affirm her as immaculate - and never as immaculate but only after some point in her existence. We certainly understand the church as infallible and the Pope as the leader and spokesman of the church. So you tell me is this an affirmation?

Hmmm. Well, the Most Holy Mother of God was always Immaculate, Most Immaculate and Ever-Immaculate, as the liturgical prayers of the Eastern Church affirm.

The Eastern Church also celebrates the liturgical feast of the Conception of St Anne and the prayers there invoke the Theotokos as a saint already, meaning that she was a saint at the time of her Conception (as was John the Baptist whose Conception the East also celebrates). The East does not accept the “stain of Original Sin” and by way of an outdated visual, the idea that we are conceived and born with the “black mark of Original Sin” on our souls. We inherit Adam’s weakened nature that he suffered as a result of his sin of disobedience.

The Mother of God, on the level of her soul, NEVER sinned. And she was wholly sanctified from her Conception, and grew in sanctification in a dynamic way. As a result, the impact of the effects of Original Sin were nullified in her so she felt no pain when she gave birth to Christ and when she reposed, her death was so light and sweet that the East calls it a “dormition” or “falling asleep.” She was taken body and soul to heaven by her Son.

The main point is that we have yet to do a proper comparison of what the Latin Church believes and what the East believes in terms of 1) the faith itself and 2) how the faith is expressed.

Speaking for myself, the only thing that I personally see as being different between Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy is the Papacy. And even then, EC’s look to the primates/patriarchs of their Particular Churches in the first instance while the Pope is an overseer who gets involved when necessary.

A friend of mine from university, a Redemptorist, was doing his dissertation years ago about how to “reinterpret” papal primacy in terms of Eastern ecclesiology. His view was that papal infallibility could be said to be expressed when a pope ratifies the decisions of an Ecumenical Council as the regular exercise of that role. He also said that with respect to papal primacy of jurisdiction, that would be in effect when a local Church asks the pope for intervention - otherwise, the Particular Church would administer its own internal business by itself under the leadership of its Primate (including the ancient right to canonize their own local Saints for veneration in their own Churches).

I think we have this already with the various Latin Catholic Bishops’ Conferences, as I perceive they operate vis-a-vis Rome. And the local Ordinary already has the right to beatify local saints with the approval of Rome.

I haven’t heard the term “purgatory” used in our parishes in years. Yet, prayer for the dead is something that is practised far more in the East than in the West, from what I can see.

Terminology is just that.

Alex

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes you’re asking the Western Church to abandon its views and beliefs. As I said, the stalemate is pride on both sides, but less so with Rome because she has started to make concessions. I’d have to question why the Orthodox is content with a divided Church.

Wow, at least you finally admit that Rome is being prideful.

But when Rome’s belief which we are asking her to abandon is that all submit completely to her, I do not see this as pride. On the contrary, I see it as foolishness to go with, especially since we have already witnessed what this can do.