Eastern Catholic beliefs

[kbarr82]

Do Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics accept the dogmas of Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Assumption? I am having a difficult time finding information on Byzantine Catholic faith in relation to certain Roman Catholic beliefs which are foreign to the Orthodox experience and theological paradigm.

Do these churches use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or do they have their own catechesis materials?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’ll address the second question first, since it’s the simplest to answer. Yes, Eastern Catholics have their own catechetical material (at least the Eastern Catholics who follow the Byzantine Rite do *). I recommend you check out the “Light for Life” series. It was written and approved jointly by all the different sui juris churches of the Byzantine tradition in the United States (as far as I know) and is published by “God With Us Publications”.

The first question is much more complex. There is little agreement even among Eastern Catholics about what our relation is to the “dogmas” defined by the West, in Western terms and according to Western tradition, in the absence of the East. I for one, and many Eastern Catholics that I know, follow Kyr Elias Zoghby and the Melkite Synod of Bishops in affirming that “I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches; and I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millenium, before the separation.” Do I accept the dogmas of the West, defined after the separation? No. But neither do I condemn them as false. Rather, I simply recognize that they are outside of my patrimony as an Eastern Christian.

I think the best and most concise treatment of this that you could possibly find is the “Your Word from the Wise” interviews done by Catherine Alexander and found on youtube. Fr. Abbot Nicholas and Fr. Maximos do a wonderful job in summarizing Eastern Catholic identity and belief, along with our relationship to the Roman West.*

 

[Seamus_L]

Several Eastern Catholic churches in the US are dedicated to the Immaculate Conception ( I believe the local UGCC eparchy has 3 alone) and I have seen the prayer of St Gertrude the Great for the Souls in Purgatory posted where the faithful light candles in Eastern Churches. The Maronites have a church in Massachusetts dedicated to Our Lady of Purgatory.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

All of the above examples would be considered classic examples of “latinization.” The Holy Father has been encouraging the Eastern Church’s to “de-latinize” for a few centuries now. Sadly many Eastern Catholics do not want to de-latinize, nor do their Roman Catholic brethren always want them to either.

 

[malphono]

All of the above examples would be considered classic examples of “latinization.” The Holy Father has been encouraging the Eastern Church’s to “de-latinize” for a few centuries now. Sadly many Eastern Catholics do not want to de-latinize, nor do their Roman Catholic brethren always want them to either.

Yet both the IC and “purgtory” are not unknown in Eastern Tradition, albeit that they are not considered “dogma” as such, and go by different monikers. It seems to me that the only true latinization in those church names are the names.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

“I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches; and I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millenium, before the separation.”

A most absurd statement that only highlights their confusion and their identity crisis.

I can appreciate the unfortunate series of events that led to the Melkites entering into communion with Catholics, but that being said, this still makes no sense. Orthodoxy teaches that the filioque is not only an aberration but also heretical. We can not and will not accept the filioque. The Creed is the symbol of the faith of the apostles, and it cannot be altered, especially not without the consent of the entire Church.

 

[ciero]

A most absurd statement that only highlights their confusion and their identity crisis.

I can appreciate the unfortunate series of events that led to the Melkites entering into communion with Catholics, but that being said, this still makes no sense. Orthodoxy teaches that the filioque is not only an aberration but also heretical. We can not and will not accept the filioque. The Creed is the symbol of the faith of the apostles, and it cannot be altered, especially not without the consent of the entire Church.

The International RC and Orthodox committee have come to an agreement on the filioque. Nowhere is it defined as heretical.

 

[kbarr82]

Thank you all! Your replies were very helpful!

 

[josephdaniel29]

The International RC and Orthodox committee have come to an agreement on the filioque. Nowhere is it defined as heretical.

I not sure exactly how much doctrinal weight this “committee” carries. The filioque certainly has been condemned as heresy by numerous synodical decrees and by many great saints of the Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[5Loaves]

We can not and will not accept the filioque. The Creed is the symbol of the faith of the apostles, and it cannot be altered, especially not without the consent of the entire Church.

Just a reminder that Eastern Catholics do not add the Filioque when we recited the Creed. Nor does anyone recite it, including His Holiness the Pope of Rome, when the Creed is recited in Greek.

For those who haven’t read it, the Agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation on the Filioque I think *ciero *is referring to is available here.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Yet both the IC and “purgtory” are not unknown in Eastern Tradition, albeit that they are not considered “dogma” as such, and go by different monikers. It seems to me that the only true latinization in those church names are the names.

Yes, I have looked into the differences between orthodox and Catholics (Roman Rite) I am surprised to find that often what folks think the RC’s believe is not what’s in the catechism. Once the dogmas are properly defined or understood then the differences become less and less…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

A most absurd statement that only highlights their confusion and their identity crisis.

I can appreciate the unfortunate series of events that led to the Melkites entering into communion with Catholics, but that being said, this still makes no sense. Orthodoxy teaches that the filioque is not only an aberration but also heretical. We can not and will not accept the filioque. The Creed is the symbol of the faith of the apostles, and it cannot be altered, especially not without the consent of the entire Church.

“A most absurd statement…”
It’s too bad that you feel this way. The Eastern Catholics, particularly the Melkites, have spent most of this past century reclaiming their Greek/Byzantine identity and being the “voice of Orthodoxy” in the Catholic Church (as affirmed by His All Holiness Athenagoras, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople).

In reality there was no “unfortunate series of events” that led to the Melkites affirming their communion with Rome. From the research I’ve done, there was always a sense within the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (i.e. the Melkites and Antiochian Orthodox) of being in communion with both Constantinople and Rome. The Schism of 1054 hadn’t solidified in Antioch to the extent that it had elsewhere. When the split within this patriarchate happened in 1724 it was because a minority was unsatisfied with the election of a “pro-Roman” patriarch. If you’re interested in the history of the patriarchate of Antioch from just before the schism of 1724 through the mid-20th Century I recommend “The History of the Melkite Patriarchates” by Cyril Korolevsky and available from Eastern Christian Publications.

As far as the filioque goes, there are many within Holy Orthodoxy itself (including Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, as I’ve affirmed time and again) who admit that it is a non-issue. Metropolitan Ware has demonstrated that there is an “Orthodox” way to understand the filioque. I’ve also heard it rumored that several of the Greek and Syriac Fathers held a form of the filioque (but since I’ve not read it myself I’ll leave it to others to give some sources). Also, as has been said, the majority of Eastern Catholics do not recite the filioque in the Creed (I’m given to understand that Rome encourages them not to).

Please do not be so quick to condemn Eastern Catholics. Metropolitan Kallistos as well as the late Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos have both stated that Eastern Catholics are Orthodoxy’s closest friends in the Catholic Church. The way I see it, Eastern Catholics are the one’s hammering out what the communion of Rome and Orthodoxy will look like. While both Rome and Orthodoxy simply talk about communion and make intellectual attempts at solving our differences, Eastern Catholics actually live that communion, with all of its trials and triumphs. It’s not an easy place to be in. But I think in the future, when there is communion again, both Rome and Orthodoxy will reflect back on the “uniate experiment” and realize just how much they have to be grateful for the work Eastern Catholics have done.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Yes, I have looked into the differences between orthodox and Catholics (Roman Rite) I am surprised to find that often what folks think the RC’s believe is not what’s in the catechism. Once the dogmas are properly defined or understood then the differences become less and less…

How right you are! Although I will affirm that there are a great number of differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics/Orthodox, those differences are only in matters of secondary importance (as Kyr Zoghby points out). In essentials we all hold the same faith. The question is, what are the essentials?

 

[Madaglan]

As far as the filioque goes, there are many within Holy Orthodoxy itself (including Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, as I’ve affirmed time and again) who admit that it is a non-issue. Metropolitan Ware has demonstrated that there is an “Orthodox” way to understand the filioque. I’ve also heard it rumored that several of the Greek and Syriac Fathers held a form of the filioque (but since I’ve not read it myself I’ll leave it to others to give some sources). Also, as has been said, the majority of Eastern Catholics do not recite the filioque in the Creed (I’m given to understand that Rome encourages them not to).

Please do not be so quick to condemn Eastern Catholics. Metropolitan Kallistos as well as the late Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos have both stated that Eastern Catholics are Orthodoxy’s closest friends in the Catholic Church. The way I see it, Eastern Catholics are the one’s hammering out what the communion of Rome and Orthodoxy will look like. While both Rome and Orthodoxy simply talk about communion and make intellectual attempts at solving our differences, Eastern Catholics actually live that communion, with all of its trials and triumphs. It’s not an easy place to be in. But I think in the future, when there is communion again, both Rome and Orthodoxy will reflect back on the “uniate experiment” and realize just how much they have to be grateful for the work Eastern Catholics have done.

From what I gathered, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware sees the filioque as a non-issue in terms of dogmatic compatibility, in the sense of not being a church-dividing issue.

The difficulty I see with the filioque is that it is generally believed to mean what Latin theologians seek to clarify that it does not mean.

It has been said that the filioque added to the Latin Creed (with the word procedit) is perfectly orthodox and in line with the Latin tradition. Latin theologians agree, however, that the Greek equivalent of “and the Son” cannot be added to the Greek version of the Creed (with the Greek verb form ekpourousthai), for this would not be orthodox.

But then in reading John 15:26 (either in the Vulgate, which uses procedit, or in English, which uses proceeds), these Latin theologians will add in their minds, “from the Father yes, but also from the Son.” The verb form used in the Greek version of John 15:26, however, is that adopted by the Creed, which does not admit “and the Son” to be added to it. It seems to me that if the filioque cannot be added to the Greek version of the Creed, it also cannot be added as a commentary to John 15:26.

 

[jennypaul2009]

Very interesting thread but a question though. Why do we have to turn everything into an argument?

 

[5Loaves]

I recommend you check out the “Light for Life” series. It was written and approved jointly by all the different sui juris churches of the Byzantine tradition in the United States (as far as I know) and is published by “God With Us Publications”…
…I think the best and most concise treatment of this that you could possibly find is the “Your Word from the Wise” interviews done by Catherine Alexander and found on youtube. Fr. Abbot Nicholas and Fr. Maximos do a wonderful job in summarizing Eastern Catholic identity and belief, along with our relationship to the Roman West.

Here are the links to those two references:
God With Us Publications

“Your Word from the Wise” interviews

 

[Alethiaphile]

Do I accept the dogmas of the West, defined after the separation? No. But neither do I condemn them as false. Rather, I simply recognize that they are outside of my patrimony as an Eastern Christian.

I’m sorry, but, as one who has grappled long and hard with these things, and with all due respect and charity, but I don’t see how the position you’ve stated above is tenable. Maybe there are some post-schism western teachings that one can simply regard as acceptable but non-binding theolougmena (spelling?), such as the Immaculate Conception, but, either the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and Son equally and “as from one principle” (as defined by Lyons and Florence) or the Spirit doesn’t, and either Christ gave a universal and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church to the Bishop of Rome, or He didn’t, and either the Bishop of Rome is infallible and binds the whole Church when he speaks from “the chair of Peter” on matters of faith and morals, or he isn’t. At least I don’t see how middle or agnostic positions are possible on those matters.

Besides which, I believe there was a fairly recent statement from the Vatican clarifying that all Catholics in union with Rome were bound by all the dogmatic teachings of Rome.

Joe

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I’m sorry, but, as one who has grappled long and hard with these things, and with all due respect and charity, but I don’t see how the position you’ve stated above is tenable. Maybe there are some post-schism western teachings that one can simply regard as acceptable but non-binding theolougmena (spelling?), such as the Immaculate Conception, but, either the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and Son equally and “as from one principle” (as defined by Lyons and Florence) or the Spirit doesn’t, and either Christ gave a universal and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church to the Bishop of Rome, or He didn’t, and either the Bishop of Rome is infallible and binds the whole Church when he speaks from “the chair of Peter” on matters of faith and morals, or he isn’t. At least I don’t see how middle or agnostic positions are possible on those matters.

Besides which, I believe there was a fairly recent statement from the Vatican clarifying that all Catholics in union with Rome were bound by all the dogmatic teachings of Rome.

A fantastic post. It’s honest and gets to the heart of the matter.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’m sorry, but, as one who has grappled long and hard with these things, and with all due respect and charity, but I don’t see how the position you’ve stated above is tenable. Maybe there are some post-schism western teachings that one can simply regard as acceptable but non-binding theolougmena (spelling?), such as the Immaculate Conception, but, either the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and Son equally and “as from one principle” (as defined by Lyons and Florence) or the Spirit doesn’t, and either Christ gave a universal and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church to the Bishop of Rome, or He didn’t, and either the Bishop of Rome is infallible and binds the whole Church when he speaks from “the chair of Peter” on matters of faith and morals, or he isn’t. At least I don’t see how middle or agnostic positions are possible on those matters.

Besides which, I believe there was a fairly recent statement from the Vatican clarifying that all Catholics in union with Rome were bound by all the dogmatic teachings of Rome.

Joe

Well, this brings up the question of whether or not the Western Councils since the Great Schism are “ecumenical.” From what I’ve read and heard many theologians (mostly Roman theologians) do not believe that they could possibly be ecumenical because they were held without the presence and experience of the Orthodox East (the presence of the Eastern Catholic churches does not count as the presence of Orthodoxy). These theologians (one of whom was no less than Pope Paul VI) referred to the Western Councils as “general synods of the West.” As “general synods” the Western Councils would have binding force only on the Roman Church(es) (especially with regard to disciplinary matters) and are not necessarily without error. So yes, the post-Schism Western “dogmas” can be considered as non-binding “theologoumena.”

The filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, purgatory, etc. have all been recognized as “non-issues” by some of the greatest Orthodox theologians of our day (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware for example). The real issues are Papal Primacy (universal, supreme and immediate jurisdiction being a part of that) and infallibility. Now, Orthodoxy itself recognizes that there is a primacy that belongs to the Bishop of Rome. So theologically there is no source of division with that regard. The source of division comes about when the primacy is put into practice. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have two different ideas of how Papal primacy is meant to be lived out within the universal Church. That’s an issue that ecumenists on both sides are still grappling with, so I won’t indulge in any speculation here.

The idea of infallibility (whether of the pope or of the Church as a whole) is one that doesn’t even register in an authentic Eastern theological tradition. Yes, there is the notion that the Church is kept free from error by the power of the Holy Spirit, but once again the problem of how that plays itself out in the “real world” emerges. Infallibility itself is something that I’m still coming to terms with. As of right now I don’t have an opinion (although I’m inclined to think of it negatively at wost, and in an extremely limited sense at best). Again, I’m not going to venture further speculation here.

Why so many Orthodox are so concerned that Catholics keep all the “Catholic dogmas,” even when Rome itself has called for those dogmas to be reexamined, is beyond me. If Rome has permitted a certain amount of leniency and has loosened its previously rigid position, I would think that that would be a cause for rejoicing among the Orthodox. Pope Benedict XVI has stated on multiple occasions that, “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millenium…” If this is the only issue that separates us (jurisdiction and infallibility are really extensions of the Latin concept of primacy) then I would think we have strong grounds here to at least begin building communion. On the other hand the East must “cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium…” This is what the current Bishop of Rome has said, they are not my words.

 

[Annie77]

\ Pope Benedict XVI has stated on multiple occasions that, “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millenium…” If this is the only issue that separates us (jurisdiction and infallibility are really extensions of the Latin concept of primacy) then I would think we have strong grounds here to at least begin building communion. On the other hand the East must “cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium…” This is what the current Bishop of Rome has said, they are not my words.

Where does he say this? I don’t disbelieve you, I just wondered if you could point me in the right direction.

I’m Anglo-Catholic and our typical theological position is to subscribe to the traditions of the undivided church. Thus I find myself almost completely in line with Orthodox theology save their condemnation of the west. I do not follow them there. So where do I go? If I can accept that Mary is sinless without accepting the Immaculate Conception per se, for example?

When I bring up Eastern Catholicism, Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike remind me that Eastern Catholics must accept all dogmas of the Western Church precisely as they have been promulgated and I’m out of luck. Very frustrating, really. Can’t get a straight answer.