Eastern Catholics, Western Catholics, Original Sin, and the Immaculate Conception

[Evan]

People have been posting here about those who do not ‘Merit hell’.

We all ‘merit hell’ in a certain sense that God does not owe us heaven and we can never ‘merit heaven’. We cannot earn our way to heaven, and if not heaven, ‘hell’ is the only other option. SO by not ‘meriting heaven’ we are sent to hell.

Through baptism we are given the gift of heaven. (if we do not lose it) so what happens to those who have not been given that gift?

The unborn have NEVER made a bad choice so should not be punished for their actions; they have NEVER made a good choice and so should not be rewarded for their actions. Since we deny ‘universalism’: all go to heaven; how does God choose? The example was the ‘Sheep and Goats’ parable: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, … But what of those who never chose to do that? The evil, the unborn, the mentally incompetent, infants?

That’s what God is for. He gets to chose what to do and we know he is Infinitely Just and Merciful. So Limbo is a hypothesis. a place where neither infinite reward or punishment is given.

Off the topic of original sin, but, in our original innocence, before the fall, what would be our final state? Heaven or paradise or eden or are they all the same?

 

[jimmy]

People have been posting here about those who do not ‘Merit hell’.

We all ‘merit hell’ in a certain sense that God does not owe us heaven and we can never ‘merit heaven’. We cannot earn our way to heaven, and if not heaven, ‘hell’ is the only other option. SO by not ‘meriting heaven’ we are sent to hell.

Through baptism we are given the gift of heaven. (if we do not lose it) so what happens to those who have not been given that gift?

The unborn have NEVER made a bad choice so should not be punished for their actions; they have NEVER made a good choice and so should not be rewarded for their actions. Since we deny ‘universalism’: all go to heaven; how does God choose? The example was the ‘Sheep and Goats’ parable: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, … But what of those who never chose to do that? The evil, the unborn, the mentally incompetent, infants?

That’s what God is for. He gets to chose what to do and we know he is Infinitely Just and Merciful. So Limbo is a hypothesis. a place where neither infinite reward or punishment is given.

Off the topic of original sin, but, in our original innocence, before the fall, what would be our final state? Heaven or paradise or eden or are they all the same?

What does merit have to do with it? No one is saying that we can merit salvation. What the Byzantines and all the east say is that Original Sin does not condemn one to hell. The prophets of the OT were in Sheol, a holding place that was neither heaven nor hell until Christ came. They did not go to hell because of Original Sin. If OS does not condemn us to hell then obviously Heaven is a possibility for the infant.

No, the Church does not deny universalism. What it denies is the concept of the apocatastasis as Origen formulated it. It does not say that anyone is in hell. Every single person could possibly reach heaven. And we must hope for the salvation of all.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What does merit have to do with it? No one is saying that we can merit salvation. What the Byzantines and all the east say is that Original Sin does not condemn one to hell. The prophets of the OT were in Sheol, a holding place that was neither heaven nor hell until Christ came. They did not go to hell because of Original Sin. If OS does not condemn us to hell then obviously Heaven is a possibility for the infant.

**What understanding of OS can be compatible with admitting the reality of it, without requiring the conclusion that OS alienates us from God ? If we are implicated in the fall of our father, how are we not “in Adam” in a way that makes us as fallen & as subject to God’s Wrath as he became ? If such an understanding *is *possible, it would be an education to read it. **​

**To have a fall that does not lead to our being ****alienated from God makes no more sense than to say a man can fall without his body being fallen: for Adam is the head of the human race in sin, whose sin has involved us in his sinfulness - which is why we need a Saviour to begin with That his sin was committed in person by him & not by us in person does not mean at all that his sinfulness has not polluted his descendants: it has, & it comes down to them in course of time by propagation & not by imitation. This is not unusual, for if a woman takes drugs when pregnant, the baby she bears is likely to be wounded for an act not personal to it. The entire man falls, not aspects or faculties or parts of him, so all that he is & that is in him falls in his fall - just as the entire man is redeemed, or damned. An incomplete Fall implies an incomplete Saviour & an incomplete salvation **

**If & as OS has these evil effects, it exposes us to damnation unless Someone arrests ****the ****consequences which are proper to sin (the whole tendency is to damn the sinner) without someone to get in the way of that tendency - IOW, without a Mediator- damnation is certain. ****OS damns ****unless ****grace comes to help: & Jesus Christ is the Grace of God in the flesh. **

**It is one thing to say a doctrine has been incompletely articulated or incompletely seen; quite another, to say it is not true so far as goes; & another to say it is, in the way or ways articulated, a mixture of true & false. **

No, the Church does not deny universalism. What it denies is the concept of the apocatastasis as Origen formulated it. It does not say that anyone is in hell. Every single person could possibly reach heaven. And we must hope for the salvation of all.

 

[Evan]

What does merit have to do with it? No one is saying that we can merit salvation. What the Byzantines and all the east say is that Original Sin does not condemn one to hell. The prophets of the OT were in Sheol, a holding place that was neither heaven nor hell until Christ came. They did not go to hell because of Original Sin. If OS does not condemn us to hell then obviously Heaven is a possibility for the infant.

No, the Church does not deny universalism. What it denies is the concept of the apocatastasis as Origen formulated it. It does not say that anyone is in hell. Every single person could possibly reach heaven. And we must hope for the salvation of all.

I agree. I was trying to say, the word ‘merit’ does not belong in the discussion. We do not merit hell any more than we merit heaven. One is a gift, the other a ??? (consequence, justice, ???). OS does not condemn us to hell neither does it imply heaven. It leaves the question open.

The Church does deny universalism as it is taught by some: that we all go to heaven, regardless of our actions, intentions, and repentence. We could all end in heaven, but the Church leaves open the possiblity of another ultimate fate.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I agree. I was trying to say, the word ‘merit’ does not belong in the discussion. We do not merit hell any more than we merit heaven. One is a gift, the other a ??? (consequence, justice, ???). OS does not condemn us to hell neither does it imply heaven. It leaves the question open.

The Church does deny universalism as it is taught by some: that we all go to heaven, regardless of our actions, intentions, and repentence. We could all end in heaven, but the Church leaves open the possiblity of another ultimate fate.

Since the thread is about comparing Eastern to Western belief, I don’t feel bad in bringing up that the Council of Trent affirms that we merit our final end. We cannot merit our first grace, but once God has gifted us with grace we can, because by grace the Holy Spirit operates within us, merit eternal life. The unjust actually merit hell, in a sense, more than the just merit heaven because we are capable of meriting hell solely by our own power, whereas it takes the free gift of grace to merit eternal life.

 

[Ghosty]

Catholics have come to that same conclusion though as the council of Florence mentions.

The Council of Florence simply says that Original Sin alone leads to Hell; it doesn’t speak of whether or not God’s Mercy is extended to infants who have not been Baptized.

Peace and God bless!

 

[peso73]

I think the concept of one being sent to Hell for being born Human without being baptised, whether in the womb or fresh out, or even years out, is based on a concept of God that no one would love, only fear. There is no justice in that, and it is one thing I have always hated about Christianity, it’s as if, God sends you here, all souls are created by God of course, and in a state deserving damnation? What’s that about?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I believe there was a teaching on limbo. But apparently this has been recently retracted.

This comment from you is a lot like me and chocolate cake - if it is in my house (I try to avoid it being in my house) I simply cannot resist it. This delicate - and very controversial/largely inaccurately reported matter should be worth more in matters of discussion than some flippant comment to the effect of “gee, you used to teach it but guess you don’t (shrug)”

Are you familiar with the actual nature of the teaching on Limbo or who or what body actually addressed it in the last few years?

Let’s be better than to jump on mainstream-media misreporting for opportunities of controversialism and polemic.

 

[peso73]

Isn’t it that limbo is/was supposed to be a “place/state” of complete “natural” happiness, but neither heaven, nor hell, nor purgatory, that the souls of the unbaptized infants and such went to? I thought the deal was, it was “taught by the church” in a small “t” sort of way for quite a while, but never a dogma, or a doctrine as such, never a church “Teaching”. Is that not the case?
Of course, I did have my son baptised as soon as I could after he was born, but if he’d have died or something, I am pretty sure a Divine Master of all creation that is Love itself, who 9 months or so earlier had zapped his little soul into existance, would have drawn it back to Himself with no delay or detour, but then again,…do newborns feel “happiness” or “sadness” as such?
Of course they feel pain, and their little brains are doing and intaking all sorts of things I am sure but… (… ,looks like I’d better start a new thread!)

 

[LakaYaRabb]

According to my understanding, the Western Catholic view of original sin is that each of us is conceived in a state already meriting Hell, even before we commit any personal sins or do anything at all of our own will. Mary, by the grace of God, was conceived in a state free from original sin, and thus did not merit eternal damnation while still in the womb.

The Eastern Orthodox view, as I understand it, is that each of us inherits death and the tendency to sin from Adam, but we have nothing (or lack nothing) in our souls which would put us in the “this guy’s going to Hell if he dies right now” column. As such, Orthodox have no need to believe Mary was conceived in a different state from any other person.

I believe the previous paragraph is a fairly accurate portrayal of the Orthodox view. I may have to go to a different forum and ask some Orthodox Christians to verify this for me.

So, do Eastern Catholics hold to the Western Catholic understanding of original sin, the Eastern Orthodox understanding of original sin, or some understanding of their own?

Eastern Catholics all come from the Eastern Orthodox in one fashion or another. Their tradition, spirituality and theology is Orthodox. Because of Latinizations, many have become confused and adopted Western ideas. After Vatican II, a unified front to recover the authentic traditions as repudiate latinizations really took hold. Sadly, this has lost alot of steam. However, many notable figures left us alot of good writing and inspiration to keep the movement for the full restoration of authentic traditions (and one day reunification of East and West).

In the mean time, some Eastern Catholics with latinized ideas and Eastern Orthodox dead set against reunification continue to be gigantic obstable to the authentic live of the Eastern Catholic Church.

The short answer to your question is that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in theology. If not, they are latinized.

Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception and other such expressedly Western ideas DO NOT fit into Eastern Theology. But, thier is essentials at the core of these things that are indeed universal and acceptable in the East and West.

Personally, I see a very clear contradiction between the Western Catholic and Orthodox views; it’s not simply a matter of different expressions of the same truth.

The term “different expression” has virtually no meaning in Western Theology.

I have truly no desire whatsoever to bash Eastern Catholics. They get enough of that from some Eastern Orthodox and some Latin Catholics as it is. However, I see the possibility that Eastern Catholics hold something as true that Western Catholics hold to be not true. Very confusing.

Ironic, many Western Catholics are so confused that they don’t even know what they hold.

I have been studying Catholicism and Orthodoxy for some time now, and there is much I admire about both. Others have suggested that Eastern Catholicism would be a way to have the best of both. However, these apparent contradictions are troubling. Of course, if there are contradictions in matters of dogma between Eastern and Western Catholicism, then Western Catholicism is just as suspect. I’m certainly not going to automatically assume the West is right in all disputes.

I thank everyone in advance for any information. God bless!

I agree. Perhaps you might be a little more specific about the apparent contridictions.

 

[Ghosty]

I hate doing this, but…

Eastern Catholics all come from the Eastern Orthodox in one fashion or another.

Except for Maronites, Copts, Syriacs, Indians, Armenians, Assyrians…

Sadly, this has lost alot of steam. However, many notable figures left us alot of good writing and inspiration to keep the movement for the full restoration of authentic traditions (and one day reunification of East and West).

I don’t know if this is true, I don’t know if it is false. I do think there has has been a “reaction against the reaction”, a movement to maintain the Catholic identity of Eastern Catholic Churches in the wake of the movement and call of the Catholic Church to renew the Orthodox understanding.

This movement might be seen as a Latin influence, but I think it is more likely a Catholic response to a provincial attitude, just as the resistance to Latinization was a generation ago. We can’t look at the Eastern Orthodox uncritically any more than we can look at the Catholic Communion uncritically.

Eastern Catholics, whatever our tradition, definitely have our own approach and language. We don’t owe the Latins anything in our Catholicity and Aposolicity. The other side of this fact is that we don’t owe the current Eastern Orthodox, or other current Orthodox, much either. What I mean by that is that we shouldn’t view the current manifestation of the Eastern Orthodox Communion as the “authentic heritage” of our Churches; the Patriarch of Antioch and his Synod certainly didn’t accept what would become of the Antiochian Church for two hundred years in the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Likewise, we shouldn’t view the Latin Church as the sole arbitrator of theological language for the Catholic Communion. If the Latin Church is going to cite Eastern Fathers, they should know the Eastern Fathers.

The short answer to your question is that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in theology. If not, they are latinized.

Or they represent a lived experience of Communion between East and West for the last half-millenia. As Catholics we can’t simply take the refusal or rejection of dialogue and mutual change as defining what it means to be Apostolic, or Catholic, or Orthodox.

I would respond that if the Eastern Catholics are identical to Eastern Orthodox, then we are failing the unity of the Church. If we aren’t agitators to both sides, then we are failing Christ.

Ironic, many Western Catholics are so confused that they don’t even know what they hold.

Or they simply go to the Liturgy and recieve Christ every week, as their predecessors did, and as we have been called to do. If someone comes here and judges the Churches that are part of Christ, that is on them and not us. All we should do is be Faithful, and keep our promises, and keep the Commandments.

Peace and God bless!

P.S. This post has been overly hostile, but I hope it’s understood as a means for dialogue, and not as a personal attack. I don’t intend any disrespect to LakaYaRab, and I’m raising these questions only because they are directly pertainant to Eastern Catholics.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Except for Maronites, Copts, Syriacs, Indians, Armenians, Assyrians…

The Maronites are the Antiochian Christians that fled to the isolated mountains of Lebanon. Sadly, they fled due to thier ascription to the monothelite heresy. The Maronite fantasy of “always in Communion with Rome” is overexaggerated, not to mention a fine piece of histo-theological revisionism.

As an aside, I have the utmost respect for the authentic and unique spirituality and traditions of the Maronites.

The Coptic Catholic Church came from the Coptic Orthodox Church.

The Syriac Catholics came from the Syriac Orthodox.

Indians? Umm…The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara BOTH come from those Orthodox of the the Indian Christian tradition evangelized by Roman Catholics.

To my knowledge, their is no Assyrian Catholic Church. The Chaldeans however, are to members of the Church of the East who came into Communion with Rome. While the term “Orthodox” does not apply here, the idea of a Apostolic Christian Church certainly does. This is typically what people mean by “Orthodox”.

The Armenian Catholic Church comes from the Armenian Apostolic Church. Again, not “Orthodox”, but certainly the idea of “Apostolic Christian Church” seems to be an acceptable correlation to “Orthodox” when speaking in such a mundane arena (an internet forum).

I don’t know if this is true, I don’t know if it is false. I do think there has has been a “reaction against the reaction”, a movement to maintain the Catholic identity of Eastern Catholic Churches in the wake of the movement and call of the Catholic Church to renew the Orthodox understanding.

Catholic identity? Umm…Truth IS universal. Each Catholic Church in the Catholic Communion holds the fullness of the faith. The Catholic Church is not the Roman Church. Those who want to “maintain the Eastern Catholic identity” fail to realize this. Orthodox understanding is Catholic understanding. That is what Eastern Catholicism has to offer. If not, then that is the real failure.

This movement might be seen as a Latin influence, but I think it is more likely a Catholic response to a provincial attitude, just as the resistance to Latinization was a generation ago. We can’t look at the Eastern Orthodox uncritically any more than we can look at the Catholic Communion uncritically.

Catholic response to a provincial attitude?
Catholicism is not the Roman provinical attitude. The sooner this is realized, the sooner my last point can be implemented.

As for being critical, your last comment is a bunch of theological nonsense. Why? See my next comment.

Eastern Catholics, whatever our tradition, definitely have our own approach and language. We don’t owe the Latins anything in our Catholicity and Aposolicity. The other side of this fact is that we don’t owe the current Eastern Orthodox, or other current Orthodox, much either. What I mean by that is that we shouldn’t view the current manifestation of the Eastern Orthodox Communion as the “authentic heritage” of our Churches; the Patriarch of Antioch and his Synod certainly didn’t accept what would become of the Antiochian Church for two hundred years in the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Likewise, we shouldn’t view the Latin Church as the sole arbitrator of theological language for the Catholic Communion. If the Latin Church is going to cite Eastern Fathers, they should know the Eastern Fathers.

First of all, it’s East and West, not East/Catholic East and West. In fact, we owe everybody! We owe the Latins and the Orthodox. Not only that, but we all owe each other. The must stop being to critical about the Orthodox being Orthodox and the Latins being Latin. The true organic developments of both East and West cannot be undone. The task ahead is realizing the way in which both seperate developments can be once again in full ecclesial communion.

If the Eastern Catholics do not utilize current Orthodox thinking, we quickly become Roman Catholics with Icons. Holy Orthodoxy is our authentic tradition. The loss of communion is not heresy. Since Eastern Catholics are in Communion with Rome, there is nothing we would be able to take from Holy Orthodox that isn’t compatible with our current tradition.

The complexity of Holy Orthodox brings certain dynamics Eastern Catholics do not necessarily deal with; however, Communion with Rome creates a complexity that is non-existent in Holy Orthodoxy. It’s practical, not theological.

[cont’d]

---

 

[LakaYaRabb]

I would respond that if the Eastern Catholics are identical to Eastern Orthodox, then we are failing the unity of the Church. If we aren’t agitators to both sides, then we are failing Christ.

And I would respond that if Eastern Catholics are not identical to the Eastern Orthodox, we are failing the unity of the Church. Being an agitator is fine, but Unity is the Will of God. It’s God’s Will to put the “agitators” out of business by ending the Schism.
Ut Unum Sint and all that jazz.

Or they simply go to the Liturgy and recieve Christ every week, as their predecessors did, and as we have been called to do. If someone comes here and judges the Churches that are part of Christ, that is on them and not us. All we should do is be Faithful, and keep our promises, and keep the Commandments.

We are people of the promise, sure. Part of our promise is to grow dynamically in our relationship with Christ. Not to treat him like a faithful housewife that we count on for dinner, but never help with the dishes. Mindless faithful are not followers of Christ. As members of His Community, we should all make the effort to love and serve our brothers and sister. Those who are teachers, teach. Catechists catechise. It’s our duty as Christians to seek Him out. Otherwise, He will say “I never knew your name.” Since we are our brother’s keeper, we need to serve others by making them aware of the Faith. If they don’t see to thier part, it’s on them. But this is the furthest thing from “judging”.

I don’t think your being hostile, but if this is you hostile, your a pretty mild person.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Question, I have come to believe that Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven are not places, but all states of being in Hades/Sheol. Is this correct from both a Western and Eastern Catholic point of view?

 

[Ghosty]

LakaYaRab: My point is that those Churches are not from Eastern Orthodoxy, as you had claimed. They are from traditions quite distinct from Eastern Orthodoxy, and some of their histories have been characterized by much hostility between the Eastern Orthodox and their own (the Armenians are one example of this). Remember, the term “Melkite”, or “king’s men” was an insult levied against the people who went along with the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic Church (since it began when they were the same Communion), specifically against those who followed the Byzantine Empire and adopted its Liturgy and praxis.

So my point wasn’t that those Churches weren’t from any groups called “Orthodox”, but that they weren’t from the Eastern Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox and Ancient Churches of the East are a totally different thing from the Eastern Orthodox, with different traditions, practices, and cultures; Eastern Orthodoxy is only one very narrow classification, specifically the Communion of Churches that adopted/maintained the practices of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

Catholic identity? Umm…Truth IS universal. Each Catholic Church in the Catholic Communion holds the fullness of the faith. The Catholic Church is not the Roman Church. Those who want to “maintain the Eastern Catholic identity” fail to realize this. Orthodox understanding is Catholic understanding. That is what Eastern Catholicism has to offer. If not, then that is the real failure.

The core theology of Eastern Orthodoxy is most certainly Catholic, and you’ll find me as the first defender of it when it comes under attack. Just do a search for St Gregory Palamas and my posts defending his theology as fully Catholic.

What I’m referring to, and I apologize for not making it more clear, is the kind of polemics that often creep into modern Eastern Orthodox writings, even writings that ostensibly deal with purely Eastern Orthodox issues. For example, in Fr. Alexander Schmemman’s work “The Eucharist” he does a beautiful job explaining Byzantine Liturgical tradition and practice, as well as illustrating its developments over time. He continuously peppers this work, however, with erroneous attacks on “Western” beliefs and practice. They are erroneous because they don’t represent the actual traditions of the West, at least not Western Catholicism, but he states them as fact and then sets up the traditional Eastern beliefs (which happen to be identical in these cases with the real Latin ones, such as regarding the Eucharist itself) in opposition to these paper tigers.

When such valuable works on Eastern practices and theology (so valuable that they are used in educating Eastern Catholics on the Byzantine Liturgy) are interspersed with such poisonous and erroneous accusations against other Catholics, I think we must admit that we can’t simply accept everything coming out of Eastern Orthodoxy as “representative of the Catholic Faith”.

This is equally true of Latin works, such as the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, which put forth equally erroneous and poisonous views against Byzantine and other Eastern traditions. This is what I mean by having a “Catholic response to provincial attitudes”, namely that when we do learn from a source that is particular to a tradition that may have a history of attacking other traditions that we have in our Communion, we must read them as people who belong to a Catholic Communion, a Communion of Apostolic Churches that embraces, at least ostensibly, all Apostolic traditions. It has nothing to do with reading things with a Latin filter, or an Eastern filter, and everything to do with reading things with a discerning, Catholic mind. We must be careful not to swallow the poison along with the spiritual food that nourishes and renews our traditions.

Incidentally this same point should be applied to “Latin Traditionalism”, most of which is quite Holy, but which has also produced its own polemics and distortions in recent decades. In some places these even infect Eastern Catholic communities, where “disaffected Traditional Latins” sometimes seek refuge. In such cases it’s not uncommon to find a strong push towards Latinization.

…continued

 

[Ghosty]

If the Eastern Catholics do not utilize current Orthodox thinking, we quickly become Roman Catholics with Icons. Holy Orthodoxy is our authentic tradition.

These two sentences don’t necessarily fit together as easily as they first appear, and I certainly disagree with the first one for the reasons I pointed out above. Specifically there is much in modern Eastern Orthodoxy that is polemical and poisonous to being truly Catholic. A person who reads Fr. Romanides and takes his historical view as the gospel truth for an “Eastern perspective on history” is not going to be sitting well as a Catholic.

Another point to consider is that modern Eastern Orthodoxy has not stopped developing in its own ways, or dealing with its own issues, in the centuries since the various Eastern Catholic Churches came into Communion with Rome. The position of Constantinople and Moscow are not the same as they were then, and Churches have been subjugated, altered, renewed, ect. The core theology is mostly the same, but that isn’t the only thing that makes up Eastern Orthodoxy. This doesn’t mean that these things are invalid, but it does mean that the modern incarnation of Eastern Orthodoxy can’t be taken for granted as applying to corresponding Eastern Catholic Churches. For one example of this, ask a Ukrainian Catholic if the health of the Ukrainian Church is best served by being subject to Moscow.

It’s things like this that I’m referring to, not the shared theology and ancient traditions. It’s recognizing that the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have gone down some very different paths, with bad and good on both sides; to simply accept the “Eastern Orthodox model” uncritically is to throw out the good that the Eastern Catholic Churches have found, and swallow the bad that the Eastern Orthodox have found (though of course it would also mean receiving the good and losing the bad, but ideally we could get a good-good combination going ).

The complexity of Holy Orthodox brings certain dynamics Eastern Catholics do not necessarily deal with; however, Communion with Rome creates a complexity that is non-existent in Holy Orthodoxy. It’s practical, not theological.

I agree completely, and it’s the practical that I’m refering to for the most part (though I would include certain attitudes towards other traditions’ theological approaches as part of the practical, along with the structural issues).

This may be where our disconnect is occurring: it seemed that I was referring to theology when I was referring to the practical matters.

And I would respond that if Eastern Catholics are not identical to the Eastern Orthodox, we are failing the unity of the Church.

If you’re referring to theology, then I can almost certainly agree (I only leave wiggle room for potential theological approaches that may have crept in, or not, over recent decades that may not be healthy). By this I mean that true Eastern Orthodox theology is true Eastern Catholic theology, but at the same time we can’t conclude that just because the Eastern Orthodox do or say something that Eastern Catholics should too; there’s always potential for errors and distorted approaches, and it serves us well to be careful for the sake of preserving the authentic traditions. In saying this I’m referring to examples like that of Fr. Schmemman or Fr. Romanides above, and not to the more general theological traditions and such; just because an idea about Latin theology becomes popular in Eastern Orthodox theological discussions doesn’t mean it’s correct, and it certainly doesn’t mean it can simply be accepted by Eastern Catholics as “the true Eastern perspective”.

We are people of the promise, sure. Part of our promise is to grow dynamically in our relationship with Christ. Not to treat him like a faithful housewife that we count on for dinner, but never help with the dishes. Mindless faithful are not followers of Christ. As members of His Community, we should all make the effort to love and serve our brothers and sister. Those who are teachers, teach. Catechists catechise. It’s our duty as Christians to seek Him out. Otherwise, He will say “I never knew your name.” Since we are our brother’s keeper, we need to serve others by making them aware of the Faith. If they don’t see to thier part, it’s on them. But this is the furthest thing from “judging”.

I was simply pointing out that while the sword cuts both ways, so does the cushion. Many Eastern Catholics may indeed be confused, but they’re simply living the Faith to the best of their abilities and learning as they go, and likewise with most Latins. I’m sure that if we did a survey of all groups we’d find a lot of general confusion, but that is part of being a fallen race and a Redeemed people at the same time.

Basically I just wanted to end any possible “well, you guys are confused too!” stuff before it starts, and I didn’t do it too well.

I don’t think your being hostile, but if this is you hostile, your a pretty mild person.

I try not to be hostile in such conversations, but I never know how “direct and difficult” comes across in text format. Even in person it can be misconstrued, so I try to be mindful and issue warnings that I might sound worse than I am.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

These two sentences don’t necessarily fit together as easily as they first appear, and I certainly disagree with the first one for the reasons I pointed out above. Specifically there is much in modern Eastern Orthodoxy that is polemical and poisonous to being truly Catholic. A person who reads Fr. Romanides and takes his historical view as the gospel truth for an “Eastern perspective on history” is not going to be sitting well as a Catholic.

AMEN!

The discerning person will come to realize that not all of the materials printed in English and available even begin to represent the full array of “Eastern thought”. (“Eastern thought” in and of itself is a bit of a misnomer inasmuch as “thought” is singular!)

Simply going to texts printed by Orthodox publishers alone cannot be the litmus test. I have seen more than a few well meaning but misinformed Greek Catholics in an effort to “Byzantanize” latch on to the most virulent and polemic contradistinctive theologies and ideas. I am always left to wonder how they can feel so confident that some of these ideologies are representitive of a true Byzantine patrimony.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

For example, in Fr. Alexander Schmemman’s work “The Eucharist” he does a beautiful job explaining Byzantine Liturgical tradition and practice, as well as illustrating its developments over time. He continuously peppers this work, however, with erroneous attacks on “Western” beliefs and practice.

what is your opinion on his book on pascha/lent? they were reading it at our parish during lent but i feel that since he’s a protestant convert to orthodox christianity, he’s bound to be anti-catholic (or is he not a convert).

 

[ASimpleSinner]

what is your opinion on his book on pascha/lent? they were reading it at our parish during lent but i feel that since he’s a protestant convert to orthodox christianity, he’s bound to be anti-catholic (or is he not a convert).

His is not a convert - born and raised Orthodox.

And one of his favorite phrases seems to be “Unlike in the west…”

 

[Ghosty]

what is your opinion on his book on pascha/lent? they were reading it at our parish during lent but i feel that since he’s a protestant convert to orthodox christianity, he’s bound to be anti-catholic (or is he not a convert).

I haven’t read that work yet, though I look forward to doing so. As long as you discount the sentences immediately following “unlike the West”, his writings are excellent.

Now it’s not automatically bad to make such distinctions, and to illustrate the different approaches between different traditions; there are certainly plenty of differences to be noted between Byzantine and Latin traditions. I’m more concerned with the poor characterization with a polemical bent.

There’s a huge difference between “unlike the West, which tends to emphasize the Passion and the expiation of sins accomplished by Christ for our Redemption and Salvation, the Byzantine tradition focuses more on the Glorification events that show forth the effects of this Redemption and Salvation, including the Transfiguration and Resurrection” and “Unlike the West, which left aside the Apostolic tradition in favor of Scholasticism and began focusing on the gore of the Passion and Crucifixion, the East retains the original and more edifying focus on the Glory of God and our participation in Divinity, in such events as the Transfiguration and Resurrection”.

Neither of these quotes are from actual works by any author, by they represent, IMO, what you could easily encounter, and why we must be careful in our reading.

Peace and God bless!