East and West: Two standards of truth?

[corefaith]

Eastern Rite Catholics are exempt from believing a number of Roman Catholic teachings.

A few of the doctrines and dogmas they reject (or hold differing beliefs on):

Original sin
Dogma of the Immaculate Conception as proclaimed by Pius IX
Purgatory
The Filioque
Transubstantiation

Given that these churches are considered in full union with Rome, how is it that Latin Catholics are held to such teachings under pain of sin if Eastern Catholics are not held to the same standard of truth? How to respond to a Roman Catholic who says this gives them leeway in their adherence to Church teachings?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

corefaith, welcome to CAF and the Eastern Catholicism subforum.

Hopefully your curiosity regarding your Eastern & Oriental brothers and sisters will extend well beyond this initial post.

Though each of the examples mentioned in your OP are likely addressed in several past threads, I’d nonetheless offer some general comments as to its premise.

Eastern Rite Catholics are exempt from believing a number of Roman Catholic teachings.

We could not be in communion with each other without accepting and professing the same Deposit of Faith. To say that Eastern Catholics are “exempt” from a number of teachings of the Catholic Church is not accurate. Rather, we are both permitted and encouraged to understand these Truths from our own theological perspective. The Church itself embraces those distinctions and often highlights them in teaching on such matters. Saint John Paul II wrote of the “Light of the East” and encouraged all Catholics to experience our Faith from both perspectives - Eastern & Western.

In more recent years, the Church has in its official publications made effort to specifically comment on these matters as and when appropriate. For example, with respect to the Filioque (one of the issues you had cited), the Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly addresses the matter in CCC paragraphs 246 - 248.

A few of the doctrines and dogmas they reject (or hold differing beliefs on):

I think your parenthetical comes a little closer to characterizing the issue, but would suggest that it is the manner of understanding that would differ rather than the belief itself.

Given that these churches are considered in full union with Rome, how is it that Latin Catholics are held to such teachings under pain of sin if Eastern Catholics are not held to the same standard of truth?How to respond to a Roman Catholic who says this gives them leeway in their adherence to Church teachings?

Each of us as Catholics are bound to our own Particular Church as relates to matters of obedience. We cannot use differences, perceived or actual, as a convenient means for accepting or rejecting anything to which we may be bound, especially as regards matters of faith and morals.

In sum, I think you are starting from the premise that there are indeed differences with respect to matters of faith, doctrine and dogma. This is not really the case, as careful examination of proper Church teaching should demonstrate.

Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!

 

[corefaith]

Each of us as Catholics are bound to our own Particular Church as relates to matters of obedience. We cannot use differences, perceived or actual, as a convenient means for accepting or rejecting anything to which we may be bound, especially as regards matters of faith and morals.

In sum, I think you are starting from the premise that there are indeed differences with respect to matters of faith, doctrine and dogma. This is not really the case, as careful examination of proper Church teaching should demonstrate.

Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!

Thank you for a thoughtful response. However, the same essential question stands because our obedience is predicated upon the fact that we are assenting to revealed truth. If all the faithful are not bound to the same dogma (revealed truth) then we must determine how wide the margin of interpretation is.

We could go into great detail about each teaching, but the Immaculate Conception is a clear example of the issue because Eastern Catholics reject the notion of the ‘stain of original sin’ on which the dogma is founded. If one accepts a dogma but with qualifications is that assent? If so, then how far may one reconceptualize a dogma before giving assent?

It is an interesting and important question which Church documents never directly address.

 

[Nelka]

Eastern Rite Catholics are exempt from believing a number of Roman Catholic teachings.

Transubstantiation

Oh! What happens with the Eucharist in the Eastern Rite?

 

[malphono]

Thank you for a thoughtful response. However, the same essential question stands because our obedience is predicated upon the fact that we are assenting to revealed truth. If all the faithful are not bound to the same dogma (revealed truth) then we must determine how wide the margin of interpretation is.

We could go into great detail about each teaching, but the Immaculate Conception is a clear example of the issue because Eastern Catholics reject the notion of the ‘stain of original sin’ on which the dogma is founded. If one accepts a dogma but with qualifications is that assent? If so, then how far may one reconceptualize a dogma before giving assent?

It is an interesting and important question which Church documents never directly address.

I’ve not the patience nor, frankly, the interest, to go into this yet again, but I will make a comment nonetheless.

Whereas it may not be directly addressed in Church documents from Rome, but in re what are termed “qualifications” of acceptance: if there were any legitimate foundation for what you contend, it would follow that the EO would be considered heretics by Rome. Of course that is NOT the case, and never has been. Not even by Pius IX himself.

 

[JRS_88]

corefaith, welcome to CAF and the Eastern Catholicism subforum.

Hopefully your curiosity regarding your Eastern & Oriental brothers and sisters will extend well beyond this initial post.

Though each of the examples mentioned in your OP are likely addressed in several past threads, I’d nonetheless offer some general comments as to its premise.

We could not be in communion with each other without accepting and professing the same Deposit of Faith. To say that Eastern Catholics are “exempt” from a number of teachings of the Catholic Church is not accurate. Rather, we are both permitted and encouraged to understand these Truths from our own theological perspective. The Church itself embraces those distinctions and often highlights them in teaching on such matters. Saint John Paul II wrote of the “Light of the East” and encouraged all Catholics to experience our Faith from both perspectives - Eastern & Western.

In more recent years, the Church has in its official publications made effort to specifically comment on these matters as and when appropriate. For example, with respect to the Filioque (one of the issues you had cited), the Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly addresses the matter in CCC paragraphs 246 - 248.

I think your parenthetical comes a little closer to characterizing the issue, but would suggest that it is the manner of understanding that would differ rather than the belief itself.

Each of us as Catholics are bound to our own Particular Church as relates to matters of obedience. We cannot use differences, perceived or actual, as a convenient means for accepting or rejecting anything to which we may be bound, especially as regards matters of faith and morals.

In sum, I think you are starting from the premise that there are indeed differences with respect to matters of faith, doctrine and dogma. This is not really the case, as careful examination of proper Church teaching should demonstrate.

Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!

Well said.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If all the faithful are not bound to the same dogma (revealed truth) then we must determine how wide the margin of interpretation is.

We can take comfort in that the Catholic Church has already done that for us. It is not for us to interpret.

We could go into great detail about each teaching, but the Immaculate Conception is a clear example of the issue because Eastern Catholics reject the notion of the ‘stain of original sin’ on which the dogma is founded.

There are Eastern Catholic churches dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, including the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Cathedral in Philadelphia, PA. Would you agree that it would be odd for an Eastern Catholic bishop to consecrate his cathedral church in the name of a dogma that is rejected by his own sui juris Church? Please don’t take this as sarcasm. This is simply offered to demonstrate that there must be a congruence of belief within the Catholic Church.

 

[eamonnroma]

Eastern Rite Catholics are exempt from believing a number of Roman Catholic teachings.

A few of the doctrines and dogmas they reject (or hold differing beliefs on):

Original sin
Dogma of the Immaculate Conception as proclaimed by Pius IX
Purgatory
The Filioque
Transubstantiation

Given that these churches are considered in full union with Rome, how is it that Latin Catholics are held to such teachings under pain of sin if Eastern Catholics are not held to the same standard of truth? How to respond to a Roman Catholic who says this gives them leeway in their adherence to Church teachings?

Is this so? I had never heard this before.

 

[corefaith]

We can take comfort in that the Catholic Church has already done that for us. It is not for us to interpret.

There are Eastern Catholic churches dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, including the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Cathedral in Philadelphia, PA. Would you agree that it would be odd for an Eastern Catholic bishop to consecrate his cathedral church in the name of a dogma that is rejected by his own sui juris Church? Please don’t take this as sarcasm. This is simply offered to demonstrate that there must be a congruence of belief within the Catholic Church.

Ukranians are more accepting of such things as the Immaculate Conception, unlike some other Eastern churches. Byzantines, for example, are not required to subscribe to the Roman teaching on Purgatory, and they do not subscribe to the Roman teaching on original sin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception specifically states Mary was “preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin.” Byzantines do not believe in this “stain of original sin.”

 

[corefaith]

Oh! What happens with the Eucharist in the Eastern Rite?

The Eastern churches hold to the same Deposit of Faith. They understand Eucharist, they hold to the holiness and sinlessness of the Theotokos, and they hold to a belief in a state between this life and the life of heaven. The difference is they don’t make dogmatic statements about such things. That doesn’t mean they aren’t Catholic. It is a wonderful way to approach these deep truths. But it does open a larger question about the adherence to formulas and the letter of dogma.

 

[Vico]

Ukranians are more accepting of such things as the Immaculate Conception, unlike some other Eastern churches. Byzantines, for example, are not required to subscribe to the Roman teaching on Purgatory, and they do not subscribe to the Roman teaching on original sin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception specifically states Mary was “preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin.” Byzantines do not believe in this “stain of original sin.”

Why do you phrase it “are not required” in view of Canon Law CCEO:Canon 598 –

§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Surely the Byzantines accept all the dogmas of faith, including those involving the after death state of purification:

• The living Faithful can come to the assistance of the Souls in Purgatory by their intercessions (suffrages).
• The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory.
  
  (**CCC **1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification … **1031 **The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.)

 

[corefaith]

Why do you phrase it “are not required” in view of Canon Law CCEO:Canon 598 –

§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Surely the Byzantines accept all the dogmas of faith, including those involving the after death state of purification:

• The living Faithful can come to the assistance of the Souls in Purgatory by their intercessions (suffrages).
• The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory.
  
  (**CCC **1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification … **1031 **The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.)

There is a long and complicated history with agreements among the Eastern churches and Rome. I will refer you to the Internet because (as detailed in the posts above) it isn’t as simple as pulling out a couple Catechism quotes. It will require you to do a bit of research. The Byzantine website east2west is a good place to start.

 

[Vico]

There is a long and complicated history with agreements among the Eastern churches and Rome. I will refer you to the Internet because (as detailed in the posts above) it isn’t as simple as pulling out a couple Catechism quotes. It will require you to do a bit of research. The Byzantine website east2west is a good place to start.

I am familiar with it. I am Byzantine Catholic. No change in my opinion nor in the canons.

 

[corefaith]

I am familiar with it. I am Byzantine Catholic. No change in my opinion nor in the canons.

All the more reason to learn about your faith!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Ukranians are more accepting of such things as the Immaculate Conception, unlike some other Eastern churches. Byzantines, for example, are not required to subscribe to the Roman teaching on Purgatory, and they do not subscribe to the Roman teaching on original sin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception specifically states Mary was “preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin.” Byzantines do not believe in this “stain of original sin.”

Ukrainians are Byzantines

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I am familiar with it. I am Byzantine Catholic. No change in my opinion nor in the canons.

All the more reason to learn about your faith!

Vico is one of the more learned contributors to this subforum and CAF in general. Surely you are not suggested that he is poorly catechized in his own faith.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There is a long and complicated history with agreements among the Eastern churches and Rome. I will refer you to the Internet because (as detailed in the posts above) it isn’t as simple as pulling out a couple Catechism quotes. It will require you to do a bit of research. The Byzantine website east2west is a good place to start.

Its very difficult to gain a proper understanding of complicated matters from the internet.

That said, you have referenced From East to West, a website produced by a very learned and respected theologian and practicing Byzantine Catholic - Dr. Anthony Dragani.

As relates to the Immaculate Conception, which you have mentioned a few times thus far, Dr. Dragani offers the following on his website:

In 1854 Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Being a good Western theologian, he used a great deal of scholastic terminology in the definition. Here it is, with the specifically scholastic terms emphasized by me:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the MERITS of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from every STAIN of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.”

There are two terms used in the definition that are completely foreign to Eastern Christian theology: “merits” and “stain.” Both of these terms are of very late origin, and came to mean very specific things in the scholastic system. But to us Eastern Christians, who still use only the theological expressions of the Church Fathers, these terms are completely alien. So is this a problem, or isn’t it?

I don’t believe that this a problem at all. If something is written in a language that you can’t understand, you simply TRANSLATE it! With some very basic knowledge of scholastic theological terminology, what Pope Pius IX is saying becomes very obvious: From the very first moment of her existence, Mary was miraculously preserved from all sin. We Easterns would go even a step further: she wasn’t just preserved from sin, but was graced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the definition speaks of Mary being “free from every stain of original sin.” In the East we have always spoken of Mary’s perfect holiness. The language “free from every stain of original sin” is really a somewhat negative formulation in comparison. In fact, this definition speaks of Mary as being “absent of something (the stain of sin),” while we would prefer to speak of her as being “full of something (the Holy Spirit).” In this regard I think that the Eastern approach makes a marvelous contribution to the understanding of this dogma. So does Pope John Paul II:

“In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary’s holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition.” (Pope John Paul II, General Audience June 12, 1996)

So, the Holy Father agrees that the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception actually helps to elucidate the meaning behind the definition.

Please note in particular the observations of Saint Pope John Paul II, quoted at the end of this passage.

 

[corefaith]

What you have quoted only supports the points made in previous posts. Eastern churches do not accept the dogma as written. It must be “translated” into terms acceptable by Eastern Catholics because they do NOT accept the concepts of ‘merit’ and ‘stain’ of original sin.

I know learned Eastern Catholics. They completely agree with what I am saying. Also remember that Eastern Catholicism is varied so churches may be more or less accepting of Roman Catholic doctrine.

I am sorry if this topic has made you uncomfortable or defensive because that wasn’t the intention. This isn’t about East vs. West (hopefully), but about how we should understand dogma.

 

[Vico]

What you have quoted only supports the points made in previous posts. Eastern churches do not accept the dogma as written. It must be “translated” into terms acceptable by Eastern Catholics because they do NOT accept the concepts of ‘merit’ and ‘stain’ of original sin.

I know learned Eastern Catholics. They completely agree with what I am saying. Also remember that Eastern Catholicism is varied so churches may be more or less accepting of Roman Catholic doctrine.

I am sorry if this topic has made you uncomfortable or defensive because that wasn’t the intention. This isn’t about East vs. West (hopefully), but about how we should understand dogma.

It does not have to be translated because it is assent that must be given (it must be firmly held), yet it does not have to be comprehended. A teaching may not even be comprehensible to a person.

Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, Part_IIa/Q66 A5 - Reply to Objection 3Accordingly wisdom, to which knowledge about God pertains, is beyond the reach of man, especially in this life, so as to be his possession: for this “belongs to God alone” (Metaph. i, 2): and yet this little knowledge about God which we can have through wisdom is preferable to all other knowledge.

 

[coptsoldier]

There are no theological disagreements on fundamental dogmatic beliefs. What we do have a difference in, is that we express the Catholic Truth in a different way. One such example is what Latins refer to as the Immaculate conception. Us in the East believe that The Theotokos is all holy, and most pure. That is the immaculate conception. We do not, however, speculate exactly how this happened, however we ackowledge that st mary was never stained with sin.