Eastern Catholics and Church teachings of morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter divinefaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn’t the Immaculate Conception teaching an infallible one? How can the Eastern Church have similarities but not be exactly the same?
For you to understand the matter, you first need to understand what the essence of the the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is. Once you understand its essence, then you can begin to understand that it can be expressed in different ways. They are the same among the Catholic Churches because we believe in the same essence of the dogma. They are not exactly the same because we can express the same dogma in different theological terminologies. Think of it this way.

We all believe in the number 4. One group expresses it as “1 + 3,” while another group expresses it as “2 + 2.” Yet another group might express it as “8/2”. Different expressions of the one same Truth.
I’m also trying to understand if an Eastern Rite Catholic can hold the Latin Rite thinking and vice versa.
I think we need to hold off on the answer to this question until you fully understand the distinction between the FORM of Faith and the ESSENCE of Faith. The Faith can have different forms, but have the same essence nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
We all believe in the number 4. One group expresses it as “1 + 3,” while another group expresses it as “2 + 2.” Yet another group might express it as “8/2”. Different expressions of the one same Truth.

I think we need to hold off on the answer to this question until you fully understand the distinction between the FORM of Faith and the ESSENCE of Faith. The Faith can have different forms, but have the same essence nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk
1+3 and 2+2 equal the same thing. So then if I, a Latin Catholic better understand the Eastern spirituality that says 2+2 = 4, then I cannot be wrong.

Furthermore, how can it be said to someone, you have no right to believe 2+2=4. You must believe that 1+3=4 because it is dogma. Eastern Catholics can believe 2+2=4, because… well, they think differently.
 
Do the Church teachings about morality cover even the Eastern Catholic sects, or are they individually formed by individual patriarchs\Bishops?
The Catholic Church is East and West…They are not sects…they are called rites…Partriarchs are Orthodox…also Catholic…presently divided in the East.
 
For you to understand the matter, you first need to understand what the essence of the the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is. Once you understand its essence, then you can begin to understand that it can be expressed in different ways. They are the same among the Catholic Churches because we believe in the same essence of the dogma. They are not exactly the same because we can express the same dogma in different theological terminologies. Think of it this way.

We all believe in the number 4. One group expresses it as “1 + 3,” while another group expresses it as “2 + 2.” Yet another group might express it as “8/2”. Different expressions of the one same Truth.

I think we need to hold off on the answer to this question until you fully understand the distinction between the FORM of Faith and the ESSENCE of Faith. The Faith can have different forms, but have the same essence nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk
Awesome answer! Dare I say inspired?
 
For you to understand the matter, you first need to understand what the essence of the the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is. Once you understand its essence, then you can begin to understand that it can be expressed in different ways. They are the same among the Catholic Churches because we believe in the same essence of the dogma. They are not exactly the same because we can express the same dogma in different theological terminologies. Think of it this way.

We all believe in the number 4. One group expresses it as “1 + 3,” while another group expresses it as “2 + 2.” Yet another group might express it as “8/2”. Different expressions of the one same Truth.
Thanks for that 🙂 makes sense.
In the Byzantine Catholic Churches we do not (typically) use the terms “mortal” and “venial” to describe sins.

What we do use are terms such as “grave” or “serious” to describe sins that are of a graver natural than others. We do believe that some sins are so grave that they destroy our relationship with God.
In confession we confess all sins regardless of degree.

So, simply speaking, the belief is the same though we do not use the same terms.
So suppose a member of the Byzananite Church went to Confess their sins to a Latin Rite priest, would they be bound by the precepts their Rite or could you only confess mortal sins and omit venial sins, (since that what the Latin Rite allows)?
 
… Confess their sins to a Latin Rite priest, would they be bound by the precepts their Rite or could you only confess mortal sins and omit venial sins, (since that what the Latin Rite allows)?
Same rule in the eastern ritual Churches.

Eastern (CCEO) Canon 720
  1. Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the ordinary way by which the Christian faithful who is aware of a serious sin is reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses one from confession of this type, in which case reconciliation can take place in other ways.
 
For you to understand the matter, you first need to understand what the essence of the the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is. Once you understand its essence, then you can begin to understand that it can be expressed in different ways. They are the same among the Catholic Churches because we believe in the same essence of the dogma. They are not exactly the same because we can express the same dogma in different theological terminologies. Think of it this way.

We all believe in the number 4. One group expresses it as “1 + 3,” while another group expresses it as “2 + 2.” Yet another group might express it as “8/2”. Different expressions of the one same Truth.

I think we need to hold off on the answer to this question until you fully understand the distinction between the FORM of Faith and the ESSENCE of Faith. The Faith can have different forms, but have the same essence nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk
Awesome answer! Dare I say inspired?
Indeed! I could not agree more! We should all save this one for posterity, as it is a central theme of many of the exchanges on this Forum and others regarding East/West theology and doctrine.

Well put, Marduk!
👍

BTW - a sidenote - in the revised Divine Liturgy translation now in use in the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church, the wording of one of our responses was changed from “the Trinity, One in substance …” to “the Trinity, One in essence…”. A good translation change, and a good reflection of Eastern Catholic/Christian thought. While the “essence” of the Trinity is doctrinally defined by the Universal Catholic Church, in our Eastern eyes it is first understood as a Mystery in the truest sense, which cannot be fully comprehended by sinners and mortals. That said, we certainly accept the doctrine of the Trinity - just a different perspective.

Merry Christmas, all!
Christ is born! Glorify Him!
 
1+3 and 2+2 equal the same thing. So then if I, a Latin Catholic better understand the Eastern spirituality that says 2+2 = 4, then I cannot be wrong.

Furthermore, how can it be said to someone, you have no right to believe 2+2=4. You must believe that 1+3=4 because it is dogma. Eastern Catholics can believe 2+2=4, because… well, they think differently.
I just have one thing to point out here and I think it fits the question on the Immaculate Conception.

In the case you state, 1+3=4 is dogma. That is untrue, the dogma is 4. We do not deny that 1+3=4 but we chose to express it as 2+2=4. How we express four, 1+3, 2+2, or 8/2, is not part of the dogma but an expression of the dogma.

I am aware that you are using this to show that there really is no difference, I just wished to state it in a different way.

The declaration of the Immaculate Conception, which uses Western theological terminology, is not what is dogmatic, it is the Immaculate Conception, the thing that the declaration is speaking of, that is dogmatic.

This is where some make the mistake.

I hope that this has helped a bit.
 
Same rule in the eastern ritual Churches.

Eastern (CCEO) Canon 720
  1. Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the ordinary way by which the Christian faithful who is aware of a serious sin is reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses one from confession of this type, in which case reconciliation can take place in other ways.
Are you saying some Eastern Catholics have other ways to be forgiven of the lighter sins (known as venial in Latin Rite) but serious sins (known as mortal sins) must be taken to Confessional sacrament?

Sorry for elaborating but sounds like the Latin Rite.
 
Are you saying some Eastern Catholics have other ways to be forgiven of the lighter sins (known as venial in Latin Rite) but serious sins (known as mortal sins) must be taken to Confessional sacrament?

Sorry for elaborating but sounds like the Latin Rite.
There are some differences between the Latin and eastern ritual Churches on Holy Penance*. Yes, only those sins which are a turning away from God, a lack of charity, need absolution through a bishop or priest; they are termed serious sins in the eastern canon law.

We know that other sins that we commit are ordinarily forgiven without the absolution given through a bishop or priest.
  • Differences: one is group absolution does not require intention to confess individually, and aother is no Easter duty confession, rather ASAP confession applies, also, there are reserved sins in the eastern Churches whereas in the Latin Church there exists *latae sententiae (automatic excommunication). Both codes 1983 CIC and 1990 CCEO have ferendæ sententiæ (formal excommunication).
Did I answer the question?
 
There are some differences between the Latin and eastern ritual Churches on Holy Penance*. Yes, only those sins which are a turning away from God, a lack of charity, need absolution through a bishop or priest; they are termed serious sins in the eastern canon law.

We know that other sins that we commit are ordinarily forgiven without the absolution given through a bishop or priest.
  • Differences: one is group absolution does not require intention to confess individually, and aother is no Easter duty confession, rather ASAP confession applies, also, there are reserved sins in the eastern Churches whereas in the Latin Church there exists *latae sententiae (automatic excommunication). Both codes 1983 CIC and 1990 CCEO have ferendæ sententiæ (formal excommunication).
Did I answer the question?
*
You did thanks 🙂
I could also possibly research specific rites and maybe look at the Eastern Code to answer more questions.
Thanks for your help 🙂
 
I just have one thing to point out here and I think it fits the question on the Immaculate Conception.

In the case you state, 1+3=4 is dogma. That is untrue, the dogma is 4. We do not deny that 1+3=4 but we chose to express it as 2+2=4. How we express four, 1+3, 2+2, or 8/2, is not part of the dogma but an expression of the dogma.

I am aware that you are using this to show that there really is no difference, I just wished to state it in a different way.

The declaration of the Immaculate Conception, which uses Western theological terminology, is not what is dogmatic, it is the Immaculate Conception, the thing that the declaration is speaking of, that is dogmatic.
👍👍👍

Blessings,
Marduk
 
BTW - a sidenote - in the revised Divine Liturgy translation now in use in the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church, the wording of one of our responses was changed from “the Trinity, One in substance …” to “the Trinity, One in essence…”. A good translation change, and a good reflection of Eastern Catholic/Christian thought. While the “essence” of the Trinity is doctrinally defined by the Universal Catholic Church, in our Eastern eyes it is first understood as a Mystery in the truest sense, which cannot be fully comprehended by sinners and mortals. That said, we certainly accept the doctrine of the Trinity - just a different perspective.
That is a good point. The term “substance” is derived directly from the Latin. “Essence” would be the proper translation of the Greek ousia.

Though the two can have the same meaning, the term “essence” definitely denotes a more mysterious, indefinable quality than “substance.”

Though the Latin use of it in the Creed is definitely identical to “essence,” the term “substance” can actually connote “person” in Latin (in terms of species, it can have the connotation of “person”; in terms of genus, it can have the connotation of “essence”), so it is best to avoid that possible misunderstanding.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
In my Coptic Tradition, I was taught that sin cuts you off from the Grace of God. But there are some sins which one performs which one might not know is a sin. Such sins are sins indeed, but they do not cut you off from the Grace of God. Only the sin of an UNREPENTANT sinner has the capacity to cut a sinner off from the Grace of God.

I think the Coptic understanding IMPLIES the notion of willful opposition to the will of God as the effective factor in determining whether one is cut off from the Grace of God or not.

The Latin Church teaches similarly, and IMO the only distinction is that she actually puts a name to those sins which do not cut you off from the Grace of God - namely, VENIAL sins. These are called sins because they are offenses that are volutary, but they are not done in willful opposition to the will of God. For example, a person might swear casually taking the Lord’s name in vain. But the person did not do it with the intention of insulting the Lord. So casual swearing is a VENIAL sin because it is not done with the intention of opposing the will of the Lord in the Commandment. Of course, venial sins have the definite potential to become mortal sins.

I think the Eastern Byzantine concept is the least defined. It does not categorize between “willful” or “voluntary,” but simply those things that are an offense against God. This does not mean that all things are equally offensive, but the Eastern phrenoma does not investigate the reasons why some sins are less offensive while others are more offensive.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
What about sins which are wilfully committed but are not grave? Latin Rite would say that’s a venial sin. What would the Coptic Rite believe?
 
What about sins which are wilfully committed but are not grave? Latin Rite would say that’s a venial sin. What would the Coptic Rite believe?
I studied the Latin Catholic Faith quite extensively (just to make sure my Coptic Orthodox Faith was not opposed to it, and vice-versa) when I studied the Catholic Church in the several years before I translated to the Catholic communion. One of the few things I have never been able to wrap my head around is the idea of “grave matter” (correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no such thing as “grave sin”). I have read that blame for sinning on a matter that is grave can be mitigated by the circumstances, so I cannot comprehend what the unique distinction is regarding “grave matter.”

Can you give me a few examples of something that is “grave matter” and a few examples of things that are not?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
venia, means acquittal or pardon]

Basic teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day.



1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130 **

1857** For a *sin *to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1873 The root of all sins lies in man’s heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.

129 Cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17. *
130 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,88,2, corp. art.
131 *RP *Reconciliatio et paenitentia] 17 § 12.
132 Mk 10:19.
  • 1 Jn 5
    16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
 
Basic teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
One must keep in mind that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a product of the Latin Church and therefore uses Western Theological thought and terms in expressing the Teachings of the Church.

I for one can not wait for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s Catechism to be published in English.
 
One must keep in mind that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a product of the Latin Church and therefore uses Western Theological thought and terms in expressing the Teachings of the Church.

I for one can not wait for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s Catechism to be published in English.
  1. Mardukm has expressed a desire to resolve any incongruencies between the Latin and Coptic teachings on grave sin so I post from the Latin catechism.
  2. Yes, especially because the eparch has the responsibility of catechesis of the faithful of his jurisdiction. (CCEO 617-630) The Catechism is mainly directed to the bishops (as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). The CCEO has many details:
Canon 617
Each Church sui iuris and particularly their bishops have the serious duty of providing catechesis, by which faith matures and the disciple of Christ is formed through a deeper and more systematic knowledge of the teaching of Christ and through an increasingly stronger commitment to the person of Christ.
Canon 618
Parents first of all are obliged to form their children in the faith and practice of the Christian life by word and example; godparents and those who take the place of parents are bound by an equivalent obligation.
Canon 619
Besides the Christian family, the parish itself and every ecclesial community have to ensure the catechetical formation of their members and their integration in the same community, by assuring those conditions in which what they learn can be lived to the full.
Canon 620
Associations and movements and groups of the Christian faithful, which pursue the practice of piety or direct the apostolate or charitable works and assistance, are to ensure the religious formation of their members under the guidance of the local hierarch.
Canon 621
  1. The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church or the council of hierarchs is competent to issue norms on catechetical formation, arranged in a catechetical directory, within the territorial boundaries of their own Church; they are to observe those things prescribed by the supreme authority of the Church.
  2. In this directory the special character of the Eastern Churches is to be taken into account, so that the biblical and liturgical emphasis as well as the traditions of each Church sui iuris in patrology, hagiography, and even iconography are highlighted in conveying the catechesis.
  3. Synods of bishops of the patriarchal Church or councils of hierarchs are to see to it that catechisms suited to various groups of faithful are prepared along with corresponding aids and means, and that the different catechetical initiatives are promoted and harmonized among themselves.
    Canon 622
  4. In each Church sui iuris there is to be a catechetical commission, which may be established together with the other Churches sui iuris for the same territory or socio-cultural region.
  5. This commission is to avail itself of a catechetical center, which is to be of service to the same Churches in accomplishing their catechetical tasks in a coordinated and more efficacious way and to assure the formation, including the ongoing formation, of catechists.
    Canon 623
  6. It is the responsibility of the eparchial bishops to promote, direct, and moderate the catechetical formation in their eparchies with the utmost vigilance.
  7. For this purpose the eparchial curia is to have an eparchial catechetical center.
    Canon 624
  8. The pastor should, keeping to the norms determined by competent authority, make the utmost effort to give catechesis to all persons entrusted to his pastoral care, whatever their age or condition.
  9. Presbyters and deacons attached to the parish are bound to render their assistance to the pastors; members of religious institutes, however, are to assist in accordance with cann. 479 and 542.
  10. Other Christian faithful, properly formed, are to willingly contribute their assistance in giving catechesis.
    Canon 625
    For ecumenical reasons catechesis should present the correct image of other Churches and ecclesial communities; however, great care is to be taken that the proper nature of Catholic catechesis is safeguarded.
    Canon 626
    Let all who are engaged in catechesis remember that they represent the Church, and that they have been sent to communicate the revealed word of God, not their own; they are therefore to present the entire doctrine of the Church, albeit adapted to those they are catechizing and responsive to the demands of their culture.
Canons 627 and following continue on education.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top