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

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

Actually, I think we should all be “prideful” of our Churches’ traditions!

Rome need not give up any of her theological/canonical traditions. Again, what we should do/need to do, is to draw up a comparison of what the Churches hold in common (most things) and then show how these points are held by both sides as an indicator of how close or far we are.

I think the results would surprise us all. And we should never criticize this or that point of each other’s traditions - only when those traditions are somehow made a standard of orthodoxy.

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

I never said they were not. But Rome has given up much of that pride in recent decades especially after Vatican II for the sake of reunification, not only with the Orthodox but with the Protestant churches as well. You’ll see a lot of Traditionalists complain about the softening language of the Church since Vatican II, its part of this swallowing of pride for the sake of unity.

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, I think we should all be “prideful” of our Churches’ traditions!

Rome need not give up any of her theological/canonical traditions. Again, what we should do/need to do, is to draw up a comparison of what the Churches hold in common (most things) and then show how these points are held by both sides as an indicator of how close or far we are.

I think the results would surprise us all. And we should never criticize this or that point of each other’s traditions - only when those traditions are somehow made a standard of orthodoxy.

Alex

That’s fine, but when the claim is that the differences are ecclesiastical, it would seem the “prideful” side is the one that wants everyone to submit to them.

 

[Nine_Two]

I never said they were not. But Rome has given up much of that pride in recent decades especially after Vatican II for the sake of reunification, not only with the Orthodox but with the Protestant churches as well. You’ll see a lot of Traditionalists complain about the softening language of the Church since Vatican II, its part of this swallowing of pride for the sake of unity.

Becoming lax is not the same thing as swallowing pride for the sake of unity, especially when it is the image of unity that is the issue. The Orthodox do not see Unity as being under one Bishop, the Orthodox see unity as sharing the same faith. It is rather boolean in its execution, either you share the faith or you do not, and as long as your view of the faith includes a single bishop hierarchy, you don’t.

 

[dcointin]

Becoming lax is not the same thing as swallowing pride for the sake of unity, especially when it is the image of unity that is the issue. The Orthodox do not see Unity as being under one Bishop, the Orthodox see unity as sharing the same faith. It is rather boolean in its execution, either you share the faith or you do not, and as long as your view of the faith includes a single bishop hierarchy, you don’t.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Catholics certainly also believe confessing the orthodox faith to be important, just as Orthodox view being under a canonical hierarch to be important. In fact I might say that Catholics are more strict in this way since their dogmatic definitions are more numerous and specific than ours.

 

[Hesychios]

I never said they were not. But Rome has given up much of that pride in recent decades especially after Vatican II for the sake of reunification, not only with the Orthodox but with the Protestant churches as well. You’ll see a lot of Traditionalists complain about the softening language of the Church since Vatican II, its part of this swallowing of pride for the sake of unity.

When the See at Rome agrees that it does not have an automatic right to control it’s sister churches that will be great progress.

Of course, the problem there is that it is no longer just a church discipline, the Ultamontanists have made it into a dogma. In other words, they have double-bolted it into permanency. They knew what they were doing at the time.

This will be very difficult to undo, but if the Papacy is serious about unity, it will find a way.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Catholics certainly also believe confessing the orthodox faith to be important, just as Orthodox view being under a canonical hierarch to be important. In fact I might say that Catholics are more strict in this way since their dogmatic definitions are more numerous and specific than ours.

It wasn’t meant as a dichotomy. I was saying that Catholics seem to have a tendency to look for unity of organization before unity of faith, while Orthodox demand the opposite. Also the Orthodox belief that one must be under a canonical hierarch is a far different animal than believing that all must be under one specific hierarch.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I am sorry if my posts in this thread were hurtful or uncharitable. I was in a poor spiritual condition when I wrote those things in frustration, and I likely should have been more gracious. Forgive me, a sinner.

 

[Ghosty]

I am sorry if my posts in this thread were hurtful or uncharitable. I was in a poor spiritual condition when I wrote those things in frustration, and I likely should have been more gracious. Forgive me, a sinner.

I’ll pray for you, but please pray for me as well.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

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

Most definitely it does not. It is your question that is not clear, as I already indicated. What is your understanding of the teachings of the West or the East? Are you thinking about dogma or popular, pious legends? Is your thinking of Western ideas on purgatory rooted in defined dogma or in Dante? Is your thinking on Eastern eschatological concepts rooted in consensus tradition or do your venture into aerial toll houses? Are your thoughts on thoughts on the Papacy factual or influenced by all the polemical arguments that abound? And what, exactly, do you mean by “affirm”?

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.

1. 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.

Unless your question is developed at length, you cannot be sure that those answering have the same things in mind that you do in your diffuse question. Indeed the second of the positions that you posit is a fine illustration of the problem. I think it fair to say that no one has the second position; it is certainly not mine. “Don’t ask don’t tell” is an insulting trivialization of the point.

Clearly we do must not reject as false any dogma of the Catholic church. But what, in reality, is our obligation to “embrace” (whatever that means) or to teach. Our churches for generations have featured prayer and sacrifice. Not schools. Does anyone think that theosis requires expert knowledge of systematic theology of some school or another? What do the lives of our saints say about the answer to this question? What do the words of Christ say about the way to salvation, and the criteria by which we will be judged?

The answer is clear, and suggests that your question, apart from being ill-defined, is misoriented. Our religion is an experiential religion, not a body of theological postures and debate points. I know that response answer does no appeal to the chefs who cook from books. So be it. Our obligation is to “embrace” what we have been embracing since the mission of Cyril and Methodius brought Eastern Christianity to my ancestors. And that is embodied in our practice of our prayer and sacrifice. I am certain that this approach bears fruit. I am not nearly so certain that raising theological postures to the fore, will help anyone. I am increasingly convinced that it will help no one who looks for answers on the internet.

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.

What I suggest is that it is imperative to first have an Catholic understanding of fundamental Catholic belief, and to separate understanding from misunderstanding. Only then can you have a proper question that can be properly answered. Lacking that understanding you may only compound misunderstanding.

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.

The correct idea is that some Orthodox would deny some developments of doctrine and some post-schism dogmatic definitions. Are those denials authoritative? Frankly, given Orthodox ecclesiological practice in America over the past century, it is hard to say what American Orthodox must believe on matters ecclesiololgical. But it is clear that they don’t like the what they perceive the papacy to represent, and have a particular mode of historical analysis that somehow or another supports this dislike. Note that again we return to the original problem with your question: what “papacy” are we talking about?

As to Orthodoxy being more than “rite”. Again, I am not entirely clear what you have in mind. But the rite, the practice, entails the experience of an experiential religion. Tell, me, what else do you think is crucial - schools of theology? Romophobia?

I have already pointed out that EO’s are very liberal in allowing, without complaint, many, many others to call themselves “Orthodox”. They only complain about Greek Catholics. Your claim of oxymoron ought to apply all non-canonical EO’s and OO’s as well, but evidently does not. So I think you are on shaky ground with your comment.
Sorry that you found it confusing. Are you confused by the other uses?

 

[dvdjs]

I am sorry if my posts in this thread were hurtful or uncharitable. I was in a poor spiritual condition when I wrote those things in frustration, and I likely should have been more gracious. Forgive me, a sinner.

What an inspiring post. Thanks for brightening the forum. I also apologize for comments that could be hurtful.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Becoming lax is not the same thing as swallowing pride for the sake of unity, especially when it is the image of unity that is the issue. The Orthodox do not see Unity as being under one Bishop, the Orthodox see unity as sharing the same faith. It is rather boolean in its execution, either you share the faith or you do not, and as long as your view of the faith includes a single bishop hierarchy, you don’t.

The Catholic Church does not have a “single bishop hierarchy.”

Unity will only come about through understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Most definitely it does not. It is your question that is not clear, as I already indicated. What is your understanding of the teachings of the West or the East? Are you thinking about dogma or popular, pious legends? Is your thinking of Western ideas on purgatory rooted in defined dogma or in Dante? Is your thinking on Eastern eschatological concepts rooted in consensus tradition or do your venture into aerial toll houses? Are your thoughts on thoughts on the Papacy factual or influenced by all the polemical arguments that abound? And what, exactly, do you mean by “affirm”?
Unless your question is developed at length, you cannot be sure that those answering have the same things in mind that you do in your diffuse question.

You mistakenly seem to think I want a polemical argument. I do not. I regret that I have given you that impression. I am neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox, so I have little experience with the “polemical arguments that abound” to which you refer. That sounds pretty tiresome, and rather off-putting, frankly. (I am reminded of this: youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM ).

My question seems pretty straight forward and I am surprised that even the word “affirm” needs defining. Still, to answer you, affirm means:

1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.
2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm

So, to restate my question, I wanted to know if a convert to Eastern Catholicism would need to affirm–to maintain to be true, to support the validity of-- those doctrines and dogmas declared after the Great Schism of 1054.

Based on what I know, an Orthodox Christian would answer “no” to this question (though I recognise they may believe doctrines that are very similar). You say only “*some *Orthodox would deny some developments of doctrine and some post-schism dogmatic definitions.” I cannot imagine any Eastern Orthodox Christian affirming Papal Infallibility, as defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870, but perhaps you have run into some.

As I have learnt from this thread, some Eastern Catholics would answer “yes” to my question.

It also seems that a number would understand Latin doctrine in a different, Eastern way. They would affirm post Schism doctrines and dogmas, but not in the same way that Rome did and does, which is why I used the allusion to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. (I meant no offense, but forgive me if that sounded flippant). If, however, Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics really do have different understandings of the same terminology regarding post Schism doctrines and dogma (which I assume are thus “essential” beliefs in the Augustinian sense), then their communion would seem tenuous to this outsider. Sorry, but that is my perception.

Others, such as it seems yourself, do not even like my asking this question. As you note, “Our religion is an experiential religion, not a body of theological postures and debate points”, so perhaps even my question itself seems too scholastic and, indeed, Western. However, the Orthodox on this thread don’t seem to have the same epistemological difficulties in tackling this question.

Unless Eastern Catholics can answer the same way as the Orthodox do (i.e. unambiguously “no”), there is some confusion when an Eastern Catholic claims to be Orthodox. An Orthodox Christian need not affirm post Schism dogma and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church; an Eastern Catholic, it seems, does. If true, that is a clear, straightforward difference. Again, I don’t want to enter this contentious, sensitive debate–I am just an outsider (and potential convert) looking in and trying to learn. Many posters have illuminated much already.

Happy Nativity Fast to all on this thread.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

That’s fine, but when the claim is that the differences are ecclesiastical, it would seem the “prideful” side is the one that wants everyone to submit to them.

Agreed!

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Unless Eastern Catholics can answer the same way as the Orthodox do (i.e. unambiguously “no”), there is some confusion when an Eastern Catholic claims to be Orthodox. An Orthodox Christian need not affirm post Schism dogma and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church; an Eastern Catholic, it seems, does. If true, that is a clear, straightforward difference. Again, I don’t want to enter this contentious, sensitive debate–I am just an outsider (and potential convert) looking in and trying to learn. Many posters have illuminated much already.

How do you know that the “differences” between the Eastern and Latin Traditions as expressed by the EO are true? How do you know that the EO presentation of the Latin Tradition is correct in the first place? And how do you know that these differences are sufficient causes for division according to the standard of the early Church? For example, modern EO reject the doctrine of substitutionary atonement - they don’t consider it as simply a valid Tradition of a sister Church like the Eastern Catholics, but use it as a point of contention. Both the Eastern and Latin Tradition on the matter can be readily shown to have existed with each other in peace in the early Church. Eastern Catholics demonstrate the actual attitude of the early Church, while most EO today wrongly think that only the Eastern Tradition is the valid one. There are many other examples.

The dogmas you (rather rashly, IMO) think separate East and West have an underlying theology/understanding/interpretation that can legitimately be seen to actually unite us.

So unity in the Catholic Church is by no means inconsistent in any way.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

When the See at Rome agrees that it does not have an automatic right to control it’s sister churches that will be great progress.

Of course, the problem there is that it is no longer just a church discipline, the Ultamontanists have made it into a dogma. In other words, they have double-bolted it into permanency. They knew what they were doing at the time.

This will be very difficult to undo, but if the Papacy is serious about unity, it will find a way.

A very important point that needs to be made!

During the Council of Florence, even before the symbol of union was signed by most (but not all) the Orthodox bishops in attendance, the Pope began to act as if he, and not the Patriarch of Constantinople, was also the Particular head and administrator of the Orthodox Church (this is brought up at times during the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical commissions’ reports).

You’ve also put your finger squarely on an issue which is an internal RC one and which has led, one might conclude, to the tension and even breaks between Rome and her more traditionalist, ultramontanist members. With respect to the RC development of doctrine, such RC traditionalists see that Rome may only “add to” the deposit and/or liturgical traditions to date. They deny absolutely that Rome can subtract or else return to what Rome and Orthodoxy once held in common as the united Catholic Church of Christ, sharing the same Orthodox Faith, prior to the split (whenever one wishes to affirm that split occurred in history).

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Catholics certainly also believe confessing the orthodox faith to be important, just as Orthodox view being under a canonical hierarch to be important. In fact I might say that Catholics are more strict in this way since their dogmatic definitions are more numerous and specific than ours.

I thank you for that vote of confidence, Friend!

Certainly, “at the top” of the Catholic hierarchy in Rome, what you say is perfectly valid.

I do wish that Latin Catholics in North America would adopt the same attitude, however. And if how one worships indicates what/how one believes, then I definitely think any number of NO parishes in my area can take cues from Orthodoxy (or from Traditionalist parishes - although the likelihood of our NO doing this is very minute).

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

You mistakenly seem to think I want a polemical argument. I do not. I regret that I have given you that impression. I am neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox, so I have little experience with the “polemical arguments that abound” to which you refer. That sounds pretty tiresome, and rather off-putting, frankly. (I am reminded of this: youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM ).

My question seems pretty straight forward and I am surprised that even the word “affirm” needs defining. Still, to answer you, affirm means:

1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.
2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm

So, to restate my question, I wanted to know if a convert to Eastern Catholicism would need to affirm–to maintain to be true, to support the validity of-- those doctrines and dogmas declared after the Great Schism of 1054.

Based on what I know, an Orthodox Christian would answer “no” to this question (though I recognise they may believe doctrines that are very similar). You say only “*some *Orthodox would deny some developments of doctrine and some post-schism dogmatic definitions.” I cannot imagine any Eastern Orthodox Christian affirming Papal Infallibility, as defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870, but perhaps you have run into some.

As I have learnt from this thread, some Eastern Catholics would answer “yes” to my question.

It also seems that a number would understand Latin doctrine in a different, Eastern way. They would affirm post Schism doctrines and dogmas, but not in the same way that Rome did and does, which is why I used the allusion to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. (I meant no offense, but forgive me if that sounded flippant). If, however, Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics really do have different understandings of the same terminology regarding post Schism doctrines and dogma (which I assume are thus “essential” beliefs in the Augustinian sense), then their communion would seem tenuous to this outsider. Sorry, but that is my perception.

Others, such as it seems yourself, do not even like my asking this question. As you note, “Our religion is an experiential religion, not a body of theological postures and debate points”, so perhaps even my question itself seems too scholastic and, indeed, Western. However, the Orthodox on this thread don’t seem to have the same epistemological difficulties in tackling this question.

Unless Eastern Catholics can answer the same way as the Orthodox do (i.e. unambiguously “no”), there is some confusion when an Eastern Catholic claims to be Orthodox. An Orthodox Christian need not affirm post Schism dogma and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church; an Eastern Catholic, it seems, does. If true, that is a clear, straightforward difference. Again, I don’t want to enter this contentious, sensitive debate–I am just an outsider (and potential convert) looking in and trying to learn. Many posters have illuminated much already.

Happy Nativity Fast to all on this thread.

I don’t know if what I’m going to say will be of any help, but here goes.

IF you feel attracted to Eastern Christian/Orthodox spirituality and its spiritual culture, AND you don’t wish to become Orthodox, THEN I believe you might wish to consider Eastern Catholicism, especially a “High Eastern” parish.

I think that what especially attracts Evangelical Christians to Eastern Christianity is the Christian East’s “spirituality of passivity and mysticism.” Just as Evangelical Christians offer their lives to the Lord Jesus and allow Him to come into their hearts by His Grace to transform them, so too does the Christian East wish to rest peacefully in the Holy Embrace of Christ our God, the Risen Lord of Glory Who bestows the Light of His Holy Spirit on us. Just as you have the Sinner’s Prayer - so does the Eastern Church in the Jesus Prayer, with the difference that it is repeated and lived many times daily and until we are united with Christ in heaven.

I wouldn’t worry about the doctrinal thing since, as far as Eastern Catholicism is concerned, there is full unity on that with Roman Catholicism. But in terms of the spiritual approach - the two could not be further apart! The same yet totally different - a miracle!

Alex

 

[Seamus_L]

I think that if you go to a Melkite Church they’ll tell you NO ! If you go to the Maronites they may well say Yes. And if you go to the Ukrainian Catholics or Ruthenians it’ll probably depend on the individual church. Ask a Traditional RC priest and the answer will be absolutely.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In that case, it really is a question about accepting specifically Latin faith expressions on issues that the East has its own understanding of (while the essence of the faith is the same).

For example, as for the Immaculate Conception - Roman Catholics could and did hold their own opinions on this before it was declared to be dogma.

Owing to the fact that the Orthodox East has a different view of Original Sin, the East always affirmed Mary to be All-Immaculate and Sancitified. There was never a need for such a doctrine in the East, as a result, and it adds NOTHING to Eastern Christianity’s understanding of the All-Holiness of the Mother of God, nor to the East’s very high veneration for her. The same is true of the Assumption.

“Purgatory” is a Western notion that is completely unnecessary to the East with its own eschatology and very strong emphasis on prayer for the dead.

The East always respected the right of the Pope to get involved in the internal Church affairs of the East when that was needed. The best way for the Pope to declare infallible dogma is when he approves of the decisions of a true Ecumenical Council (in fact, the Pope Pius XII did consult with the world’s RC bishops before declaring the Assumption a dogma). The East resists, and will always resist, the role of the Pope as one that intrudes on what is the jurisdiction of the Patriarch/Primate of the Eastern Particular Churches.

The Eastern Catholic Churches today view all these issues through the lens of their own legitimate spiritual, canonical and ecclesial patrimony.

And we don’t need to seek the views of any RC priest or prelate, traditional or NOt, about any of this.

I think many EC bishops and patriarchs as well as laity have learned the wisdom of the adage, “It is always easier to ask for forgiveness, than for permission” as applied to Rome.

None of us feel apologetic to Rome nowadays anyway.

Alex