East Rite Catholic Beliefs?

[Aelred_Minor]

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.

Whether ex cathedra Papal statements and analogous statements of Ecumenical Councils are binding on all Catholics or only some is an objective question. It’s either one or the other. They can’t be binding on all Catholics if you are a Western Catholic but binding on only Western Catholics if you are an Eastern Catholic. As I’ve made clear I have no problem with theological diversity, differences of emphasis, etc., but surely this openness should not be taken to the point that the Catholic faith becomes something totally subjective.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Whether ex cathedra Papal statements and analogous statements of Ecumenical Councils are binding on all Catholics or only some is an objective question. It’s either one or the other. They can’t be binding on all Catholics if you are a Western Catholic but binding on only Western Catholics if you are an Eastern Catholic. As I’ve made clear I have no problem with theological diversity, differences of emphasis, etc., but surely this openness should not be taken to the point that the Catholic faith becomes something totally subjective.

How is it subjective? The development of a dogma is based upon the development of theology. Since its based on one theology, it cannot be applied to another tradition with a different theology. That is the problem here. The recent dogmatic definitions have been defined using a Latin understanding of the faith. That is why the East cannot accept them as they are. But they are not subjective because ultimately the faith is the same while the details are different. There is no belief in the Latin Rite that does not have an equivalent belief in any of the Eastern Rites.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

How is it subjective? The development of a dogma is based upon the development of theology. Since its based on one theology, it cannot be applied to another tradition with a different theology. That is the problem here. The recent dogmatic definitions have been defined using a Latin understanding of the faith. That is why the East cannot accept them as they are. But they are not subjective because ultimately the faith is the same while the details are different. There is no belief in the Latin Rite that does not have an equivalent belief in any of the Eastern Rites.

I think I’ve stated more than enough times that what I’m concerned about is not differences in theology which may be reflected in the wording of a statement but not made mandatory thereby, nor with the ultimate equivalency of Western vs. Eastern beliefs, nor again with whether the authority of Extraordinary Magisterial documents is given great emphasis in a particular tradition, but rather with the objective authority of the documents themselves.

My concern for this subject is, I admit, unabashedly Occidental in scope. My central concern (not necessarily my only concern, but my central one) is not the orthodoxy of Eastern Catholics at all. It’s that by exempting a class of Catholics, any class of Catholics, from documents that themselves speak in terms of binding “all the faithful”, it weakens those documents and the argument for their infallibility to the point that it helps empower Western dissenters to dismiss Church authority entirely and thus justify rejecting aspects of Sacred Tradition that orthodox Catholics, both Eastern and Western, accept as revealed truth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think I’ve stated more than enough times that what I’m concerned about is not differences in theology which may be reflected in the wording of a statement but not made mandatory thereby, nor with the ultimate equivalency of Western vs. Eastern beliefs, nor again with whether the authority of Extraordinary Magisterial documents is given great emphasis in a particular tradition, but rather with the objective authority of the documents themselves.

My concern for this subject is, I admit, unabashedly Occidental in scope. My central concern (not necessarily my only concern, but my central one) is not the orthodoxy of Eastern Catholics at all. It’s that by exempting a class of Catholics, any class of Catholics, from documents that themselves speak in terms of binding “all the faithful”, it weakens those documents and the argument for their infallibility to the point that it helps empower Western dissenters to dismiss Church authority entirely and thus justify rejecting aspects of Sacred Tradition that orthodox Catholics, both Eastern and Western, accept as revealed truth.

How does it weaken the revealed truth when we already essentially believe in the same thing? Besides, as I said before, the dogmatic definitions of recent times didn’t reveal any new truths. So why will a new definition of a dogma of an age old belief be any different to what the East already holds?

 

[uydguy]

Really make people happy! I like! 351100.tk/38

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Really make people happy! I like! [snip]

My guess is this is porn or something. Not going to follow the link.

If an administrator removes the above post feel free to take this one out as well.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

How does it weaken the revealed truth when we already essentially believe in the same thing? Besides, as I said before, the dogmatic definitions of recent times didn’t reveal any new truths. So why will a new definition of a dogma of an age old belief be any different to what the East already holds?

You’re right, why would it be? I would assume it would not be. That’s why my concern isn’t with the orthodoxy of Eastern beliefs on any paticular subject but with upholding the authority of Extraordinary Magisterial documents themselves.

It seems implausible to me by now that we truly misunderstand one another’s points of view; we are just refusing to make the other’s point of view our own because to do so would be to lay aside the actual (and rather unrelated) points each of us are trying to make in this discussion. Rather than simply repeating ourselves over and over again, can we at least agree that:

1. Eastern and Western Catholics both follow Sacred Tradition, which was revealed to the Apostles and is preserved by the Holy Spirit in every generation of the Church
2. Theology has developed differently in the ecclesial East and West, with the result that we often see the same revealed truth in a somewhat different theological light.
3. Many of the dogmatic statements issued by the Roman Popes or the 21 councils often called “Ecumenical Councils” in the West are, after the first seven Ecumenical Councils, often phrased in a way that reflects Western theology, not surprisingly since most of the bishops involved in writing these documents have, for centuries, been Western.
4. At their core these documents teach things already believed by both East and West through their knowledge of Sacred Tradition.
5. Eastern Catholics must, to be faithful Catholics, believe in all these truths of Sacred Tradition, but need not accept the specifically Western theology often reflected in the wording of the Papal or conciliar statements.
6. It would be unwarranted for any Catholic to simply reject the revealed truths (parts of Sacred Tradition) which the Popes and “Ecumenical Councils” have taught about, on the basis of the beliefs of the Eastern Catholic Churches or for whatever other reason.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

This is quite remarkable Cristiano! Congratulations!!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Whether ex cathedra Papal statements and analogous statements of Ecumenical Councils are binding on all Catholics or only some is an objective question. It’s either one or the other. They can’t be binding on all Catholics if you are a Western Catholic but binding on only Western Catholics if you are an Eastern Catholic. As I’ve made clear I have no problem with theological diversity, differences of emphasis, etc., but surely this openness should not be taken to the point that the Catholic faith becomes something totally subjective.

Not subjective at all sir!

Cristiano’s post is well worth pondering (I will use it in my upcoming religion class, to be sure).

The dogmatic pronouncements issued by the Popes on the Mother of God, for example, are indeed binding on all Catholics.

At the same time, the language in which they are framed as well as their conceptual frameworks bear a Latin provenance.

So when the Latin Church proclaims that the Mother of God was conceived without sin of any kind and that she was holy from her Conception - the Christian East simply yawns since the feast of the Holy Conception of the Virgin Mary came from the East and she has been praised and honoured as “All Holy” and “All Immaculate and Pure” from her Conception. (As has St John the Baptist, whose Conception we also celebrate and there is also a feast of the nativity of St Nicholas in August which suggests he was sanctified in the womb of his mother. St John the Evangelist’s “dormition” is also honoured liturgically and he is feted as someone who was ALSO taken body and soul to heaven …).

Therefore, if we already believe and have believed for centuries what the Latin Church proclaims as dogma in the 19th and 20th centuries - how are we making the Catholic faith subjective when we see those pronouncements as redundant to the “deposit of faith” that is already contained in our liturgical services?

From our vantage point, it is the Latin Church that is the “Johnny come lately” in all this.

In addition, if the language of the papal Marian pronouncements appear foreign to us because they exemplify strictly Latin theological frameworks - how can we be faulted for that? If anything, we see them as deficient in terms of the Patristic tradition e.g. Mary’s death not being defined by the dogma of the Assumption where our liturgical and patristic tradition proclaims loudly that she did die.;

The largest issue ever faced by Rome today is to see itself distinctly in two ways: 1) as a Particular Latin Church speaking from a specifically Latin theological praxis and 2) as exercising, at the same time, the Petrine Ministry in the universal Church.

The two are distinct and the blurring between the two has been caused in the RC Church by the fact of the Schism between East and West. That schism affects Churches and Rome too has been singularly affected.

Until Rome can come to complete terms with that, the reunion of the Churches will not make any significant strides forward (apart from what occurs on paper after theologians have had their meetings).

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’re right, why would it be? I would assume it would not be. That’s why my concern isn’t with the orthodoxy of Eastern beliefs on any paticular subject but with upholding the authority of Extraordinary Magisterial documents themselves.

It seems implausible to me by now that we truly misunderstand one another’s points of view; we are just refusing to make the other’s point of view our own because to do so would be to lay aside the actual (and rather unrelated) points each of us are trying to make in this discussion. Rather than simply repeating ourselves over and over again, can we at least agree that:

1. Eastern and Western Catholics both follow Sacred Tradition, which was revealed to the Apostles and is preserved by the Holy Spirit in every generation of the Church
2. Theology has developed differently in the ecclesial East and West, with the result that we often see the same revealed truth in a somewhat different theological light.
3. Many of the dogmatic statements issued by the Roman Popes or the 21 councils often called “Ecumenical Councils” in the West are, after the first seven Ecumenical Councils, often phrased in a way that reflects Western theology, not surprisingly since most of the bishops involved in writing these documents have, for centuries, been Western.

Not only that, because of the schism, the East has not or barely has been represented in these councils. Also as mentioned earlier, councils only seek to clarify what is our belief rather than introduce something new. Most heresies since the schism came from the reformation, and thus the heresies have targeted Western belief. So the West needed to defend the faith as explained by the West.

1. At their core these documents teach things already believed by both East and West through their knowledge of Sacred Tradition.

Just to drive the fact home, the belief has been uniform in all traditions from the time the Apostles and Church Fathers handed down the faith. The documents only clarify and outline what is already there to make sure there is no confusion by the current faithful what is to be believed, and what is heresy. For example at the Council of Nicaea, we already believe that Jesus is God and He is eternal. However because of the Arian heresy, the Church needed to define what is our belief against the heresy which is condemned. Councils just clarify belief. At most they would make a formal definition of the belief. So all faithful Christians already subscribe to that belief.

1. Eastern Catholics must, to be faithful Catholics, believe in all these truths of Sacred Tradition, but need not accept the specifically Western theology often reflected in the wording of the Papal or conciliar statements.

Again, the beliefs are the same so we ultimately believe in the same thing even though how it is theologically defined is based on how the theological development of each tradition has evolved through the ages.

1. It would be unwarranted for any Catholic to simply reject the revealed truths (parts of Sacred Tradition) which the Popes and “Ecumenical Councils” have taught about, on the basis of the beliefs of the Eastern Catholic Churches or for whatever other reason.

Yes, we do not reject the truths which we believe in from the beginning. What we do not accept is how the councils have defined these truths because it is defined using Western theology which doesn’t agree with our theology. If we accept for example the Immaculate Conception as defined in the West, then we need to accept Original Sin as defined in the West. If we accept Original Sin, then we need to redifine how we view sin, salvation, the Fall, our means to salvation, our emphasis on Theosis, etc. Its the first domino really in a long line of dominoes. We cannot accept the definition because it would essentially destroy our own theology and tradition. But what we believe in already is essentially the same as what is outlined in the dogma. Both sides agree that we ultimately believe in the same thing and point to the same truth even though some minor details are different.

 

[Diak]

To complement my brother Olexandr’s statement, I can only state the MAGISTERIAL statement of the Church in Unitatis Redintegratio:

What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine. In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God’s truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. **Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth. All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. **

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Not subjective at all sir!

Cristiano’s post is well worth pondering (I will use it in my upcoming religion class, to be sure).

Since we ultimately seem to have the same fundamental position, I’ll let this pass. It would become a pointless “you said” “he said” “I meant” distraction and a philosophical debate about a situation both of us agree isn’t the case in the Church.

The dogmatic pronouncements issued by the Popes on the Mother of God, for example, are indeed binding on all Catholics.

This is the point I’ve been trying to defend all along. Good to hear it again from an Eastern Catholic, and one who I would guess would bristle at the idea of his thinking being “Latinized.”

At the same time, the language in which they are framed as well as their conceptual frameworks bear a Latin provenance.

So when the Latin Church proclaims that the Mother of God was conceived without sin of any kind and that she was holy from her Conception - the Christian East simply yawns since the feast of the Holy Conception of the Virgin Mary came from the East and she has been praised and honoured as “All Holy” and “All Immaculate and Pure” from her Conception. (As has St John the Baptist, whose Conception we also celebrate and there is also a feast of the nativity of St Nicholas in August which suggests he was sanctified in the womb of his mother. St John the Evangelist’s “dormition” is also honoured liturgically and he is feted as someone who was ALSO taken body and soul to heaven …).

Therefore, if we already believe and have believed for centuries what the Latin Church proclaims as dogma in the 19th and 20th centuries - how are we making the Catholic faith subjective when we see those pronouncements as redundant to the “deposit of faith” that is already contained in our liturgical services?

From our vantage point, it is the Latin Church that is the “Johnny come lately” in all this.

In addition, if the language of the papal Marian pronouncements appear foreign to us because they exemplify strictly Latin theological frameworks - how can we be faulted for that? If anything, we see them as deficient in terms of the Patristic tradition e.g. Mary’s death not being defined by the dogma of the Assumption where our liturgical and patristic tradition proclaims loudly that she did die.;

The largest issue ever faced by Rome today is to see itself distinctly in two ways: 1) as a Particular Latin Church speaking from a specifically Latin theological praxis and 2) as exercising, at the same time, the Petrine Ministry in the universal Church.

The two are distinct and the blurring between the two has been caused in the RC Church by the fact of the Schism between East and West. That schism affects Churches and Rome too has been singularly affected.

Until Rome can come to complete terms with that, the reunion of the Churches will not make any significant strides forward (apart from what occurs on paper after theologians have had their meetings).

Alex

There are a lot of topics in here which would be worth discussing in a tamer, friendlier thread. Nothing really objectionable from my point of view though, just good topics for discussion- which is why I won’t pursue the discussion here.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

ConstantineTG, I’m glad we can basically agree on these points, if only once they’ve been phrased in the rather diplomatic language I phrased them in.

The only one of your responces I’ll single out is this.

Yes, we do not reject the truths which we believe in from the beginning. What we do not accept is how the councils have defined these truths because it is defined using Western theology which doesn’t agree with our theology. If we accept for example the Immaculate Conception as defined in the West, then we need to accept Original Sin as defined in the West. If we accept Original Sin, then we need to redifine how we view sin, salvation, the Fall, our means to salvation, our emphasis on Theosis, etc. Its the first domino really in a long line of dominoes. We cannot accept the definition because it would essentially destroy our own theology and tradition. But what we believe in already is essentially the same as what is outlined in the dogma. Both sides agree that we ultimately believe in the same thing and point to the same truth even though some minor details are different.

Not wanting to fully go back to the points we’ve already beaten to death, let me just point out that the language you use here is probably not the best language to use to make the point I think you are trying to make. When you say things like “we do not accept… how the councils have defined these truths” or “if we accept for example the Immaculate Conception as defined in the West…”, it can come across as simply “we believe these Church teachings are false.” Sort of like a political candidate in a debate replying “I think the position of my esteemed opponent on this issue, as he has just expressed it, would be disastrous for the country.” I know you mean something much more nuanced, but it can come across the wrong way.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

To complement my brother Olexandr’s statement, I can only state the MAGISTERIAL statement of the Church in Unitatis Redintegratio:

Excellent quote!

The sentence right before your highlighted part is probably also worth giving some emphasis.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, I’m glad we can basically agree on these points, if only once they’ve been phrased in the rather diplomatic language I phrased them in.

The only one of your responces I’ll single out is this.

Not wanting to fully go back to the points we’ve already beaten to death, let me just point out that the language you use here is probably not the best language to use to make the point I think you are trying to make. When you say things like “we do not accept… how the councils have defined these truths” or “if we accept for example the Immaculate Conception as defined in the West…”, it can come across as simply “we believe these Church teachings are false.” Sort of like a political candidate in a debate replying “I think the position of my esteemed opponent on this issue, as he has just expressed it, would be disastrous for the country.” I know you mean something much more nuanced, but it can come across the wrong way.

I think the points are already in my statements, perhaps I need to stress which words I should emphasize in. What we do not accept is the definition. Like I said, its not that we think they are wrong, it is just not compatible with our faith. The way I see it, agree and accept are two different things. If we accept it, it means we take what is defined and use it in our own faith. That is not acceptable. We agree on what is defined, actually both sides agree that what each one has agrees with what the other has.