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

[JesusforMadrid]

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)?

 

[newyorkcatholic]

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)?

I’m not an Eastern Catholic, and certainly how this is addresses is more of the responsibility of the pastor of the church the convert would be entering.

I just wanted to point out that Eastern Catholics do not need to accept Latin forms or typical Latin expositions of these teachings.

But my thoughts:

1. Eastern Christians, though they might not say “purgatory,” do pray for the dead.
2. They ask for the prayers of the saints and accept the authority of the Church to loose and bind, even if not specifically mentioning merits and referring to indulgences.
3. I can’t see a way around accepting papal infallibility – but they don’t need to constantly meditate upon this. Certainly the pope has intervened in history to fight heresy, which has included heresies arising from the East. (I’m not trying to stir up controversy with this, but trying to put a positive spin on the Pope’s role).
4. Eastern Christians do refer to Mary as “All Holy”. The Immaculate Conception btw is not a recent teaching-- it was recently DEFINED as a dogma, yes, but the Western liturgy commemorating this mystery is much older.

 

[Cristiano]

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)?

Eastern Catholics are Catholics in full communion with the Latin Church. We all believe the same dogmas and doctrines. The theology can be explained differently but does not change the belief system. Disciplines and traditions of the Latin Church are not binding for the Eastern Churches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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)?

All Catholics affirm papal infallibility. Purgatory, indulgences and Marian dogmas, its been reconcilled with Eastern teachings and that an Eastern Catholic doesn’t have to accept it the way the West teaches it but the East do believe in something the same but taught in a different way. For example with regards to purgatory and indulgences, Eastern Catholics still believe in praying for the dead for forgivness of sins so they may one day enter Heaven. They just didn’t define it the same way the West did for purgatory, but its not like Eastern Catholics doesn’t believe that praying for the dead is useless.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

All Catholics affirm papal infallibility. Purgatory, indulgences and Marian dogmas, its been reconciled with Eastern teachings and that an Eastern Catholic doesn’t have to accept it the way the West teaches it but the East do believe in something the same but taught in a different way. For example with regards to purgatory and indulgences, Eastern Catholics still believe in praying for the dead for forgiveness of sins so they may one day enter Heaven. They just didn’t define it the same way the West did for purgatory, but its not like Eastern Catholics doesn’t believe that praying for the dead is useless.

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

I know that Eastern Orthodox pray for the dead, but their belief is different from the Latin one.

Eastern Orthodox would reject treasury of merit, for example. Could an Eastern Catholic do so?

Does Eastern Catholicism really allow one to embrace Orthodox theology, or rather is it officially Latin theology, with Byzantine rites.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

I know that Eastern Orthodox pray for the dead, but their belief is different from the Latin one.

That is what Eastern Catholics believe. What I meant by reconcilled is that the Church has declared what the East and West believes are not two different things, but the same thing expressed differently.

Eastern Orthodox would reject treasury of merit, for example. Could an Eastern Catholic do so?

Does Eastern Catholicism really allow one to embrace Orthodox theology, or rather is it officially Latin theology, with Byzantine rites.

Popes have encourages Eastern Catholics to return and preserve their traditions. Besides Papal Infallibility, I think everything else has been reconcilled in such they have been declared that there is no conflict between East and West. I could be wrong but so far that is what I have found.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

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

If you want to be Eastern Orthodox, then that’s exactly what you need to be. All of these notions of being “Orthodox in communion with Rome” are not entirely truthful, and a rather recent way of understanding the situation.

Many people look at being Eastern Catholic as some kind of “best of both worlds”, when in reality it is simply not the case. To be Orthodox, you have to actually be Orthodox.

This is not meant as a slight against or something said to denigrate the Eastern Catholic churches, as I know they all have their own complex histories and hardships which they come out of, and often they are opposed from both sides. But to truly embrace the fullness of Orthodox theology and ecclesiology is to reject the filioque clause in the Symbol of the Faith and also to reject papal infallibility and the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.

If you become an Eastern Catholic, the whole thing will be a mess of “read this and that Orthodox book” in order to understand your own position on matters, but then when conflicts come in it is simply time to gloss things over and pretend that a relativistic stance is appropriate. All of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church are binding on all members of the church without exception. Some Eastern Catholics try and get around this (especially the delusional Melkites), but the fact remains that they are binding on all Catholics in all places. Keep in mind that my language is for convenience and courtesy, but that it is our teaching that the Orthodox Church is in fact the Catholic Church, so the above usages of “Catholic” were for convenience and respect.

 

[Hesychios]

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)?

To positively affirm them?

I don’t know. Orthodox are not required to study Latin theology if they convert, there is nothing like an RCIA for Orthodox-to-Roman Catholic converts. This is strange because they do not know for sure what their coreligionists are being taught!

It seems that all we really know about the situation is that anyone who actually denies a Latin dogma is anathema. So we see a lot of rationalizing.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As one of those “delusional Melkites” I will venture to comment. Our Synod of Bishops, in 1995 or 1996 affirmed that:

1. We believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.
2. We are in communion with Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Greek Fathers of the First Millennium before the separation.

This is the official position of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. It has been affirmed on several occasions since then by our current Patriarch, His Beatitude Gregorios III (Laham). One of those occasions was at an Orientale Lumen Conference several years ago. At that conference he state that he (and consequently all Melkites) is “Orthodox with a plus”, that plus being communion with Rome.

Some of our Melkite bishops have explicitly stated that they only hold to the first seven Ecumenical Councils. One of those being the controversial Kyr Elias Zoghby and the other being the revered Kyr Joseph Raya (both heroes of mine). Add to that that the current catechetical series for all Eastern (i.e. Byzantine) Catholics in the United States also speaks of there being only seven Ecumenical Councils. From that you can draw your own conclusions as to what Eastern Catholics believe with regards to the papacy.

The issue of the filioque is really a non-issue, as Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia has stated on several occasions. Indeed even the Greek Fathers of the early Church (e.g. Maximos the Confessor) upheld the filioque, so long as it was understood a certain way. There are threads and threads of discussion on that matter and I suggest anyone interested search them out. That being said, the Eastern Catholic Churches, at least of the Byzantine tradition, do NOT recite the filioque in the Creed (or at least they ought not if they do).

If you want a good summary of what Eastern Catholics believe with regards to Roman dogmas then check out the “Your Word from the Wise” videos on youtube. The monks of Holy Resurrection Romanian Orthodox Monastery do a wonderful job of explaining the situation. I know from personal conversations that their bishop, Bishop John Michael Botean (a truly amazing and holy man), is in agreement with what they have to say.

In short Eastern Catholics are/ought to be Orthodox in every way, theology, spirituality, discipline, etc. The only difference is our communion with the See of Rome. But Orthodoxy does not equal “against Rome” any more than Catholic equals “against Orthodoxy”.

 

[Aramis]

Eastern Catholics are Catholics in full communion with the Latin Church. We all believe the same dogmas and doctrines. The theology can be explained differently but does not change the belief system. Disciplines and traditions of the Latin Church are not binding for the Eastern Churches.

Dogmas, yes. Doctrines, not always. “Nec plus. Nec minus. Nec aliter.” Certain doctrinal issues are variant across the 23 churches; some retained from before reunification. The doctrines of Theosis (Byzantine) and Divinization (Roman) are complimentary but not the same, nor properly compatible. Both tie into the Dogma of Purgatory, and the different understandings of the nature of the sacrament of Reconciliation, and the nature of Sin.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

As one of those “delusional Melkites” I will venture to comment. Our Synod of Bishops, in 1995 or 1996 affirmed that:

1. We believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.
2. We are in communion with Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Greek Fathers of the First Millennium before the separation.

Yes, hence the delusional comment. The two points are mutually exclusive. Orthodoxy happens to teach that the Pope of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church is in heresy and schism from the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Despite what a few opportunist hierarchs or ecumenical authors might have to say on the matter, there is a great paradigmatic gulf between the churches.

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. If your really were to explore your roots you and your bishops would submit to the legitimate Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. (By the way, exactly how many bishops of Antioch does your communion have?)

I’m so tired of seeing this fantasy role-playing garbage with the Vatican. It’s like a choose-your-own-adventure book. “Charismatic”, tongue-speaking, floor-flailing Catholic? No problem! “Byzantine” theological tradition? Not an issue! Go ahead and venerate Gregory Palamas; you have our permission! (THANKS FOR PERMISSION ROME!!!) Coptic “Miaphysitism”? Don’t see a problem on our end! Nestorian Christology? Why not! Latin traditionalists? Sure, we remember y’all!

Really, the only unifying factor is a model of “submission”, not “communion” as a lived and shared faith. The only thing these different adventures have in common is that they submit to and recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome. Whether or not there is any unifying principle in actual praxis and lived faith seems like a far distant concern.

Forgive me if my words seem harsh, but this “live-and-let-live” comes to a head eventually. The Melkites are not Orthodox, and they need to stop pretending that they are.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Aren’t this the two sides of the same coin? Eastern Catholics believe that they carry the Orthodox faith plus with the recognition of the Primacy of the Pope and Communion with him. The Orthodox don’t believe in the Primacy of the Pope and reject it. But otherwise everything is the same, is it not?

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Aren’t this the two sides of the same coin? Eastern Catholics believe that they carry the Orthodox faith plus with the recognition of the Primacy of the Pope and Communion with him. The Orthodox don’t believe in the Primacy of the Pope and reject it. But otherwise everything is the same, is it not?

If they are Orthodox, then why aren’t they in communion with the Orthodox?

 

[KyivAndrew]

Originally posted by Alveus Lacuna
If your church was Orthodox, you would be in communion with the Orthodox churches.

Not all Orthodox Churches are in communion with each and every other Orthodox Church now, are they? The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople came to blows with the Moscow Patriarch over the TWO Estonian Orthodox Churches. Eastern Catholics may have their issues, but it is not as if Orthodoxy is One, Big, Happy Family where the Issue of Primacy in Orthodoxy has been resolved to either the MP’s or the EP’s content.

So please cut a little Christian slack before jumping on us.

 

[KyivAndrew]

In the second largest predominantly Orthodox nation on Earth, Ukraine, the largest Orthodox Church is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) which is in communion with Not One Other Orthodox Church because Politics enters too easily into Orthodoxy and allows for the inanity of having a body of some 14 million Orthodox Ukrainians not being in communion with any of the other world’s Orthodox.

Alveus, are these 14 million Ukrainian Orthodox “heretics”, “schismatics”; are they even considered Orthodox? They hold all the right beliefs and praxis and have history. The fact that they are not in communion or recognized by anyone else is a political issue not religious. I mean the Second largest Orthodox populace in the world cannot even get Autocephaly while Orthodox countries and populations many times smaller even have Patriarchs never mind Autocephaly. Ceasaropapism exists in today’s Orthodox world. This is a problem for Orthodoxy.

I am well aware of issues in the Eastern Catholic Churches; but the Eastern Orthodox have their share of problems too.

I wish this could be resolved of course but I am trying to be adamant at not trying to create strife. I am no High Petrine but language entirely dismissive of Eastern Catholics to me seems possibly unaware of why and how and for what reasons we are where we are and why we remain. If anything the Catholic Church does recognize the Orthodox as a Sister Church; Sadly, I don’t believe the feeling is mutual.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

If anything the Catholic Church does recognize the Orthodox as a Sister Church; Sadly, I don’t believe the feeling is mutual.

This is not about niceties; this is about Truth. The New Order position is inconsistent and betrays the historical Latin position, which as at least internally consistent if erroneous. The fact that the Orthodox cling to their historic understanding of the nature of the Church should be applauded for its courage, not lamented as meanie-headed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is not about niceties; this is about Truth. The New Order position is inconsistent and betrays the historical Latin position, which as at least internally consistent if erroneous. The fact that the Orthodox cling to their historic understanding of the nature of the Church should be applauded for its courage, not lamented as meanie-headed.

To be blunt, how about hard headed? I wonder why the Catholic Church feels the necessity to rebuild the bridge to the Orthodox, while the Orthodox wants to keep the gap. Pride perhaps? The Catholic Church at least is trying to extend an olive branch, isn’t that the Christian thing to do?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Personally I believe that if Rome wants Orthodoxy to take its efforts at reunion seriously, then it must rethink the way it treats the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Orthodox look to us Eastern Catholics to see what a reunited Church will be like. While I may disagree with Alveus on his position that it is not possible for Eastern Catholics to be fully Orthodox and fully in communion with Rome, he does, perhaps inadvertently, demonstrate much of Orthodoxy’s attitude towards reunion. Why should they re-enter communion with a Church when they can pretty much count on being micro-managed by an overly-centralized Church that doesn’t even share the same theological tradition? Why should they re-enter communion when they can pretty much count on having to fight tooth and nail to maintain the traditions, theology, spirituality, disciplines, etc. that they have kept since the Apostolic times? Look at we Eastern Catholics. 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). It is only when this momentum for complete restoration hit obstacles from within, opponents to restoration from other Eastern Catholics, that these movements turned to Rome to settle the disputes.

That being said, I do believe that, in the event of reunion, Orthodoxy will have much to be grateful for with regards to Eastern Catholics, especially those Eastern Catholics who cling to the authentically Eastern or Oriental theologies, traditions, spiritualities, disciplines, etc., despite all the opposition they get from within their own Churches, from Rome, and from Orthodoxy itself. While Orthodoxy and Rome spend decades discussing reunion, the Eastern Catholic Churches have been living union daily for centuries, with all its divine beauty and all the ugliness brought about by human sinfulness. We are the ones doing the “grunt-work” to pave the way for reunion; and often-times that way is paved with the blood of our own martyrs, murdered by both our Orthodox mother Churches and our Roman sister Church. But still we look forward to the day that we will be rejoined with our mother in a new union when both Rome and Orthodoxy will share the one Loaf and the one Cup of salvation. When that happens our job will be done, and we Eastern Catholic Churches will simply disappear. May God grant that this happens sooner rather than later.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’m not an Eastern Catholic, and certainly how this is addresses is more of the responsibility of the pastor of the church the convert would be entering.

I just wanted to point out that Eastern Catholics do not need to accept Latin forms or typical Latin expositions of these teachings.

But my thoughts:

1. Eastern Christians, though they might not say “purgatory,” do pray for the dead.
2. They ask for the prayers of the saints and accept the authority of the Church to loose and bind, even if not specifically mentioning merits and referring to indulgences.
3. I can’t see a way around accepting papal infallibility – but they don’t need to constantly meditate upon this. Certainly the pope has intervened in history to fight heresy, which has included heresies arising from the East. (I’m not trying to stir up controversy with this, but trying to put a positive spin on the Pope’s role).
4. Eastern Christians do refer to Mary as “All Holy”. The Immaculate Conception btw is not a recent teaching-- it was recently DEFINED as a dogma, yes, but the Western liturgy commemorating this mystery is much older.

Please accept my congratulations on a most erudite response!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

An excellent series of posts on a sensitive subject!

Certainly, even if the Eastern Catholics held IDENTICAL beliefs about everything, this would not make them “Orthodox” since they would not be in communion with the Orthodox Churches. There is no sense of “hey, we believe as you do, so we must be as you are.” Doesn’t work like that in either Church.

Eastern Catholics today tend to resemble the Anglicans in terms of their “Eastern identity” meaning, “High Church Byzantine” and “Low Church Latin.” Despite papal pleas to be as Eastern as possible, there are EC’s for whom this is just not on their radar screen at all.

I am one of those who accepts everything Orthodoxy teaches but, undoubtedly, as a Catholic, I will see in Orthodox teachings a “Catholic inflection.” So if we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son” (as Aquinas acknowledged as well) and say this is comparable to what the Orthodox teach - we would, in fact, be wrong.

“Through the Son” most commonly refers to the “Economic Trinity” and, in any evern, it is not a doctrine, but just a point that some Fathers bring up now and then. Does this term refer to the eternal relations of the Trinity? There is no Patristic evidence that this is so.

However, both East and West do agree that the Spirit’s “proceeding” is different from the “Son’s” begetting from the Father. And on principle EC’s don’t have the Filioque in the Creed etc.

That the Most Holy Theotokos never sinned in life - that is something both East and West believe and the East celebrates her Conception as a feast day, meaning that she was a saint at her Conception. Would Orthodox agree with that? Yes and no. But as an Eastern Catholic - I don’t care. Sometimes, Orthodox teachers will bend over backwards to try and show how different their theology is from that of the RC theology when all it is is simply another way to understand the same thing - as has been well-stated by others here.

As for Purgatory, Orthodoxy doesn’t believe there are “places” for the reposed prior to Christ’s Second Coming when we will be reunited with our bodies.

From the Orthodox POV, it is the state of the soul that determines its fate in the next life, not any “place.”

The “mystic Fire” which is God’s Love envelopes all souls when they pass into the next life.

For holy souls, that Fire will bring blessedness and joy. For those souls who need being loosed from their sins (not unto death) or who haven’t performed works of repentance tec., that same Fire will slowly cleanse them with the aid, of course, of the Divine Liturgy and the prayer of the Church on earth. For those souls dying in willful alienation from God, that same Fire will prove a source of remorse etc.

But the East does not accept a “purgatorial fire” and the Roman Catholic side at the Council of Florence never expected the East to endorse any idea of a punishing fire in purgatory for the union to be effected.

One of the great failings of the Council of Florence on the Catholic side was that scholastic ideas and even unimportant arguments came to be a “faith standard” for the Greeks.

So the useless Scholastic arguments about “what constitutes the fire of hell” surprised the Greeks there and one of them told a Latin theologian who posed the question, “You’ll be able to find out definitely once you get there.”

Alex