East Rite Catholic Beliefs?

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG,

We are in agreement that the same truth can be “packaged” in different words, that some truths can be more effectively explained in one tradition compared to another, and that a diversity in how these things are explained can help us understand our faith better- by listening to the same idea described in a different way and thus getting a fresh perspective on the same truth, by encountering a different metaphor for a mysterious reality (i.e. the final purification either as a refining fire or as a journey), etc.

Please understand that I’m not arguing against Eastern theology here or against theological diversity in general. I really wish to lay aside the issue of the Immaculate Conception, at least for now, because it’s become a distraction from the main point I keep trying to get at: fidelity to the Magisterium.

Mardukm thinks I’m misunderstanding what you mean, that you do in fact accept the continued authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium over the entire Church, West and East. If it’s true that this is a big misunderstanding, I would personally be thrilled to find out, since it would help demonstrate the point I originally tried to make, which is that you Eastern Catholics are indeed faithful to the Magisterium. If it is not a misunderstanding, then my point stands that this is far from the universal view of Eastern Catholics, so much so that one of your fellow Eastern Catholics evidently finds it hard to believe you really take the position you seem to have taken.

I think what you’re having problems here with is that you think a “different packaging” simply means different wording of the same thing.

And who do you think the magisterium is? The Magisterium is a teaching authority, not a person, not an office. It is not the Pope nor the Roman Curia. The Magisterium is a bishop speaking authoritatively on teachings. The Pope of course exercises this authority regularly, either directly or through the Roman Curia. But the Patriarchs, Major Archbishops and the synods of each of the Eastern Churches do have magisterial authority as well, especially about our own traditions and theology. So we submit to that magisterial authority and the Pope himself recognizes the fact that the Eastern praxis is different.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think what you’re having problems here with is that you think a “different packaging” simply means different wording of the same thing.

And who do you think the magisterium is? The Magisterium is a teaching authority, not a person, not an office. It is not the Pope nor the Roman Curia. The Magisterium is a bishop speaking authoritatively on teachings. The Pope of course exercises this authority regularly, either directly or through the Roman Curia. But the Patriarchs, Major Archbishops and the synods of each of the Eastern Churches do have magisterial authority as well, especially about our own traditions and theology. So we submit to that magisterial authority and the Pope himself recognizes the fact that the Eastern praxis is different.

So to you “different packaging” means substantially different teaching?

Anyway, I have to run to work so I can’t give the thorough response I’d like. But with regard to the Magisterium, what you are talking about here is the Ordinary Magisterium, the day to day teaching of local bishops and Patriarchs and such. That’s obviously something very important, the normative situation for the Magisterium’s operations. What I’m talking about is when the Magisterium as a whole speaks, which is the only thing that can really bind someone to give the assent of faith to a particular teaching and thus that is really infallible. Since I don’t have time to get into it again I’d encourage you to reread my earlier post on the subject.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So to you “different packaging” means substantially different teaching?

It is not “to me”. I’ve asked my priest about a different matter with two different understanding between East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic). And his response was that we follow and believe like the Orthodox does. What I am saying here is not something I’m making up from my own viewpoint.

You have to understand that foundation of each faith is from Christ through the Apostles. But thats where the similarity stopped. When the faith was disseminated throughout the known world back then, differences already start to appear with inculturation. Do that many times over in a period of 2000 years and today the faith really is diverse.

The problem with the IC is that we in the East do not believe in Original Sin the way it is defined in the West. Like I said, we believe everything else about it. But the way the dogma has been defined is with the use of Western Theology. So to accept the IC for its entirety means we have to accept Western Theology into our own theology, which is basically shaking the tree from its roots.

Anyway, I have to run to work so I can’t give the thorough response I’d like. But with regard to the Magisterium, what you are talking about here is the Ordinary Magisterium, the day to day teaching of local bishops and Patriarchs and such. That’s obviously something very important, the normative situation for the Magisterium’s operations. What I’m talking about is when the Magisterium as a whole speaks, which is the only thing that can really bind someone to give the assent of faith to a particular teaching and thus that is really infallible. Since I don’t have time to get into it again I’d encourage you to reread my earlier post on the subject.

I think the problem here is you’re looking at the East with a Western mindset. Its like going to China and expecting everything to be like America, except they speak Chinese. Thats not the case here.

 

[Fox]

The orthodox Christians have put out the idea that when the church was made, there were five patriarchs in charge of the Church: Rome, Alexandra, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. They were equal and worked together as a team for the good of the Church with Christ as the head. All changes were made in counsel with each other. The orthodox contend that the Bishop of rome (pope) started to add things to the faith without the consent of the other four. The other four opposed the changes that the Pope made in the faith and this brought about the schism.

How do I counter the claims made by the Orthodox that it was the Western Church that broke away from the Eastern Church in 1054? what can I say logically/faithfully to them. They make a real good argument with this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The orthodox Christians have put out the idea that when the church was made, there were five patriarchs in charge of the Church: Rome, Alexandra, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. They were equal and worked together as a team for the good of the Church with Christ as the head. All changes were made in counsel with each other. The orthodox contend that the Bishop of rome (pope) started to add things to the faith without the consent of the other four. The other four opposed the changes that the Pope made in the faith and this brought about the schism.

How do I counter the claims made by the Orthodox that it was the Western Church that broke away from the Eastern Church in 1054? what can I say logically/faithfully to them. They make a real good argument with this.

The schism was from each other. The West broke away from the East as much as the East broke away from the West.

 

[Seamus_L]

“Converts” are more fervent about the faith than cradles. I’d say that’s a pretty outrageous statement, ConstantineTG, particularly in light of your recent comment (regardless of your humorous intent) in which you implied that if the RC bishop did not grant you a canonical transfer, that you’d go Orthodox.

 

[Diak]

“Converts” are more fervent about the faith than cradles. I’d say that’s a pretty outrageous statement, ConstantineTG, particularly in light of your recent comment (regardless of your humorous intent) in which you implied that if the RC bishop did not grant you a canonical transfer, that you’d go Orthodox.

And that’s coming from someone who in the past has voiced support on this forum for the SSPX and disdain for the last Council and much of the current Catholic hierarchy.

The schism was from each other. The West broke away from the East as much as the East broke away from the West.

is exactly right.

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Converts” are more fervent about the faith than cradles. I’d say that’s a pretty outrageous statement, ConstantineTG, particularly in light of your recent comment (regardless of your humorous intent) in which you implied that if the RC bishop did not grant you a canonical transfer, that you’d go Orthodox.

But its true. People who make a transfer do so because of interest in the faith. People don’t make a leap just because of a spur of the moment decision. When one consciously makes a big change in their lives, there is more effort to it. Not only in faith. Even immigrants are more successful than locals, because immigrants do whatever it takes to succeed in their new country.

 

[Seamus_L]

Some cradles lack enthusiasm, while converts have it in abundance, but converts also burnout on occasion and are often transient in their beliefs, jumping from one church body to an another.
Some immigrants are very hard working, while others are happy to become dependents of the State.

 

[Diak]

The schism was from each other. The West broke away from the East as much as the East broke away from the West.

That is exactly right. “These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople”. (From the joint declaration of Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, December, 1965).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Some cradles lack enthusiasm, while converts have it in abundance, but converts also burnout on occasion and are often transient in their beliefs, jumping from one church body to an another.

              Some immigrants are very hard working, while others are happy to become dependents of the State.

I’m not saying we’re perfect. But those who make a huge paradigm shift are more likely to give more effort to be successful, or take more interest in their new undertaking. For example, immigrants won’t have qualms of receiving smaller wages or even working two jobs. They know how to make sacrifices to become successful despite lower wages. I’ve seen those who are born and raised here in North America live beyond their means and run themselves into the ground.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It is not “to me”. I’ve asked my priest about a different matter with two different understanding between East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic). And his response was that we follow and believe like the Orthodox does.

Did this priest really mean that Eastern Catholics ought to “follow and believe” everything like the Orthodox do, including their ecclesiology? And if he did mean this, was that authentic, faithful Catholic teaching?

I think the problem here is you’re looking at the East with a Western mindset. Its like going to China and expecting everything to be like America, except they speak Chinese. Thats not the case here…

I think we’ve pretty well beaten this horse to death. We both accept that there can be legitimate theological diversity, but I hold that this theological diversity must always be kept within the bounds of universal Church teaching. You reject this because you reject the binding authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium over the whole Church. Not all Eastern Catholics do so. I’m not sure anything positive will be gained by continuing this particular line of exchange.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The schism was from each other. The West broke away from the East as much as the East broke away from the West.

There may be something to this statement in a subjective, human sense. But it obscures the fact that the Church is a visible, externally identifiable entity in the world, with the bishop of Rome being the living point of unity making this possible. When the Church broke in half, whatever the tragic reasons for that break, the half which retained communion with that point of unity is the one that remained the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the other becoming a schismatic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Did this priest really mean that Eastern Catholics ought to “follow and believe” everything like the Orthodox do, including their ecclesiology? And if he did mean this, was that authentic, faithful Catholic teaching?

Everything except the belief on the Roman Pontiff.

What about Orthodox teaching that is not faithful to Catholic teaching?

I think we’ve pretty well beaten this horse to death. We both accept that there can be legitimate theological diversity, but I hold that this theological diversity must always be kept within the bounds of universal Church teaching. You reject this because you reject the binding authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium over the whole Church. Not all Eastern Catholics do so. I’m not sure anything positive will be gained by continuing this particular line of exchange.

Honestly, its not what Eastern Catholics think. I mean, many Roman Catholics think that contraception is okay, so is divorce, remarriage and some even support gay marriage and women ordination. Does majority opinion dictate Church teaching? The fact is, authentic Eastern Spirituality holds a different theology than the West. Read Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter, Orientale Lumen.

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

There may be something to this statement in a subjective, human sense. But it obscures the fact that the Church is a visible, externally identifiable entity in the world, with the bishop of Rome being the living point of unity making this possible. When the Church broke in half, whatever the tragic reasons for that break, the half which retained communion with that point of unity is the one that remained the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the other becoming a schismatic Church.

That is not what the Church says:

CCC838 …With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Orientale Lumen: Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church…

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

CCC838 …With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Orientale Lumen: Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church…

None of these quotes exempt Eastern Catholics from Extraordinary Magisterial teaching or contradict the statement that the Orthodox Church is currently in schism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

None of these quotes exempt Eastern Catholics from Extraordinary Magisterial teaching or contradict the statement that the Orthodox Church is currently in schism.

It clearly states that we have our own traditions which we adhere to. Like I said, there is nothing that we believe in that contradict whatever Roman Catholic Dogmatic Definition has been written down. So why even contend anything? Whats your point?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It clearly states that we have our own traditions which we adhere to. Like I said, there is nothing that we believe in that contradict whatever Roman Catholic Dogmatic Definition has been written down. So why even contend anything? Whats your point?

How many times must I make the same point about fidelity to Church authority? Really, I don’t see much value in rehashing this arguement again and again.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How many times must I make the same point about fidelity to Church authority? Really, I don’t see much value in rehashing this arguement again and again.

The problem is you are insisting your own definition of your beliefs here. The Roman Church accepts that we follow our own traditions including the teachings handed down to us. The Roman Church accepts our beliefs as nothing in contradiction to her own beliefs. The Roman Church has no problem with our theology. Its only you really who keep insisting that there is a problem. How about your fidelity to the Roman Church’s teaching that we keep our own teaching and accept that what we believe is not opposing to what Roman Catholics believe? Here you are speaking about fidelity to Church authority, when the Church authority says our beliefs are fine.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The problem is you are insisting your own definition of your beliefs here. The Roman Church accepts that we follow our own traditions including the teachings handed down to us. The Roman Church accepts our beliefs as nothing in contradiction to her own beliefs. The Roman Church has no problem with our theology. Its only you really who keep insisting that there is a problem. How about your fidelity to the Roman Church’s teaching that we keep our own teaching and accept that what we believe is not opposing to what Roman Catholics believe? Here you are speaking about fidelity to Church authority, when the Church authority says our beliefs are fine.

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

But how can we accept something that is incompatible with our theology? Like my example, how can we accept the Western definition of the Immaculate Conception when we do not believe in Original Sin the way Western Theology defines it?