Dogma and Doctrine

[Bobmedd]

Are the Eastern Catholics under the same dogma and doctrine as are the Traditional Roman Catholics?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Are the Eastern Catholics under the same dogma and doctrine as are the Traditional Roman Catholics?

It depends on how you define the terms.

Those doctrines which have been explicitly defined are binding on all Catholics, Latin and Eastern. Teachings of this type are sometimes called “dogma” and must be accepted by all Catholics.

There are doctrinal differences on teachings which have not been as strongly defined. For example, Latin Catholics believe the bride and groom are the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Eastern Catholics believe it is the priest/bishop, although the priest/bishop must have the consent of the bride and groom – making it the only sacrament which requires the consent of the recipient (technically, consent is not required for any other sacrament, although most sacraments would be illicit if administered without the consent of the recipient).

Also, both Latin and Eastern Catholics agree that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood in the Eucharist, but they disagree on exactly when this takes place. Latin Catholics generally hold that it takes place when the priest says the words, “This is my Body,” and “This is my Blood.” Eastern Catholics believe it takes place earlier, during the prayer called the Quam oblationem:

Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord.

These differences have never been significant enough to merit a definitive clarification.

 

[Verbum]

Hi David,

I am skeptical on what you say about the ministers of marriage. Such a fundamental doctrine would not seem to allow for “differences.”

Here is a quote from the Estern Code of Canon Law :

Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is
   competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly
   **and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone: (**1) in danger
   of death; (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is
   prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a
   month. 2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible
   he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without
   prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of
   the witnesses. 3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence
   only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the
   blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/__PN4.HTM

If the presence of an ordained minister was essential, this canon would not be possible.

VErbum

 

[Bobmedd]

Thank you David and Verbum for your kind response. Can you also tell me if the Latin doctrine of Purgatory, by any other name, has been explicitly defined and therefore binding on all Catholics ?
Regards,
Bobmedd

 

[DavidFilmer]

Can you also tell me if the Latin doctrine of Purgatory, by any other name, has been explicitly defined and therefore binding on all Catholics

This is one of the historic doctrines which have divided Eastern and Latin Catholics.

Latin Catholics maintain that purgatory (or whatever you wish to call it) is distinct from hell. Eastern Catholics have traditionally maintained that there is only one “fire” - namely hell (hades, etc), and this same “fire” serves to both punish condemned sinners and also to purify redeamable sinners who will escape these bonds and enter into heaven.

So Latins believe there are four states (earth, purgatory, heaven, and hell) and Easterns recognize only three (earth, heaven, and a dual-destiny hell). But these are, really, almost the same thing.

The Catholic Church has formally defined the existence of purgatory (Council of Trent, Session 25) but has not imposed the specific term “purgatory.” Eastern Catholics are free to use their own termonology and understanding of how this purification “works” (but they are not free to contravene the essential doctrine as taught by Trent (or any other Ecumenical Council) in any way).

 

[Bobmedd]

Thank you David, for your explanation of the dogma of Purgatory. The Eastern and Western understanding is most similar in that those whose sins are not yet forgiven may be consoled knowing that they may eventually be pardoned and possess everlasting life with Christ after a period of suffering the pains of Hades. Purgatory then is a state of punishment or a purgation of past unforgiven sins and offenses - the nomenclature or it’s location is of little consequence. As I understand it the Council of Trent defined this state and it remains binding on all Catholics. Please correct me if I am incorrect in this assessment.

This brings up the question of mortal and venial sin as the Latin Church defines it. Of course sin is sin. Obviously some offensives are more offensive than other offensives. How does the Eastern Church define this difference in terms of punishment? Is there no grave or mortal sin in the Eastern Churches? Who then is committed to Hades for all eternity and who then is forgiven and how?

Regards,

Bobmedd