Eastern Catholic beliefs

[wynd]

Hi Philip,

Just some thoughts that sprung up while I read your post.

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).

I don’t know if that’s accurate. If the RCC sees itself as the Church, why would it depend on the presence of those it sees as outside the Church for validation of its councils?

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.”

I don’t know if I agree with this either. Did the bishops at those councils understand them to be ecumenical councils that apply everywhere, or did they see themselves as having just “general synods?”

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).

While I respect Metropolitan Kallistos, I believe he speaks only for himself 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.

The reason Orthodox take issue with this is because it appears to be a complete reversal of dogmas that were proclaimed as infallible in previous centuries. We would definitely agree with the “loosening” of such beliefs, but it’s hard to sidestep the black-and-white language of Vatican I. If you can redefine such language to mean exactly the opposite, then what can’t you redefine?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

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.

Hello Annie

Pope Benedict first made this statement as Fr. Josef (proper German spelling) Ratzinger at a lecture in Graz, Austria in 1976. The lecture was then included by Cardinal Ratzinger in his book “Principles of Catholic Theology,” first published by Ignatius Press in 1987. It has also been repeated by him, but I don’t remember the sources and don’t have time to look them up. There is a new book at that you might be interested in. It’s called “The Ratzinger Formula: A Catalyst for the Unfolding Dialogue Between the Catholic and Orthodox Church on ‘Conciliarity and Primacy’.” It’s published by Eastern Christian Publications (the company I work for) and is hot off the press (we just got it in on Monday). I’ve begun reading it and have enjoyed it so far. Check it out.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[kbarr82]

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

I agree with your assessment, which is why I ultimately made the decision in good conscience to convert to Orthodoxy. If the Pope was not an infallible universal ordinary in the first century, he cannot be one in the 21st century. Nor can the most Holy Theotokos be understood as a superhuman immaculately-conceived co-redemptrix.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The reason Orthodox take issue with this is because it appears to be a complete reversal of dogmas that were proclaimed as infallible in previous centuries. We would definitely agree with the “loosening” of such beliefs, but it’s hard to sidestep the black-and-white language of Vatican I. If you can redefine such language to mean exactly the opposite, then what can’t you redefine?

This is my current struggle as well. At this point I’ve not reached any conclusion for or against, and is thus why I have not yet left communion with Rome. From what I’ve seen, Rome is not making actions to reverse the dogmatic definitions, but simply to loosen the rigidity of those definitions in order to facilitate a proper Eastern reading of them.

The RCC does not see itself as THE church, rather it sees itself as one particular church within a communion of churches. As a particular church it has its own theological, liturgical, disciplinary, historical, and spiritual life. For this reason it can speculate and have theological opinions that differ from the other particular churches in non-essentials. However, in essentials all hold the same faith. Now, what the essentials are I leave to the experts (and no, not the self-proclaimed experts found on internet forums). I simply read and listen to the experts and then try and share what I’ve learned.

Oh, and you may disagree with Metropolitan Kallistos if you like, but what about the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, or the U.S. Orthodox - Catholic Theological Consultation? Both of these commissions are made up of your own bishops and theologians, as well as Roman ones. Do they hold any authority or do their declarations have any weight?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I agree with your assessment, which is why I ultimately made the decision in good conscience to convert to Orthodoxy. If the Pope was not an infallible universal ordinary in the first century, he cannot be one in the 21st century. Nor can the most Holy Theotokos be understood as a superhuman immaculately-conceived co-redemptrix.

With regards to the Pope, that is the issue that’s still being worked out. With regards to the Theotokos, no one believes that she is some sort of superhuman; I know of many Orthodox who believe that she was immaculately conceived; we Eastern Christians do refer to her as “all holy, spotless, most highly blessed, and glorious lady” as well as praying “who without corruption did bear God the Word;” we also pray “Most holy Theotokos, save us.” Finally, several Orthodox theologians have said that Orthodoxy probably would’ve accepted the dogma of the Immaculate Conception if it shared with the Latin West the same concept of Original Sin. As an Eastern Catholic, I personally do not accept the Immaculate Conception as it is defined simply because it does flow logically from the Latin concept of Original Sin and is, therefore, outside of my Byzantine patrimony. However, I do believe in the sinlessness of the Theotokos, and that she cooperated perfectly throughout her entire life with the divine energies of God.

 

[kbarr82]

“The RCC does not see itself as THE church, rather it sees itself as one particular church within a communion of churches. As a particular church it has its own theological, liturgical, disciplinary, historical, and spiritual life. For this reason it can speculate and have theological opinions that differ from the other particular churches in non-essentials. However, in essentials all hold the same faith. Now, what the essentials are I leave to the experts (and no, not the self-proclaimed experts found on internet forums). I simply read and listen to the experts and then try and share what I’ve learned. ”

This is a complete 180 from the theology of Vatican I. While the continued separation between East and West is a grievous situation, I don’t think it can or will be remedied in our lifetimes. The idea of “development of doctrine” which has justified every change in Catholic belief from Papal infallibility to the Immaculate Conception to the horrible liturgical changes of Vatican II, is a definite stumbling block. Either the universal supremacy of the Pope, the charism of his Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the double-procession of the Spirit, etc. are true teachings, or heresies to be refuted. I honestly don’t see a middle ground.

 

[kbarr82]

. However, I do believe in the sinlessness of the Theotokos, and that she cooperated perfectly throughout her entire life with the divine energies of God.

Agreed! Although rather than say that she was filled with every grace at the moment of conception, we would say that this occurred at the moment she said “Yes” to God.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Agreed! Although rather than say that she was filled with every grace at the moment of conception, we would say that this occurred at the moment she said “Yes” to God.

Not all Orthodox say this. I have heard Orthodox say it was from the moment of her conception. Personally I don’t see why we should speculate on mysteries such as this, much less define them dogmatically.

The idea of the “development of doctrine” is a slippery one. However, there is such a thing as legitimate development. As has been pointed out before, if there were no development then we wouldn’t even have concepts such as “theotokos,” “panagia,” etc. Nor would we have the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which contains language and concepts not found in Scripture or the Apostolic Tradition. The question is really a matter of whether or not certain developments are faithful to Scripture and Holy Tradition.

 

[Seamus_L]

Phillip
I mean no disrespect, I'm sure you're a likeable fellow, but if you ever wonder why many Traditional Roman Catholics regard you with some degree of negativity, it's because of the following statement you made this morning (regarding Papal Infallibility) "At this point I've not reached any conclusion for or against, and is thus why I have not YET left communion with Rome" After a decade on the internet, I've come to the realisation that when someone identifies themself as Orthodox In Communion, it quite often means they are only temporarily Catholic, and that at sometime in the future they will be "doxing". Ironically, I've gotten along much better with a few after they swam the Hellespont, because I didn't tell them how to be Orthodox and they didn't tell me how to be Catholic.

 

[kbarr82]

Not all Orthodox say this. I have heard Orthodox say it was from the moment of her conception. Personally I don’t see why we should speculate on mysteries such as this, much less define them dogmatically.

The idea of the “development of doctrine” is a slippery one. However, there is such a thing as legitimate development. As has been pointed out before, if there were no development then we wouldn’t even have concepts such as “theotokos,” “panagia,” etc. Nor would we have the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which contains language and concepts not found in Scripture or the Apostolic Tradition. The question is really a matter of whether or not certain developments are faithful to Scripture and Holy Tradition.

I tend to agree! Many of these issues I’m still trying to work out.

 

[wynd]

The RCC does not see itself as THE church, rather it sees itself as one particular church within a communion of churches. As a particular church it has its own theological, liturgical, disciplinary, historical, and spiritual life. For this reason it can speculate and have theological opinions that differ from the other particular churches in non-essentials. However, in essentials all hold the same faith. Now, what the essentials are I leave to the experts (and no, not the self-proclaimed experts found on internet forums). I simply read and listen to the experts and then try and share what I’ve learned.

By “RCC” I meant the Catholic communion as a whole, as opposed to the Orthodox Church. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, and you may disagree with Metropolitan Kallistos if you like, but what about the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, or the U.S. Orthodox - Catholic Theological Consultation? Both of these commissions are made up of your own bishops and theologians, as well as Roman ones. Do they hold any authority or do their declarations have any weight?

I don’t mean to be rude here, but theological commissions and consultations are not ecumenical councils or Church fathers. If there is a discrepancy, I will take the traditional Orthodox belief over what a modern-day joint statement has to say.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Phillip

                          I mean no disrespect, I'm sure you're a likeable fellow, but if you ever wonder why many Traditional Roman Catholics regard you with some degree of negativity, it's because of the following statement you made this morning (regarding Papal Infallibility) "At this point I've not reached any conclusion for or against, and is thus why I have not YET left communion with Rome" After a decade on the internet, I've come to the realisation that when someone identifies themself as Orthodox In Communion, it quite often means they are only temporarily Catholic, and that at sometime in the future they will be "doxing". Ironically, I've gotten along much better with a few after they swam the Hellespont, because I didn't tell them how to be Orthodox and they didn't tell me how to be Catholic.

I’ve actually never wondered why many “traditional” Roman Catholics regard me with a degree of negativity. I’m aware of what they think of me. But thanks for the heads up. The “yet” wasn’t meant to imply that I plan on leaving the Church eventually. It’s simply an affirmation that I’m seeking God’s truth, wherever that may lead. That being said, I don’t foresee it leading me out of communion with Rome and into Orthodoxy.

As to the whole issue of being “Orthodox in Communion with Rome;” it is nice when Orthodox don’t tell Catholics how to be Catholic and vice versa, but why does everyone insist on telling Eastern Catholics how to be Eastern Catholic? For centuries now the Popes of Rome have been encouraging Eastern Catholics to be true to who they are (i.e. Orthodox churches that were received for various reasons into communion with the Church of Rome). Many Eastern Catholics have suffered martyrdom at the hands of their Orthodox brothers simply for being Catholic. Likewise they’ve also suffered martyrdom at the hands of Roman Catholics because they were not Roman. We are a church that is highly misunderstood, and as such we’ve suffered much for it.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I don’t mean to be rude here, but theological commissions and consultations are not ecumenical councils or Church fathers. If there is a discrepancy, I will take the traditional Orthodox belief over what a modern-day joint statement has to say.

I don’t take that as rudeness at all! Thank you for your honesty. My main concern with what I’ve encountered is the tendency to ignore what the bishops (the successors of the Apostles and as such those responsible for handing on the Apostolic Tradition) have said. This is a problem every bit as much within Catholicism as in Orthodoxy. It is the duty of the bishops to discern and pass on Holy Tradition. When they meet, therefore, and draw up statements, even if not within the context of an ecumenical council, we owe them our attention and our intellectual efforts in trying to understand what they’re writing and why.

On a completely unrelated note, I just came across this quote from Fr. Georges Florovsky:

"The very problem of Christian reconciliation is not that of correlation of parallel tradtions, but precisely that of reintegration of a distorted tradition. The two traditions may seem quite irreconcilable, when they are compared and confronted, as they are at present. Yet their differences themselves are, to a great extent, simply the result of disintegration: they are, as it were, distinctions stiffened into contradictions.

 

[scapularkid8]

I see these threads and the disagreements they bring up, then I think to myself the text of the Divine Liturgy that says, regardless of the name on the door of the church building: “For all devout and orthodox Christians, let us pray to the Lord”

 

[kbarr82]

As an update:

I have returned to fellowship and communion with the Catholic Church (Latin Rite, no ER parishes near me), as I believe it to be important to be in communion with the Pope. Thanks to you guys, I can also see that the differences between the OC and the RCC are not as dramatic as I had made them out to be. Nevertheless I intend to keep exploring these issues and prayerfully reflecting on them.

In Christ,
Kyle

 

[mardukm]

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.

Great point, brother Malphono. I would also like to add that though the Eastern and Oriental Traditions don’t normally formalize beliefs into “dogma” like the Latin Church, there are many beliefs that are nevertheless regarded in much the same way as “dogma.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Philip,

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.

Actually, the IC was a solid Tradition in the Ukranian Church in particular among the Eastern Churches, for several hundred years before the IC was dogmatized (as any of our Ukranian Catholic brethren will testify), so it should not surprise anyone that “Immaculate Conception” is attached to the names of some of their Churches - it would not be a “Latinization.”

Though the term “Purgatory” is often attached to the Latin Church, the dogma of Purgatory is a ubiqitous belief among all apostolic Churches (i.e., it is different from the Latin teaching on Purgatory with its extra theologoumena), As brother Malphono correctly pointed out, a Church using the term “Purgatory” would not really be guilty of “Latinization,” except perhaps for the use of the term.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Kyle,

As an update:

I have returned to fellowship and communion with the Catholic Church (Latin Rite, no ER parishes near me), as I believe it to be important to be in communion with the Pope. Thanks to you guys, I can also see that the differences between the OC and the RCC are not as dramatic as I had made them out to be. Nevertheless I intend to keep exploring these issues and prayerfully reflecting on them.

Welcome back! I myself am not a cradle Catholic, but translated to the Catholic Communion from Oriental Orthodoxy several years ago.

If you need help reconciling the Orthodox and Catholic faiths, feel free to contact me by PM. I could help you in things common to the Eastern and Oriental Traditions. For purely Eastern (i.e. Byzantine) matters, I would suggesting contacting brother Ghosty, who has a good grasp of both Latin and Byzantine theology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KyivAndrew]

Do Eastern (Byzantine) … use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or do they have their own catechesis materials?

Well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has been translated into Ukrainian for Ukrainian Greek and Latin Catholics. But the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church will be publishing its own Ukrainian Catholic Catechism, the first by any Eastern Catholic Church I believe, a historic document, by next year.