Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

manualman

Guest
I understand that our Eastern brethren have their own theological traditions. Thus, they don’t always express theological teachings the same as latin folks do.

But what about defined doctrine? It is one thing to not use Scholaticism as a method for pondering revealed truth and extrapolating from it, but seems quite another thing to have differing dogmas.

Do the Eastern rites accept the authority of, say, the Immaculate Conception which is dogmatically defined, but springs from Latin theological reasoning about Original Sin? I know the EO have major problems with the IC, but do the Eastern Rites?
 
In many respects we do have a different way of looking at things.

We are just not so ‘legal’ minded.

We ‘know’ things , they don’t have to be spelled out to us in chapter and verse.
 
I posed a few of these questions to a Melkite priest at the parish I visit, via email.

HIs response on the IC was as follows:

As regards the Immaculate Conception:
The Eastern Churches certainly accept and believe in this dogma since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The purity and undefilement of the Mother of God was taught in the Early Church. She, the Theotokos, has always been believed to be singularly preserved from any defilement caused by sin: Original/Personal, since she was chosen to be the God-bearer, through whom Christ God took flesh. The Orthodox opposition to the terminology of “Immaculate Conception” seems more political to me than essentially theological. On December 9th, the Melkite Church celebrates this truly magnificent event with the Feast of the Maternity of St. Anne. In our Divine Liturgy we always hail the Mother of God in the following words:
“Let us remember our all holy, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary…”
 
jam070406 said:
I posed a few of these questions to a Melkite priest at the parish I visit, via email.

HIs response on the IC was as follows:

As regards the Immaculate Conception:
The Eastern Churches certainly accept and believe in this dogma since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The purity and undefilement of the Mother of God was taught in the Early Church. She, the Theotokos, has always been believed to be singularly preserved from any defilement caused by sin: Original/Personal, since she was chosen to be the God-bearer, through whom Christ God took flesh. The Orthodox opposition to the terminology of “Immaculate Conception” seems more political to me than essentially theological. On December 9th, the Melkite Church celebrates this truly magnificent event with the Feast of the Maternity of St. Anne. In our Divine Liturgy we always hail the Mother of God in the following words:
“Let us remember our all holy, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary…”
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the Melkite priest gave you the correct answer.
 
manualman said:
I understand that our Eastern brethren have their own theological traditions. Thus, they don’t always express theological teachings the same as latin folks do.

But what about defined doctrine? It is one thing to not use Scholaticism as a method for pondering revealed truth and extrapolating from it, but seems quite another thing to have differing dogmas.

Do the Eastern rites accept the authority of, say, the Immaculate Conception which is dogmatically defined, but springs from Latin theological reasoning about Original Sin? I know the EO have major problems with the IC, but do the Eastern Rites?
Click to expand...
Many eastern Catholics have problems with the Immaculate Conception for the same reasons Eastern Orthodox do. It is a development of latin theology and has no meaning within eastern theology. They would say that the inherited aspect of Original Sin is death and corruption and so if they were forced to answer the question of whether Mary was born with Original Sin they would say yes, she was born with Original Sin. She was subject to death.

Whether she committed any sins within her life is a different question.
 
jam070406 said:
I posed a few of these questions to a Melkite priest at the parish I visit, via email.

HIs response on the IC was as follows:

As regards the Immaculate Conception:
The Eastern Churches certainly accept and believe in this dogma since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The purity and undefilement of the Mother of God was taught in the Early Church. She, the Theotokos, has always been believed to be singularly preserved from any defilement caused by sin: Original/Personal, since she was chosen to be the God-bearer, through whom Christ God took flesh. The Orthodox opposition to the terminology of “Immaculate Conception” seems more political to me than essentially theological. On December 9th, the Melkite Church celebrates this truly magnificent event with the Feast of the Maternity of St. Anne. In our Divine Liturgy we always hail the Mother of God in the following words:
“Let us remember our all holy, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary…”
Click to expand...
I have a Melkite friend who might say otherwise. His response would be basically what I said in my last post. The problem is the understanding of Original SIn. They would not say she was born without Original Sin because Original Sin is simply death and Mary died. I have heard a Byzantine(Ruthenian) bishop(Bishop Samra) say basically the same thing that my Melkite friend says.

The feast celibrated on December 9th doesn’r really have the same emphasis the Latin feast on the 8th has. It is simply a commemoration of Mary’s conception. It is not to say that she was concieved without Original Sin.
 
manualman said:
Do the Eastern rites accept the authority of, say, the Immaculate Conception which is dogmatically defined, but springs from Latin theological reasoning about Original Sin? I know the EO have major problems with the IC, but do the Eastern Rites?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
jimmy said:
Many Melkite theologians and bishops might say otherwise.
Click to expand...
The reason why I think that the Melkite priest gave the correct answer is contained right at the beginning of his statement:

“The Eastern Churches certainly accept and believe in this dogma since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.”
 
I wish people would not say “Eastern Rites” when they mean “Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.”
 
SiempreFiel said:
The reason why I think that the Melkite priest gave the correct answer is contained right at the beginning of his statement:

“The Eastern Churches certainly accept and believe in this dogma since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.”
Click to expand...
We might accept that it is vaid within Latin theology but we will not insert it into our theology or teaching. It is contradictory to what we teach.
I wish people would not say “Eastern Rites” when they mean “Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.”
Click to expand...
Haha, I noticed that as well. We are particular churches of the east. We are not simply rites.
 
jimmy said:
We might accept that it is vaid within Latin theology but we will not insert it into our theology or teaching. It is contradictory to what we teach.

Haha, I noticed that as well. We are particular churches of the east. We are not simply rites.
Click to expand...
Would it be correct to say “Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite”?
 
jimmy said:
We might accept that it is vaid within Latin theology but we will not insert it into our theology or teaching. It is contradictory to what we teach.
Click to expand...
So how is it possible to proclaim one Faith when there are contradictory teachings between our churches?
 
wannabee said:
In many respects we do have a different way of looking at things.

We are just not so ‘legal’ minded.

We ‘know’ things , they don’t have to be spelled out to us in chapter and verse.
Click to expand...
This is well put. the East and West really do share the same substance of faith, even if the East tends not spell things out. I usually think of the west as appreciating the divine order of God’s revelation, while the East tends to appreciate the mystery God. We certainly can enrich eachother’s faith by sharing our theological traditions with one another.
 
East_and_West said:
This is well put. the East and West really do share the same substance of faith, even if the East tends not spell things out. I usually think of the west as appreciating the divine order of God’s revelation, while the East tends to appreciate the mystery God. We certainly can enrich eachother’s faith by sharing our theological traditions with one another.
Click to expand...
Glory to God!!!

:amen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top