Eastern Catholic Dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter Omyo12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Omyo12

Guest
I’m sorry if this is an ignorant question, but I’d like to know-

From what I understand, Catholics from the various Eastern Rites differ from the Latin Rite in regards to tradition and liturgy.

How about in regards to doctrine that many Orthodox Churches do no accept? i.e.- the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility.

Do Eastern Catholics accept Sacred Tradition like Roman Catholics?
Do Eastern Catholics have the same canon of Sacred Scripture as Roman Catholics?
Do Eastern Catholics follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Do Eastern Catholics consider the Pope to be the successor of St. Peter?
 
I’ve got time for a quickie, so here goes:
Omyo12 said:
How about in regards to doctrine that many Orthodox Churches do no accept? i.e.- the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility.
Click to expand...
Eastern and Oriental Catholics accept the dogmas of the IC and Papal infallibility (otherwise we would not be Catholics).

There are certain theologoumena associated with these two dogmas that not all Catholics agree on. For instance, with regards to the IC:
(1) Does this mean she did not die?
(2) Was the IC absolutely necessary for Christ to be immaculate?
(3) Did she receive every possible Grace at her conception, or did she receive other Graces later in her life?

With regards to Papal infallibility:
(1) Is Papal infallibility merely a unique case of the Church’s infallibility?
(2) Does the Church’s infallibility flow from papal infallibility?
(3) What are the limits of papal infallibility?
(4) Is papal infallibility exercised singularly or collegially?

Depending on the particular Tradition, you may get different answers to these questions, but the basic dogmas of the IC and papal infallibility are indeed part and parcel of the teaching of all Catholic Churches, Eastern, Western, or Oriental.
Do Eastern Catholics accept Sacred Tradition like Roman Catholics?
Click to expand...
Yes. Not only do Eastern and Oriental Catholics accept Sacred Tradition like Roman Catholics, but we also share the same Sacred Tradition as Roman Catholics. However, each particular Church Tradition has a unique, yet complementary, way of expressing this common Sacred Tradition, as reflected in our distinct theologies, spiritualities and liturgies.
Do Eastern Catholics have the same canon of Sacred Scripture as Roman Catholics?
Click to expand...
Eastern and Oriental Catholics share the same basic books of Holy Writ that Roman Catholics have. Eastern Catholics have a very few more books than Roman Catholics in their Canon. Oriental Catholics likewise have a different Canon at times than Eastern or Roman Catholics. However, as stated, we all have in common the same basic set of 72 books. But what is more important to consider is that all Catholics (Eastern, Western and Oriental), as well as all apostolic Christians in general, agree that the Canon cannot be taken apart from the Sacred Tradition of which it is an intimate part. The Canon is not accepted on its own authority according to the apostolic Churches, but rather according to the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Thus, though the Canon of Scripture may differ among the several Catholic Churches (and then, only very slightly - a matter of 2 or 3 books in the OT), the more important consideration is that none of these small differences contradicts the common Sacred Tradition (i.e., the received teaching) of all the Catholic Churches.
Do Eastern Catholics follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Yes. However, there is a general understanding that the CCC is couched mostly in Western/Latin/Roman theological terms. The CCC can be redone, and restated in the specific theological language of the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Traditions, and it would nevertheless express the same Faith once for all delivered to the Saints that is already expressed in the current CCC.
Do Eastern Catholics consider the Pope to be the successor of St. Peter?
Click to expand...
Yes. And there’s no two ways about it. Of course, the Petrine succession is not unique to the bishop of Rome. What is unique to the bishop of Rome as Pope is the visible headship of the Church, and every faithful Catholic accepts that.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Thank you mardukm for your very helpful response.

So in regards to Sacred Tradition, its kinda like - “you say tomato (tu-mA-toe), I say tomato (tu-maw-toe)”

I have one more question, what do you mean by:
40.png
mardukm:
the Petrine succession is not unique to the bishop of Rome
Click to expand...
From what I understand, St. Peter was succeeded by St. Linus, St. Linus by St. Anacletus, St. Anacletus by St. Clement I, St. Clement I by St. Evaristus, and all the way down the line to Pope Benedict XVI. Is this just a tradition held by the Roman Rite? If so, how do some of the Eastern traditions view the Petrine succession?

or, do you mean that there are lines of succession from the other Apostles not just Peter? if so, could you give examples?

Thanks so very much!
 
Remember that unity does NOT mean uniformity.

St. Peter left a successor in Antioch, as well.

In fact, the Melkite Patriarch can also sign letters with the formula, “conveying our Apostolic blessing” or similar words. like the Pope.

And when the Melkite Patriarch Gregory Joseph was forced to sign the decree of Vatican I, he added, “Without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Eastern patriarchs.”

The Ukrainian Catholic Church (the biggest sui juris Catholic church after the Roman) will soon be releasing its own catechism: “Christ our Pascha.”
 
So how many successors of Peter are there?

Also, one more question,
Do Eastern Catholics accept the Filioque (meaning- “and from the Son”) concerning the Holy Spirit?
I assume so because it dogma, but the Eastern Tradition on this differs.
 
The acceptance is that the Holy Spirit flows forth from the Father and the Son, but originates solely in the Father.

Most of us don’t use it in the liturgy, because in greek, adding such a clause would require rewriting the entire line, which was forbidden by the councils of Nicea and Constantinople.
 
So how many successors of Peter are there?
**At least two: Rome and Antioch.

There are, however, at least 5 claiming the Apostolic Throne of Antioch.

About Filioque, please note the first article of the Union of Brest:

Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son. **
 
Omyo12 said:
So how many successors of Peter are there?
Click to expand...
Besides Rome and Antioch, isn’t there also a tradition that the Patriarch of Babylon (for the Chaldeans) comes from Peter, as Peter suggests in 1 Peter 5:13 that he is writing the epistle from that city?

In Eastern Catholic thought, is there any special privilege that comes to bishops and patriarchs of Petrine succession (other than the Pope), that makes it different from the general Apostolic succession? Are they also considered infallible, or leaders of other patriarchs in some way?
 
DL82 said:
Besides Rome and Antioch, isn’t there also a tradition that the Patriarch of Babylon (for the Chaldeans) comes from Peter, as Peter suggests in 1 Peter 5:13 that he is writing the epistle from that city?

In Eastern Catholic thought, is there any special privilege that comes to bishops and patriarchs of Petrine succession (other than the Pope), that makes it different from the general Apostolic succession? Are they also considered infallible, or leaders of other patriarchs in some way?
Click to expand...
It’s pretty widely considered, even in ancient times, that Peter was writing from Rome, using Babylon as a code word. There wouldn’t have been any reason for him to be in the actual city of Babylon during that time period, as it was not a significant place.

Peace and God bless!
 
The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate claims patriarchal primacy using Petrine support.
 
I found that in the last thirty forty years, Rome is going back from its claims of Petrine primacy at least from Pope Paul VI onwards. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI has quoted ‘ours is also an apostlic see’. He might have related it with St. Paul.
From my studies, it is found that only 2 churches in the world claim the Petrine primacy and in turn universal supremacy. One is Roman catholic church and other is Syriac orthodox church of Antioch. But I have never heard Pope himself making such claims. It is the priests who surround him making these claims.
We may consider that Antioch and Rome are Petrine sees. Till 1964, there were 6 bishops claiming the title of Patriarch of Antioch. Now only 5. It is seen that out of this 6, 4 of them are affiliated to Pope. Then only Greek orthodox and Syriac orthodox remain. In this Greek orthodox was in communion with Rome till 1th century through Constantinople.
Then regarding papal infallibility. I thing it was derived during Pope Pius IX in last century. At that time itself, there were oppositions from latin cardinals against Rome. For example, the great American arch bishop, James Cardinal Gibbons (~1870s) says, ‘Peter went to Antioch and established the church there and served as the bishop there. What is the authority of Rome?’. Then recently 2 years before, the head of the Syro malabar catholic church Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil says, ‘What is the autority of Rome? On what basis Rome is appointing bishops all over the world. From where it has got all these powers? I don’t know from where Rome got all these powers? In the first centuries there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior.’.
If we trace through history, it is found that in 5th century, Patriarch Domnus II of antioch was declared the chief of all the bishops. The he was deposed in the robber council of Ephesus. Afetr that Maximus became Patriarch and inorder to fix his position, Maximus sent a letter to Pope Leo the great accepting him as superior. I can’t find any further details. Then it is found that at the council of Chalcedon in 1451, Pope Leo proclaimed Peter is speaking through him, may be to defeat Constantinople claiming superiority.
The validity of early documents claiming Rome’s superiority must be checked. For example Eusebius’ church history and Iraneus statement. Any way Ignatius, second bishop of antioch has written 7 or 8 letters to different churches and even one of the churches is Rome. In that letter there is no mention of its superiority.
 
40.png
DL82:
Besides Rome and Antioch, isn’t there also a tradition that the Patriarch of Babylon (for the Chaldeans) comes from Peter, as Peter suggests in 1 Peter 5:13 that he is writing the epistle from that city?
Click to expand...
St Peter never went to Babylon (otherwise modern day Iraq). Babylon refers to Rome, it is frequently mentioned by St John in Revelations.
40.png
DL82:
In Eastern Catholic thought, is there any special privilege that comes to bishops and patriarchs of Petrine succession (other than the Pope), that makes it different from the general Apostolic succession? Are they also considered infallible, or leaders of other patriarchs in some way?
Click to expand...
Patriarchs are heads of Particular Churches who enjoy supreme authority within thier patriachate, they are answerable however to the Pope. They do not posses the charism of infallibility individually, that belongs to the Pope alone as “Successor of St Peter”. OTOH when in union with other Bishops throughout the world united with the Pope, they do exercise infallibility.
 
Aramis said:
The acceptance is that the Holy Spirit flows forth from the Father and the Son, but originates solely in the Father.

Most of us don’t use it in the liturgy, because in greek, adding such a clause would require rewriting the entire line, which was forbidden by the councils of Nicea and Constantinople.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the procession of the Holy Spirit originates from the Father, as well as the Son insofar as He is the Word of the Father (but not insofar as He is distinct from the Father).
 
josethomas2005 said:
I found that in the last thirty forty years, Rome is going back from its claims of Petrine primacy at least from Pope Paul VI onwards. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI has quoted ‘ours is also an apostlic see’. He might have related it with St. Paul.
From my studies, it is found that only 2 churches in the world claim the Petrine primacy and in turn universal supremacy. One is Roman catholic church and other is Syriac orthodox church of Antioch. But I have never heard Pope himself making such claims. It is the priests who surround him making these claims.
We may consider that Antioch and Rome are Petrine sees. Till 1964, there were 6 bishops claiming the title of Patriarch of Antioch. Now only 5. It is seen that out of this 6, 4 of them are affiliated to Pope. Then only Greek orthodox and Syriac orthodox remain. In this Greek orthodox was in communion with Rome till 1th century through Constantinople.
Then regarding papal infallibility. I thing it was derived during Pope Pius IX in last century. At that time itself, there were oppositions from latin cardinals against Rome. For example, the great American arch bishop, James Cardinal Gibbons (~1870s) says, ‘Peter went to Antioch and established the church there and served as the bishop there. What is the authority of Rome?’. Then recently 2 years before, the head of the Syro malabar catholic church Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil says, ‘What is the autority of Rome? On what basis Rome is appointing bishops all over the world. From where it has got all these powers? I don’t know from where Rome got all these powers? In the first centuries there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior.’.
If we trace through history, it is found that in 5th century, Patriarch Domnus II of antioch was declared the chief of all the bishops. The he was deposed in the robber council of Ephesus. Afetr that Maximus became Patriarch and inorder to fix his position, Maximus sent a letter to Pope Leo the great accepting him as superior. I can’t find any further details. Then it is found that at the council of Chalcedon in 1451, Pope Leo proclaimed Peter is speaking through him, may be to defeat Constantinople claiming superiority.
The validity of early documents claiming Rome’s superiority must be checked. For example Eusebius’ church history and Iraneus statement. Any way Ignatius, second bishop of antioch has written 7 or 8 letters to different churches and even one of the churches is Rome. In that letter there is no mention of its superiority.
Click to expand...
No, the Pope has always been and will always be the Supreme Pontiff, and the See of Peter (which is the Church of Rome) will always be the “rock” upon which the Church is founded. Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Church. This is de fide from Trent and Vatican I, and all Catholics - including us faithful in the Eastern Rites - MUST accept this. Whatever liberal and wishy-washy trends since Vatican II you are looking at do not reflect the actual teaching of the Church.
 
Aramis said:
The acceptance is that the Holy Spirit flows forth from the Father and the Son, but originates solely in the Father.

Most of us don’t use it in the liturgy, because in greek, adding such a clause would require rewriting the entire line, which was forbidden by the councils of Nicea and Constantinople.
Click to expand...
To quote the Catechism,

The Father and the Son revealed by the Spirit

243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of “another Paraclete” (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously “spoken through the prophets”, the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them “into all the truth”.68 The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.

244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus’ glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”.72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

68 Cf. Gen 1:2; Nicene Creed (DS 150); Jn 14:17, 26; 16:13.
69 Cf. Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:14.
70 Cf. Jn 7:39.
71 Nicene Creed; cf. DS 150.
72 Council of Toledo VI (638): DS 490.
73 Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 527.
74 Nicene Creed; cf. DS 150.
75 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1300-1301.
76 Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.

The emphasis in the western churches is the communion of Persons while the eastern churches emphasize the origin of Persons.
Hope this helps.
 
The Canon is not accepted on its own authority according to the apostolic Churches, but rather according to the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top