F
Fox
Guest
Do Eastern Rite Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception? What is the difference of Eastern rite and Eastern Orthodox besides the Pope?
- Status
J
Jen929
Guest
Yes, we do!
The only difference is Papal primacy and infallibility. While I haven’t been to an Orthodox divine liturgy, from what my husband tells me they are almost identical to an Eastern tradition divine liturgy.Btw, it’s more accurate to use the term “tradition” instead of “rite.” Rite points to JUST the way a liturgical service is carried out (think: rite of Christian burial, etc.), whereas tradition encompasses language, culture, ways of celebrating sacraments, etc.
Wikipedia does give a decent overview…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
If by Immaculate Conception you mean that we believe that the Theotokos was “exempted” from Original Sin, then we do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.
If you mean that we believe that the Theotokos was pure and immaculate from conception and throughout her earthly life until her Dormition and unto her Assumption and for all eternity, that she was filled with God’s grace from the first moment of her being, then yes, we believe in the Immaculate Conception.
Other differences? Liturgy, emphasis of faith, praxis, etc.
W
Wesley7
Guest
If Jesus is God the Son, then Mary must truly be a virgin.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as opposed to the perpetual virginity of Mary, is as follows:
“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.”
ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm
If Eastern Catholics would rather reword this in some way that does not change the teaching itself, for the sake of catechesis among themselves or whatnot, they may do so, but they are bound to accept the dogma itself.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
We are not rewording anything. We’re following the faith that was handed down to us by our Church Fathers. By estimates, what Eastern Catholics and Orthodox believes precedes the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception by about 1500 years.
Ultimately, what we believe is not something thats different from what the Roman Catholic Church believes. We have different understanding on how the Fall of Man affects us, and thus believing in the Immaculate Conception in the context of exemption from original sin does not fit our theology. Because our definition of the first sin and the fall is different, then Mary doesn’t have to be exempted from anything from our view point. I think that is the only difference from what East and West believes. Everything else is pretty much the same.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
What I meant by “rewording” is that in preaching and teaching Eastern Christians may choose not to use terms like “original sin” that appear in the dogmatic definition I quoted but that aren’t traditional in your communities and thus may not be well understood, may provoke unnecessary and unhealthy hostilities, etc. You may find it most prudent and respectful to your own traditions to use the traditional terminology of Eastern Christianity (which I will very easily believe is closer to the theological language of the early Fathers than is the language of the modern West) to explain doctrines and dogmas which have been formally taught in Western language, as far as this is possible at least. What no Catholic is free to do is to reject the Church teaching in question, in the name of a theological tradition or anything else.
Some Western Catholics seem to get the impression that just because Eastern Catholics have their own way of looking at and explaining the same doctrines and a great deal of administrative autonomy that somehow they are excepted from the need to accept Extraordinary Magisterial teaching. It is primarily that idea that I want to point out is incorrect.
Some Western Catholics seem to get the impression that just because Eastern Catholics have their own way of looking at and explaining the same doctrines and a great deal of administrative autonomy that somehow they are excepted from the need to accept Extraordinary Magisterial teaching. It is primarily that idea that I want to point out is incorrect.
V
Vico
Guest
Surely, but using a different theology. It can be understood with a parallel expression.
Ineffiable Deus, expressing the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, used the phrase “originalis culpa labe”, which is a portion of the results of the sin of Adam and Eve that we are born with, without any personal fault, it is imputed (consequental). Infants are baptized, although sinless, for they are lacking something brought by death, the wages of sin, true in both Latin or Eastern Catholic or Orthodox theology; they need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as St. John Chrysostom explains:
“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
– St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
What I meant by “not rewording” is that what we were taught precedes the wordings used in the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception. We do not base our belief and teaching on how the dogma is defined, but rather how it was taught by the Church Fathers.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
But surely you recognize that the Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of the Apostolic Faith, for the entire Universal Church? It’s great if you read the Church Fathers and privately and/or professionally interpret their teachings, and it’s great if your local bishops base their ordinary magisterial teaching largely on the Church Fathers. We do the same in the West, through the lens of centuries of (mostly) independent theological and linguistic development. None of this can replace the formal teachings of the Church though, in such a way that binding Magisterial teachings could simply be laid aside in favor of a particular theological tradition. The Magisterium is the living, authoritative interpreter of Apostolic Tradition. Once it has definitively proclaimed that something has been revealed by God and is to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful, we can know with certainty that the dogma truly has been revealed by God and truly must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. One can always phrase the teaching a bit differently in preaching or catechesis to meet unique pastoral needs, theologically examine it through an explicitly Patristic lens, etc., but the dogma itself must be upheld.
I keep trying to interpret your statements in the best possible light, but I now find myself compelled to ask for this clarification: do you mean to suggest that Eastern Catholics are not bound to give the assent of faith to the infallibly defined dogmas of the Catholic Faith?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Popes of recent times have continually called for Eastern Catholics to return to our traditions. Part and parcel to that is having the faith exactly how it was handed down to our Churches by the Church Fathers.
There really isn’t much difference between what the dogma states and what we believe. The difference lies really in how the theology was defined early on.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I doubt very much that by encouraging a rediscovery their own traditions and spirituality the Popes meant to tell Eastern Catholics to lay aside Catholic dogma.
D
Diakonia
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
That’s an awfully condescending way of putting things (though it may not be what you intended). We don’t need anyone’s permission to teach and believe what we have always taught and believed since the earliest days of the Church. It is our right, and it is not an “acquired right” (as far as canonical jargon is concerned) but our natural right.
I don’t think that’s the case. I believe the reason some Latins ask if non-Latins accept this or that dogma of the Catholic Faith is not because we express ourselves differently, nor because we have administrative autonomy. I believe the primary reasons that Latins do so are (1) because they themselves do not understand what the dogma actually teaches, and/or (2) there is a failure to distinguish between the theological manner in which the dogma is expressed from the dogmatic Faith that is actually being taught. This latter point often comes from a misunderstanding that Latin theology and its attendant theological expressions are the only possible manner in whch a dogma can be expressed.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Are you even reading what I am saying? We have this belief from the beginning. I said there are no differences in the belief save for how we understand “original sin”. We’re not putting aside anything. Besides, if the Pope is fine with what we’re doing, why are you making such a fuss of it?
F
fred_conty
Guest
Hi Constantine,
I believe you said:
If you mean that we believe that the Theotokos was pure and immaculate from conception and throughout her earthly life until her Dormition and unto her Assumption and for all eternity, that she was filled with God’s grace from the first moment of her being, then yes, we believe in the Immaculate Conception.
It seems to me that “exempted” is exactly what was implied by saying this.Everyone else who ever lived, came into this world without sanctifying grace, the life of God, God’s grace, which Adam and Eve had at first.
In the Latin west when we say God’s grace, this would automatically preclude sin, original sin, and therefore mean exempt. Which means she was filled with God’s grace from the first moment.
The west sees Oriiginal sin as something passed down thru parentage, or inheirited.
Actually what we inheirited was really nothing because sin is an absence of good.
In reality it is something that we did not inheirit, God’s grace, divine life. It is a
missing or a void. Mary did not have a missing or a void, but had God’s grace.
So thologically speaking, what you are saying is true. However since the Latin church
has couched it for so long in Original Sin, and is has cascaded this in its other faith
explainations, it would be rather difficult if not impossible to now start phrasing it
differently.
I do see it in the light you see it, but for the sake of all, if I were an Eastern
catholic, it wouldn’t bother me to say “exempted” in understanding the way it was
explained in the west. To me they are both the same. But if I had an opportunity
to chose, I like the Eastern explaination.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
In response to me asking for a definitive clarification as to whether you believe Eastern Catholics must give the assent of faith to the infallibly defined dogmas of the Catholic Faith, you responded:
“There really isn’t much difference between what the dogma states and what we believe. The difference lies really in how the theology was defined early on.”
Given the context and your making a distinction between “what the dogma states” and “what we believe” and procaiming that there “really isn’t much difference” (implying that there is a little difference) you seem to be saying, in a rather political, roundabout way, that Eastern Catholics are not bound by Catholic dogma that has been bindingly defined by the Magisterium, they just happen to agree with them for the most part. If this is not what you mean to get across, by all mean clarify yourself.
I realize that on the issue of the Immaculate Conception, Eastern Christians have always believed Mary to have been sinless throughout her life, or at least this is what I’ve been told and I have no reason to doubt it. I’m not sure whether the understanding you expressed is compatible with the idea of Mary being preserved from Original Sin in virtue of the merits of Christ (according to whatever other terms you prefer to use for these things), but perhaps it is.
In any case, I and I think others have only been using the Immaculate Conception as an example. The underlying point is whether you consider yourself subject to the teaching authority of the Magisterium, particularly the Extraordinary Magisterium as exercised by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils of the last thousand years. Not bound to use all the language in which their statements are expressed, but bound to accept the truth of the statements as they are meant (as opposed to potential misunderstandings of what was meant engendered by the difference in theological language). If, for example, the Magisterium issued a definitive, binding statement that, once all semantic issues were translated, still irreconcilably contradicted a tenet of traditional Eastern theology, would you see yourselves as bound to nonetheless accept the infallibly defined statement?
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Marduk,
Sorry, I don’t mean to come off as condescending. My communication skills are not what I would like them to be, and especially on the internet I can have a tendency to reduce how I express myself to a sort of emotionless logic, if you get what I mean. I didn’t mean to suggest that using different theological language and such was a late concession by the Holy See to a particular minority. Rather it’s a continued (and perhaps lately strengthened) recognition of the value of Eastern Christianity in general, and the indirect value of some theological diversity, so long as all sides maintain valid sacraments, authentically seek the truth, adhere to what the Church does authoritatively teach, etc. Personally I think some charitable but honest sparring between theological schools can be a very healthy thing for the development of doctrine, but I recognize that when it comes to East-West differences the potential for healthy debate is more than half cut off at the root by ecumenical concerns and the legitimate concern of Eastern Catholics that they not be pigheadedly assimilated by the much larger Latin Church.
Regarding why some Latin Rite Catholics bring up East-West differences, I think it obviously varies from person to person, but in some cases I’ve seen in real life friends and on Facebook, some Latin Rite Catholics who disagree with both Western disciplines and overall Catholic doctrine have used (abused) the existence of Eastern Catholics as something to minimize Church authority and thus seem to make room for their dissenting opinions. It’s largely in light of that abuse that I’m defending the idea that all Catholics are bound by definitive Magisterial teaching.
Sorry, I don’t mean to come off as condescending. My communication skills are not what I would like them to be, and especially on the internet I can have a tendency to reduce how I express myself to a sort of emotionless logic, if you get what I mean. I didn’t mean to suggest that using different theological language and such was a late concession by the Holy See to a particular minority. Rather it’s a continued (and perhaps lately strengthened) recognition of the value of Eastern Christianity in general, and the indirect value of some theological diversity, so long as all sides maintain valid sacraments, authentically seek the truth, adhere to what the Church does authoritatively teach, etc. Personally I think some charitable but honest sparring between theological schools can be a very healthy thing for the development of doctrine, but I recognize that when it comes to East-West differences the potential for healthy debate is more than half cut off at the root by ecumenical concerns and the legitimate concern of Eastern Catholics that they not be pigheadedly assimilated by the much larger Latin Church.
Regarding why some Latin Rite Catholics bring up East-West differences, I think it obviously varies from person to person, but in some cases I’ve seen in real life friends and on Facebook, some Latin Rite Catholics who disagree with both Western disciplines and overall Catholic doctrine have used (abused) the existence of Eastern Catholics as something to minimize Church authority and thus seem to make room for their dissenting opinions. It’s largely in light of that abuse that I’m defending the idea that all Catholics are bound by definitive Magisterial teaching.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
fred, the difference is in Latin theology, the belief is one is born with something, that is original sin. That something is washed away from baptism.
Eastern theology says that we are born without something, that is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And in baptism we are “born again” by making possible that the Holy Spirit dwell within us, by making us capable of receiving God’s graces.
I guess a better way to state what happened is that the Theotokos was “baptized from conception”, if that makes any sense. Because regardless of how East and West perceives the effect of the Fall on our nature, Mary had all the effects of baptism from the moment of her existence regardless of which theology you use.
- Status