Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[anthony022071]

I don’t think he is concerned with forcing the “latin viewpoint” on everyone else. Rather, he is simply trying to reinforce the point that every Catholic is required to submitt to all the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic faith that are de fide statements.

That’s true. It isn’t a just matter of different regional theological traditions,but of defined doctrines which are valid for the whole Church. The Orthodox,and the Eastern Catholics that belong to churches that were part of the Orthodox Church,tend to conflate regional traditions with defined doctrines. They cannot accept that the apostolic traditions are not limited to Eastern perspectives,or that Roman doctrines are above both Eastern and Western theological traditions in authority.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

That’s true. It isn’t a just matter of different regional theological traditions,but of defined doctrines which are valid for the whole Church. The Orthodox,and the Eastern Catholics that belong to churches that were part of the Orthodox Church,tend to conflate regional traditions with defined doctrines. They cannot accept that the apostolic traditions are not limited to Eastern perspectives,or that Roman doctrines are above both Eastern and Western theological traditions in authority.

I think you’re painting with a very broad brush. I also think that, at least in skimming through this thread, one very important point has been overlooked.

Those “defined doctrines” that seem to be points of contention are usually so only because the definition is based upon Latin theology or Latin expressions of theology. Would you accept the premise that Eastern Catholics do follow the same doctrines, although they use Eastern ways of expressing them?

Deacon Ed

 

[anthony022071]

[Deacon Ed]

I think you’re painting with a very broad brush. I also think that, at least in skimming through this thread, one very important point has been overlooked.

Those “defined doctrines” that seem to be points of contention are usually so only because the definition is based upon Latin theology or Latin expressions of theology.

The doctrines of Rome are not based only upon Latin or Western theology. For example,the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds or is eternally manifiested through from the Son is found in the writings of Eastern Church Fathers. And in any case,a doctrine is either true or not,regardless of the tradition or theologian that best articulates it. The See of Rome was known,even in the East,as the fount of orthodoxy which would never succumb to heresy. It was the final reference point for all questions of doctrine.

Would you accept the premise that Eastern Catholics do follow the same doctrines, although they use Eastern ways of expressing them?

My impression is that Eastern Catholics who belong to churches that were formerly Orthodox tend to cling to Orthodox attitudes and beliefs rather than accept Catholic doctrines. If they really believed in the same doctrines as those of Rome,then they would not have a problem with the ways in which Roman doctrines are expressed.

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533):
“That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation”
(Letter 17, 21, A.D. 519).

 

[Harpazo]

[Deacon Ed]

The doctrines of Rome are not based only upon Latin or Western theology. For example,the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds or is eternally manifiested through from the Son is found in the writings of Eastern Church Fathers. And in any case,a doctrine is either true or not,regardless of the tradition or theologian that best articulates it. The See of Rome was known,even in the East,as the fount of orthodoxy which would never succumb to heresy. It was the final reference point for all questions of doctrine.

My impression is that Eastern Catholics who belong to churches that were formerly Orthodox tend to cling to Orthodox attitudes and beliefs rather than accept Catholic doctrines. If they really believed in the same doctrines as those of Rome,then they would not have a problem with the ways in which Roman doctrines are expressed.

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533):
“That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation”
(Letter 17, 21, A.D. 519).

:banghead:

You keep on denying that they are Latin expressions, but they are. This ultramontanistic attitude is getting wearisome, and does not reflect the teachings of the Church.

I seriously doubt that you have looked into the Eastern expressions and simply dismissed them off handedly. Compare the two, and you’ll see how they present the same thing, but come from different directions. I strongly suggest you do so, lest you come off more ignorant. I’m sorry, but this is just getting so old.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The doctrines of Rome are not based only upon Latin or Western theology. For example,the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds or is eternally manifiested through from the Son is found in the writings of Eastern Church Fathers. And in any case,a doctrine is either true or not,regardless of the tradition or theologian that best articulates it. The See of Rome was known,even in the East,as the fount of orthodoxy which would never succumb to heresy. It was the final reference point for all questions of doctrine.

While there is no doubt that doctrines are either true or not, it is equally true that how these doctrines are phrased is a matter of how the Church chooses to do so at a particular time in a particular place. Thus, the Nicean Creed as it was handed down to the Church (and that included the Church that sojourns in Rome) did not include the filioque. In fact, if you go to Rome you will find the Creed inscribed in Latin and Greek on two tablets at the Vatican. Neither includes the filioque nor is the filioque used when the Pope celebrates the Divine Liturgy with Eastern Catholics. The filioque is a tool used in Spain to combat a particularly virulent form of Arianism. If it is understood as a dual procession, that is, the origin of the Holy Spirit is both the Father and the Son, then it is heretical. If, however, it is understood as a method of transmission of the Holy Spirit (i.e., from the Father through the Son) then it is perfectly acceptable and, in fact, Scriptural. Yet it is the very imprecision that is found in this addition that leads the East to not use it. Does this mean that the East denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit? Of course not! But the particular expression of the Holy Spirit as found in the filioque depends entirely upon an understanding of Latin theology.

The same can be said for the Immaculate Conception. As the original query of the Holy Father to the bishops asked, is it the opinion of the church that Mary was always sinless, from the moment of her conception? If that is the case, then this is precisely how the East understands it. But if we depend on the Latin understanding of Original Sin, then it is not because the East and the West have a different understanding of this issue. The West follows the teaching of Augustine while the East does not. Yet the East doesn’t deny the reality of Original Sin. Again, a Latin formulation following the teaching of a Latin Father.

Each and every point of “disagreement” can be narrowed down to an understanding of semantics – how the East expresses something as opposed to how the West expresses the same teaching. We arrive at the same point, but use different methods. And because this is true, the difference in how the teaching is formulated is important.

Your statement is equivalent to this: if we are all Catholic, why not be Latin Rite Catholics?

Deacon Ed

 

[anthony022071]

[Deacon Ed]

Thus, the Nicean Creed as it was handed down to the Church (and that included the Church that sojourns in Rome) did not include the filioque.

The original creed of Nicaea did not include the phrase “who prodeeds from the Father” either. That was added by the Council of Constantinople 1,which was originally just a regional council.
The creed of Constantinople 1 was not the normative definition of faith until the Council of Chalcedon,and the creed of Nicaea continued to be used in the West long after that.

usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
< The acts of the Council of Constantinople were lost, but the text of its Creed was quoted and formally acknowledged as binding, along with the Creed of Nicaea, in the dogmatic statement of the Council of Chalcedon (451). Within less than a century, this Creed of 381 had come to play a normative role in the definition of faith, and by the early sixth century was even proclaimed in the Eucharist in Antioch, Constantinople, and other regions in the East. In regions of the Western churches, the Creed was also introduced into the Eucharist, perhaps beginning with the third Council of Toledo in 589. It was not formally introduced into the Eucharistic liturgy at Rome, however, until the eleventh century – a point of some importance for the process of official Western acceptance of the Filioque. >

In fact, if you go to Rome you will find the Creed inscribed in Latin and Greek on two tablets at the Vatican. Neither includes the filioque nor is the filioque used when the Pope celebrates the Divine Liturgy with Eastern Catholics.

That’s because the word ekporeusis won’t work with the phrase “and the Son”. But Eastern Catholics should be expected to believe in the doctrine.

If it is understood as a dual procession, that is, the origin of the Holy Spirit is both the Father and the Son, then it is heretical. If, however, it is understood as a method of transmission of the Holy Spirit (i.e., from the Father through the Son) then it is perfectly acceptable and, in fact, Scriptural. Yet it is the very imprecision that is found in this addition that leads the East to not use it.

The Council of Lyons 2 addressed that issue. Eastern Catholics ought to accept Catholic doctrine.

< In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single Principle (tamquam ex uno principio)’ (DS 850).

"In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the Divine essence that can be the “one principle” for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in no.248 as follows:

‘…the eternal order of the Divine Persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the ‘principle without principle,’ 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 Spirit proceeds.’ (Council of Lyons II, DS 850).’ >

Does this mean that the East denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit? Of course not! But the particular expression of the Holy Spirit as found in the filioque depends entirely upon an understanding of Latin theology.

That’s not entirely true. The stumbling-block for Easterners is the word ekporeusis,which refers to procession from a single,ultimate cause. But the Eastern Church Fathers also speak of procession from the Father and Son,using the word “proienai”,which is the equivalent of the Latin word procedit and the English word proceeds.

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html
< At this point, it may be very helpful for us to distinguish between two important Greek words. Above, we discussed the semantic differences between the Greek term “ekporeusis” (i.e., to proceed from a sole Source, Principal, or Cause) and the unequivalent Latin term “procedit” –the term unwittingly used by the West to translate Constantinople I’s “ekporeusis,” and so the root of the semantic confusion. However, there is yet another Greek term for “proceeds,” which is “proienai,” and this term, which is equivalent to the Latin term “procedit,” is used quite often among Eastern (especially Alexandrian) fathers to refer to the Spirit’s procession from both Father and Son. For, when the Greek fathers use “proienai,” they are not referring to the Father’s monarchy at all, but to the same, collective sense of the Spirit’s procession (involving both Father and Son) as expressed in the Western tradition. We will explore this aspect of the Eastern fathers’ theology below. >

 

[johnnykins]

While there is no doubt that doctrines are either true or not, it is equally true that how these doctrines are phrased is a matter of how the Church chooses to do so at a particular time in a particular place. Thus, the Nicean Creed as it was handed down to the Church (and that included the Church that sojourns in Rome) did not include the filioque. In fact, if you go to Rome you will find the Creed inscribed in Latin and Greek on two tablets at the Vatican. Neither includes the filioque nor is the filioque used when the Pope celebrates the Divine Liturgy with Eastern Catholics. The filioque is a tool used in Spain to combat a particularly virulent form of Arianism. If it is understood as a dual procession, that is, the origin of the Holy Spirit is both the Father and the Son, then it is heretical. If, however, it is understood as a method of transmission of the Holy Spirit (i.e., from the Father through the Son) then it is perfectly acceptable and, in fact, Scriptural. Yet it is the very imprecision that is found in this addition that leads the East to not use it. Does this mean that the East denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit? Of course not! But the particular expression of the Holy Spirit as found in the filioque depends entirely upon an understanding of Latin theology.

The same can be said for the Immaculate Conception. As the original query of the Holy Father to the bishops asked, is it the opinion of the church that Mary was always sinless, from the moment of her conception? If that is the case, then this is precisely how the East understands it. But if we depend on the Latin understanding of Original Sin, then it is not because the East and the West have a different understanding of this issue. The West follows the teaching of Augustine while the East does not. Yet the East doesn’t deny the reality of Original Sin. Again, a Latin formulation following the teaching of a Latin Father.

Each and every point of “disagreement” can be narrowed down to an understanding of semantics – how the East expresses something as opposed to how the West expresses the same teaching. We arrive at the same point, but use different methods. And because this is true, the difference in how the teaching is formulated is important.

Your statement is equivalent to this: if we are all Catholic, why not be Latin Rite Catholics?

Deacon Ed

A quibble - St Augustine is a Father of the entire Church - not just the west. The same Spirit infused the western fathers as the eastern fathers. By the same token, his writings all in Latin - and NOT Greek - have not been a mainstay for the Eastern Church. The very differences in language affected both sides when reading each other .

Nonetheless, a great post. One way that might help understanding what’s going on, re: East v. West, is perhaps to think of the distinctions as similar (clearly not exactly the same) to the situation where two people are trying to describe a large object from different vantage points - each person can only see a part of the entirety. When considering the enormous ineffability of GOD - or even mysteries such as the sacraments, angels, original sin, etc. - we are limited in our understanding and ability to grasp the totality of what is there. Yet, we do see and understand parts. At the same time differences of language, philosophy, environment, etc., all affect how we express what we understand about even that small part we grasp. This is not to say that errors don’t and can’t occur. Rather, these “differences” are often really complementary - or supplementary - ways of capturing more of revelation. Too often, what some people say are contradictory really are not so at all. To use a math term, they are skew rather than intersecting. Plus when you add history, politics, pride and sin to the mix, it’s easy to see how we drift apart over things that maybe are not antagonistic, but simply appear so.

The “2 lungs” metaphor tries to capture the essence that the east and west are One Church breathing the same air (Revelation), yet processing it in different lobes (language, environment and philosophy) for the health of the Body (the Church).

 

[anthony022071]

[Deacon Ed]

The same can be said for the Immaculate Conception. As the original query of the Holy Father to the bishops asked, is it the opinion of the church that Mary was always sinless, from the moment of her conception? If that is the case, then this is precisely how the East understands it.

There’s no other way to understand it.

But if we depend on the Latin understanding of Original Sin, then it is not because the East and the West have a different understanding of this issue. The West follows the teaching of Augustine while the East does not. Yet the East doesn’t deny the reality of Original Sin. Again, a Latin formulation following the teaching of a Latin Father.

Augustine’s understanding of original sin is the same as that of the Eastern Church Fathers.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num54.htm#FATHERS

Augustine was reknowned throught the Church for upholding the doctrine of original sin against Pelagianism,not only in the West but also in the East,where Pelagianism was most widespread. The Eastern clegy did not object to Augustine’s understanding of original sin,and they could not have been unaware of it.

Each and every point of “disagreement” can be narrowed down to an understanding of semantics – how the East expresses something as opposed to how the West expresses the same teaching. We arrive at the same point, but use different methods. And because this is true, the difference in how the teaching is formulated is important.

If it was only a matter of semantics,then the Eastern Catholics should not have a problem with the way that Rome expresses the doctrines. What is the point in having councils define doctrines except that there will be definitive expressions of doctrine that the whole Church must assent to?

Your statement is equivalent to this: if we are all Catholic, why not be Latin Rite Catholics?

No,I’m not talking about rites.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

A quibble - St Augustine is a Father of the entire Church - not just the west. The same Spirit infused the western fathers as the eastern fathers. By the same token, his writings all in Latin - and NOT Greek - have not been a mainstay for the Eastern Church. The very differences in language affected both sides when reading each other .

While it is certainly true that Augustine is a “Church Father” it is equally true that one of the ways of categorizing the Fathers is as “Greek Fathers” and “Latin Fathers” – a reference primarily to the language in which they worked, but also in reference to their underlying theology. In that context, Augustine is considered one of the Latin Fathers.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Augustine’s understanding of original sin is the same as that of the Eastern Church Fathers.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num54.htm#FATHERS

Augustine was reknowned throught the Church for upholding the doctrine of original sin against Pelagianism,not only in the West but also in the East,where Pelagianism was most widespread. The Eastern clegy did not object to Augustine’s understanding of original sin,and they could not have been unaware of it.

There are differences between Augustine’s theology of Original Sin and the Eastern tradition.

In his Enchiridion Augustine writes

Whilst some of the angels, then, in their pride and impiety rebelled against God, and were cast down from their heavenly abode into the lowest darkness, the remaining number dwelt with God in eternal and unchanging purity and happiness. For all were not sprung from one angel who had fallen and been condemned, so that they were not all, like men, involved by one original sin in the bonds of an inherited guilt, and so made subject to the penalty which one had incurred; but when he, who afterwards became the devil, was with his associates in crime exalted in pride, and by that very exaltation was with them cast down, the rest remained steadfast in piety and obedience to their Lord, and obtained, what before they had not enjoyed, a sure and certain knowledge of their eternal safety, and freedom from the possibility of falling.

Note that he refers to men as having “inherited guilt” – a concept that is not found in the Greek Fathers. For the East, Original Sin does cause a loss of Original Justice, does distort the image of God in which we are all created and does bring about death (the penalty of Original Sin). But for the East this is not something that each person inherits but, rather, the condition of the world into which we are born and, as a consequence, will die.

Because of this, the concept of being “conceived without Original Sin” is foreign to the East – we are all in that state. The Eastern viewpoint of Mary is that she was perpetually without sin. She still died (note that the Pope did not say she did not die, nor did he say she did die – just that her time on earth had ended). This is why the East celebrates the Dormition of Mary while the West celebrates the Assumption of Mary. Same feast, different focus.

If it was only a matter of semantics,then the Eastern Catholics should not have a problem with the way that Rome expresses the doctrines. What is the point in having councils define doctrines except that there will be definitive expressions of doctrine that the whole Church must assent to?

But why do you insist that we must use the Latin formulation of these statements? The Church herself does not make that a requirement, why do you?

Deacon Ed

 

[johnnykins]

While it is certainly true that Augustine is a “Church Father” it is equally true that one of the ways of categorizing the Fathers is as “Greek Fathers” and “Latin Fathers” – a reference primarily to the language in which they worked, but also in reference to their underlying theology. In that context, Augustine is considered one of the Latin Fathers.

Deacon Ed

Agreed - it was, as I said, a quibble

 

[anthony022071]

[Deacon Ed]

There are differences between Augustine’s theology of Original Sin and the Eastern tradition.

In his Enchiridion Augustine writesNote that he refers to men as having “inherited guilt” – a concept that is not found in the Greek Fathers. For the East, Original Sin does cause a loss of Original Justice, does distort the image of God in which we are all created and does bring about death (the penalty of Original Sin). But for the East this is not something that each person inherits but, rather, the condition of the world into which we are born and, as a consequence, will die.

Augustine did not mean that we inherit the personal guilt of Adam’s sin,but guilt in the sense of the effects of his sin –
a fallen nature that inclines toward evil (a “stained” or “tainted” nature) and mortality. Anyway,Roman doctrine does not even explain original sin as inherited guilt,so Easterners who act as if that is what Rome teaches don’t know what they are talking about. Augustine is not the magisterium of the Western Church. He,and other great Church Fathers,should be read in light of Roman doctrines.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num54.htm#FATHERS
< John Chrysostom:

You see how many are the benefits of Baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated ten honors. For this reason we baptize even infants, THOUGH THEY ARE NOT DEFILED BY SIN [or though they do not HAVE PERSONAL SINS]: so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his members. (Baptismal Catechesis cited by St. Augustine in Contra Julian 1:6)

On this passage, St. Augustine remarks in Contra Julian 1:6:22 after quoting the above line in Greek:

“You see that he (John Chrysostom) certainly did not say, ‘Infants are not defiled by sin,’ or ‘sins,’ but, ‘NOT HAVING SINS.’ Understand ‘of their own,’ and there is no difficulty. ‘But,’ you will say, ‘why did he not add “of their own” himself?’ Why else, I suppose, if not that he was speaking in a Catholic church and never supposed he would be understood in any other way, when no one had raised such a question, and he could speak more unconcernedly when you were not there to dispute the point?”

Further, Jurgens comments that Julian of Eclanum had appealed to Chrysostom in support of Pelagianism by quoting the line above from -Ad neophytos- “We baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by sin” and he took this as a denial of original sin. However, Augustine had not just the Latin but the original GREEK of the same text which reads: “We baptize even infants, though they do not HAVE SINS.” Augustine insists that the plural SINS makes it clear that Chrysostom was speaking of personal sins. Augustine further exonerates Chrysostom and deprives Julian of his source by quoting numerous other passages of Chrysostom.>

The idea of inherited guilt,or inherited sin,was not unknown in the East.

ST. EPHRAIM OF SYRIA (c. 306 - 373 AD)
Adam sinned and EARNED ALL SORROWS, AND THE WORLD, FOLLOWING HIS LEAD, ALL GUILT. And it took no thought of how it might be restored, but only of how its fall might be made more pleasant for it. Glory to Him that came and restored it! (Hymns of the Epiphany 10:1)

DIDYMUS THE BLIND (c. 313 - 398 AD)
If Christ had received His body from a marital union and not in another way it would be supposed that he too is liable to an accounting for that SIN, WHICH, INDEED, ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ADAM CONTRACT IN SUCCESSION. [See Jurgens comment on this passage, vol 2, pg 64] (Against the Manicheans 8)

Athanasius:
When Adam transgressed, SIN reached out TO ALL MEN. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51)

Gregory of Nyssa:
“Evil was mixed with our nature from the beginning…through those who by their disobedience introduced the disease. Just as in the natural propagation of the species each animal engenders its like, so man is born from man, a being subject to passions from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes its rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keeps us company till life’s term.” The Beatitudes, 6 (ante A.D. 394).

 

[anthony022071]

Because of this, the concept of being “conceived without Original Sin” is foreign to the East

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

– we are all in that state.

What state do you mean?

 

[anthony022071]

The Eastern viewpoint of Mary is that she was perpetually without sin. She still died (note that the Pope did not say she did not die, nor did he say she did die – just that her time on earth had ended). This is why the East celebrates the Dormition of Mary while the West celebrates the Assumption of Mary. Same feast, different focus.

The East also celebrated the Assumption.

Modestus of Jerusalem:
“…as Mother all-glorious of the Giver of life and of immortality, Christ our Saviour and God, she was given life by Him, concorporate with Him in incorruption for eternity, with Him who raised her from the tomb and took her to Himself, in the way that He alone knows…”

“Christ, God, who took…flesh from her who was ever virgin, summoned her and clothed her in the incorruption of His own body [in concorporate incorruption], and glorified her with incomparable glory, so as to be His heir, she who was His all-holy Mother, in harmony with the Psalmist’s song: ‘At your right hand stands the queen in a vesture of gold, all hung about with embroidery’ (Psalm 44:10).”

Theoteknos of Livias:
“It was fitting …that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory …should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century):
“God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.”

John Damascene:
“Your stainless and wholly immaculate body has not been left on earth; the Queen, the Mistress, the Mother of God who has truly given birth to God has been translated to the royal palaces of heaven.” (First Homily on the Assumption)

But why do you insist that we must use the Latin formulation of these statements? The Church herself does not make that a requirement, why do you?

The Church requires that its teachings be assented to by all Catholics. What other definitions of original sin,the filioque,the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are there besides those of the Church of Rome? A defined doctrine is a definitive expression or formulation of a belief. If Greek Catholics have a problem with Roman expressions or formulations,then they don’t understand the main purpose of communion with Rome. It isn’t just an ecumenical or political arrangement. The Church of Rome is the teacher of the whole Church,and its doctrines are binding on all Catholics.

See post 477.