East Rite Catholic Beliefs?

[ConstantineTG]

It is going around in circles because you refuse to believe in anything other than your own opinion. Every time we explain something, you go around and insist what you and only you believe in. Your stance is not the stance of the Church.

I think another glaring thing missing in your assertions is that the Magisterium does not supersede Sacred Tradition. What the Magisterium defines and teaches is meant to clarify, not replace what has always been there. The Magisterium cannot change the valid teachings the East holds on to.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It is going around in circles because you refuse to believe in anything other than your own opinion. Every time we explain something, you go around and insist what you and only you believe in. Your stance is not the stance of the Church.

I’ve provided some conciliar documents describing the structure of the Church heirarchy, and something written by a Melkite bishop demonstrating his acceptance of Papal and Conciliar authority. I’ve also provided, way towards the begining of this thread, the exact words of the dogmatic definition in* Ineffabilis Deus* binding all the faithful to the dogma. Why would the Pope have used that wording if he did not believe he had the authority to do it?

I don’t think that when I say Popes and Ecumenical Councils have the authority to bind all the faithful to a dogma I’m saying anything other than what the Church has always taught and faithful Catholics have always believed. I guess I could start looking up Catechism quotes and such if you would find them authoritative. Meanwhile though you have not provided any Magisterial backup for this idea that Eastern Catholics are not bound to anything after the first seven ecumenical councils.

I think another glaring thing missing in your assertions is that the Magisterium does not supersede Sacred Tradition. What the Magisterium defines and teaches is meant to clarify, not replace what has always been there. The Magisterium cannot change the valid teachings the East holds on to.

We are in agreement on this point, as I layed out in my last couple posts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve provided some conciliar documents describing the structure of the Church heirarchy, and something written by a Melkite bishop demonstrating his acceptance of Papal and Conciliar authority. I’ve also provided, way towards the begining of this thread, the exact words of the dogmatic definition in* Ineffabilis Deus* binding all the faithful to the dogma. Why would the Pope have used that wording if he did not believe he had the authority to do it?

I don’t think that when I say Popes and Ecumenical Councils have the authority to bind all the faithful to a dogma I’m saying anything other than what the Church has always taught and faithful Catholics have always believed. I guess I could start looking up Catechism quotes and such if you would find them authoritative. Meanwhile though you have not provided any Magisterial backup for this idea that Eastern Catholics are not bound to anything after the first seven ecumenical councils.

The East has their own Catechism. The Ukrainian Church has come out with its own official Catechism. The other Churches have their own local catechisms.

We are in agreement on this point, as I layed out in my last couple posts.

Then why don’t you get it?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The East has their own Catechism. The Ukrainian Church has come out with its own official Catechism. The other Churches have their own local catechisms.

Which is why I haven’t automatically gone to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to back up my points.

Then why don’t you get it?

Ha ha, I could ask you the same thing, since we’ve both stated our positions so many times by now.

Let’s keep in mind the distinction between a document’s accuracy and its authority (the authority is obviously in the teachers producing the document not the physical piece of paper itself, but let’s not bother overmuch with those quibbles of language).

Leaving aside the “how can we accept something we don’t believe in? But our belief is the same as what the dogma says” side of this debate, let’s assume we both agree that all the documents produced by the Extraordinary Magisterium are accurate. That still leaves the question of what kind of authority the document has.

You or I could write something accurately interpreting some aspect of Sacred Tradition, and a faithful Catholic might affirm that they believe what is written, but that does not mean the document itself is authoritative, much less bindingly authoritative. My local bishop or yours, or even your patriarch if you have one (I don’t know what sui iuris Church you belong to or if it has a patriarch) could write the same thing and give it a real teaching authority of a sort, but not to the extent that it could bind all Catholics to its proclamation. The Pope meanwhile, or an Ecumenical Council, could write the same thing and, if they wished, make the proclamation binding on the whole Church.

The substance of thes hypothetical documents may be the same in all three cases. They may in each case express an orthodox idea which Catholics have always believed and simply continue to believe after reading the document. But the level of authority of each document would be different. It’s the recognition of that authority that I am concerned with here, not the overall orthodoxy of traditional Eastern Christian beliefs.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aelred,

On the other hand, this dogma had not been bindingly proclaimed before Ineffabilis Deus; thus in earlier centuries you had Catholics who honestly strived to be and believed themselves to be faithful, including Doctors of the Church, who explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception, some with regret and others with vehemence.

I would remind you that belief in the IC came from the East. The Easterns did not need a dogma. Just because the Latin Church had problems with the matter and required the dogma does not have any bearing to many Easterns. That it was dogmatized does not make the teaching more authoritative than it already was to Easterns. While you make the dogmatization the starting point of belief, Easterns do not.

I’ll give you a comparison. The Church of Rome did not recite the Creed in its Liturgy until the 11th century. It’s reasoning was that since the heresies that the Creed was intended to address never infected the Roman Church, they did not need to recite it. It’s the same thing here. The Easterns did not need the dogma. It was only in the West that the doctrine went through the hoops.

Yet again, I’m not denying that the substance of this dogma has always been present in both the Eastern Church and the Western Church, but rather insisting on the universally binding nature of the proclamation of the doctrine by Pope Pius IX… The core issue here is not the Immaculate Conception itself, but Papal authority, and the authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium in general.

That’s a very Latin mindset that many Easterns (and even Orientals) do not share. The core issue to many (even most) non-Latins as far as any belief/teachng is concerned is faithfulness to Sacred Tradition – the core issue is not merely “this or that authority said so.” As stated before, even the Extraordinary Magisterium is subject to Sacred Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Dear brother Aelred,

I would remind you that belief in the IC came from the East. The Easterns did not need a dogma. Just because the Latin Church had problems with the matter and required the dogma does not have any bearing to many Easterns. That it was dogmatized does not make the teaching more authoritative than it already was to Easterns. While you make the dogmatization the starting point of belief, Easterns do not.

This is, at the very least, a great simplification of the history. Obviously that’s not a criticism since you are giving the history of a dogma in one paragraph and trying to make a particular point. To what degree and around what time it reached them from the East I don’t know, but belief in the Immaculate Conception goes back a long way in the British Isles and among many of the Franciscans, and was taught in much the same way as it is currently explained in the West by Bl. John Duns Scotus in the early 14th Century. The commemoration of the Immaculate Conception on the Roman liturgical calendar began in the 15th Century, about four hundred years before the dogma was finally definitively proclaimed. That definitive proclamation finally put to rest any potential for further controversy among faithful Catholics on the subject. If the outright rejection of the dogma happened primarily in the West, then sure that could be the historical context for why the ex cathedra statement was made. What I’m insisting on is the authority of such statements for all Catholics, not that the Pope had the East specifically in mind when he decided to definitively proclaim the doctrine.

That’s a very Latin mindset that many Easterns (and even Orientals) do not share. The core issue to many (even most) non-Latins as far as any belief/teachng is concerned is faithfulness to Sacred Tradition – the core issue is not merely “this or that authority said so.” As stated before, even the Extraordinary Magisterium is subject to Sacred Tradition.

If you (plural) want to place most of the emphasis on that reality, that’s fine. It could even be an example of how different parts of the Church can enrich each other by their own different emphases, reflecting the same truth afresh for the eyes those in other traditions, though this particular point is also very far from obscure in Western thought. Anyway, I’m not insisting on Easterns taking as authority-centered an attitude as some Western Catholics do, but merely submitting that this authority is there whether you choose to emphasize it or not, and so it should not be outrightly rejected.

 

[Cristiano]

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?

A lot of the dogmas stated in the Latin Church came to be because of western problems. The Eastern Churches did not have to deal those problems, imposing ownership of the issues and consequent acceptance of tee dogmatic formulation is simply a form of Latinization of the Eastern Churches and goes against the wishes of the latest popes. Just because the Eastern Churches have a different theology does not mean that they consider the dogmas affirmed by the Latin Church as wrong and thus heretics.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

It would seem to me that this is a classic case of talking past each other.

On one hand the Eastern (and Oriental) Catholics are stating that they believe the teaching, but do not necessarily point to the dogmatic statement on it. For them, it is the fact that the teaching (in this instance, the Immaculate Conception) has been passed down to them in Tradition that is the defining matter. Happily enough the Pope (whose particular Petrine ministry to the Church happens to also be a facet of Tradition) made an official statement on the issue to settle controversy. Again, they are not denying the core teaching on the issue Yay.

OTOH, the Latins are stating that the Pope declared ex cathedra that the Immaculate Conception is dogma that all the Church must believe. This settles the issue. By a happy coincidence, they can also point to the fact that they have been believing this teaching for centuries- as in, it is the Tradition that has been passed down to them. Again, they are not denying the core teaching on the issue. Yay.

So, it would seem that there is just miscommunication going on. The Pope has declared the issue settled, and the Papacy doesn’t seem to have a problem with the way the Eastern and Oriental Catholics deal with the dogma, so that settles that issue.

Of course, this is all from an outsider’s perspective. I’m a Lutheran, so what do I know?

 

[hazcompat]

Once upon a time there was a flock of sheep called the one. Some of the one stood facing a cross. Some of the one stood behind the cross. Every one knew the sheep stand on the right. So the shepherds of the facings taught the flock and their children: " to be on the right you must move to your left". The shepherds of the behind taught their flock: " to be on the right you must move to your right" How could the one have such opposing teachings?
Whats a facing to do if his time comes and he finds himself left behind?

I still want to know what level assent to an eastern bishop in the Magisterium is required by aelred

peace

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ha ha, I could ask you the same thing, since we’ve both stated our positions so many times by now.

The problem here is you are a Roman Catholic telling an Eastern Catholic how they should believe. I’m telling you what and how we believe. Why would I accept your position? It is you who need to learn and accept how Eastern Catholics believe.

 

[Diakonia]

The Pope has declared the issue settled, and the Papacy doesn’t seem to have a problem with the way the Eastern and Oriental Catholics deal with the dogma, so that settles that issue.

Of course, this is all from an outsider’s perspective. I’m a Lutheran, so what do I know?

I’ve known some very astute Lutherans, who seem to have a remarkable ability to understand the East. You, Sir, appear to be one of them

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I’ve known some very astute Lutherans, who seem to have a remarkable ability to understand the East. You, Sir, appear to be one of them

Heh. Why thank you! I am honored to receive such a compliment

 

[Hesychios]

The central point of disagreement here, as I keep pointing out, is not the accuracy of your theology but the universal authority of the Magisterium.

I think the Holy Spirit is at work in your church to make some much needed corrections, that’s a good thing (although it will no doubt take a long time to complete). I see the spirt of Holy Orthodoxy rising again in your church, first among the eastern Catholics, and then eventually among the Latin Catholics too!

 

[Fox]

Seems to me the Catholic Church is the religion of the law while the Orthodox is the religion of love.

 

[ciero]

The question, as you phrase it, presupposes that you are not bound by Magisterial authority to accept bindingly defined dogmas, that you may (or must) reject any element of such a dogma that does not fit your own theological tradition. This is the real problem.

If I may be so bold to ask…why do you have such a problem with what Constantine has to say…when Rome has no problem with it?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

If I may be so bold to ask…why do you have such a problem with what Constantine has to say…when Rome has no problem with it?

No one has so far given any Magisterial backup to the assertion that Eastern Catholics are not bound by Extraordinary Magisterial statements that themselves use the language of binding the whole Church.

 

[Cristiano]

No one has so far given any Magisterial backup to the assertion that Eastern Catholics are not bound by Extraordinary Magisterial statements that themselves use the language of binding the whole Church.

As a Latin Catholic you have a moral obligation to inform yourself abut the detailed perspective of the Eastern Churches, once you have done that as a Latin Catholic you should use the Thomistic approach and debate the argument using the point of view of the Eastern Churches. You are trying to make a western problem into an eastern problem. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception has been reaffirmed from Sacred Tradition to stop the heretical that really started to bloom in the 1470’s in Europe. The whole thing of the obedience to the teachings of the magisterium is another western problem, the Eastern Catholics are intrinsically obedient to the magisterium because they follow Sacred Traditions while westerners refused and still refuse to do so. Asking of an extrinsic obedience instead of intrinsic one is simply a forceful Latinization of the Eastern Churches and it is not a pastoral solution because it disregards everything else. The Catholic Church only requires obedience to Sacred Tradition and it does not show a preference between extrinsic or intrinsic, forcing someone in that conundrum is misunderstanding the spirit of the law of obedience and thus become blind legalism. One of the problems that I see with a lot of Latin Catholics, including myself, is that often it is very difficult for us to understand how the Eastern Theology transcends what we simply see (or we put in a box) as clear legal situations, and that probably has a lot to do with the poor western political culture of arguing with the Church.

 

[ciero]

Well put!!! I just hate it when Latin Catholics come here on the Eastern forum and tell us how to be Catholics!! Makes ya wan a run off and join the Orthodox! . Got to love it!

As a Latin Catholic you have a moral obligation to inform yourself abut the detailed perspective of the Eastern Churches, once you have done that as a Latin Catholic you should use the Thomistic approach and debate the argument using the point of view of the Eastern Churches. You are trying to make a western problem into an eastern problem. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception has been reaffirmed from Sacred Tradition to stop the heretical that really started to bloom in the 1470’s in Europe. The whole thing of the obedience to the teachings of the magisterium is another western problem, the Eastern Catholics are intrinsically obedient to the magisterium because they follow Sacred Traditions while westerners refused and still refuse to do so. Asking of an extrinsic obedience instead of intrinsic one is simply a forceful Latinization of the Eastern Churches and it is not a pastoral solution because it disregards everything else. The Catholic Church only requires obedience to Sacred Tradition and it does not show a preference between extrinsic or intrinsic, forcing someone in that conundrum is misunderstanding the spirit of the law of obedience and thus become blind legalism. One of the problems that I see with a lot of Latin Catholics, including myself, is that often it is very difficult for us to understand how the Eastern Theology transcends what we simply see (or we put in a box) as clear legal situations, and that probably has a lot to do with the poor western political culture of arguing with the Church.

 

[Cristiano]

Well put!!! I just hate it when Latin Catholics come here on the Eastern forum and tell us how to be Catholics!! Makes ya wan a run off and join the Orthodox! . Got to love it!

I am just a Latin wolf in sheep’s clothing, beware of me.

 

[ciero]

I am just a Latin wolf in sheep’s clothing, beware of me.

LOL!!!