Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[East_and_West]

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.

So then do you think the East and West profess different faiths? If that is true, then we can say we are in full communion all we want but it is a lie. I have my feet in both camps, East and West, and, as my Ruthenian pastor puts it, you can’t deny purgatory, the IC, Papal Infallibility, etc and still be Catholic. We simply cannot profess two different faiths, or we are really not members of the same body of Christ. Remember, the Immaculate Conception was defined infallibly, i.e. ex cathedra. If Latins profess this doctrine as infallible truth, then they are heretics. Do accuse the west of heresy?

 

[jimmy]

jimmy;2944015:

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.

So then do you think the East and West profess different faiths? If that is true, then we can say we are in full communion all we want but it is a lie. I have my feet in both camps, East and West, and, as my Ruthenian pastor puts it, you can’t deny purgatory, the IC, Papal Infallibility, etc and still be Catholic. We simply cannot profess two different faiths, or we are really not members of the same body of Christ. Remember, the Immaculate Conception was defined infallibly, i.e. ex cathedra. If Latins profess this doctrine as infallible truth, then they are heretics. Do accuse the west of heresy?

No I don’t accuse them of heresy. But at the same time I don’t incorporate any concept of the IC or purgatory into theology.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Either Mary truly was, by supernatural intervention, freed from Original Sin, or she was not. This is an objective question.

Either purgatory exists, or it does not. It is an objective question.

Rome has defined both as dogmatic. That means Rome believes them to be true. If Eastern Catholic Churches do not believe dogmas solemnly defined by the Church, then they are drawing from a different Deposit of Faith. This is objective- one cannot say they wholly agree with a professor who says 1+1=2 and then on one’s own proclaim 1+1=3

Like what an earlier poster said, it is impossible to be a Catholic and reject Rome’s teachings

 

[jimmy]

Either Mary truly was, by supernatural intervention, freed from Original Sin, or she was not. This is an objective question.

Either purgatory exists, or it does not. It is an objective question.

Rome has defined both as dogmatic. That means Rome believes them to be true. If Eastern Catholic Churches do not believe dogmas solemnly defined by the Church, then they are drawing from a different Deposit of Faith. This is objective- one cannot say they wholly agree with a professor who says 1+1=2 and then on one’s own proclaim 1+1=3

Like what an earlier poster said, it is impossible to be a Catholic and reject Rome’s teachings

If the Latin church thinks they are superior to both the Greek and Syriac fathers that they can contradict their theologies and tradition then the Latins are the ones who need to fix themselves because they need to realize that Latin theology is not superior to that of the Syriacs and Greeks. Neither of these two traditions professes the Augustinian view of OS. If Rome is going to take Augustines theology and develop and define it so that it contradicts Greek and Syriac patristics then Rome is wrong because they have rejected the tradition of the Church which is much bigger than St. Augustine. Patristics is not up for reinterpretation, it is what it is. Since we, Syrians and Greeks, have an apophatic theology that does not approach God with a speculative theology, it is consequently Romes job to make sure their theology does not develop in a way that we can not accomodate.

I just risked getting pounced by all the Latins on this forum.

 

[SiempreFiel]

If the Latin church thinks they are superior to both the Greek and Syriac fathers that they can contradict their theologies and tradition then the Latins are the ones who need to fix themselves because they need to realize that Latin theology is not superior to that of the Syriacs and Greeks. Neither of these two traditions professes the Augustinian view of OS. If Rome is going to take Augustines theology and develop and define it so that it contradicts Greek and Syriac patristics then Rome is wrong because they have rejected the tradition of the Church which is much bigger than St. Augustine. Patristics is not up for reinterpretation, it is what it is. Since we, Syrians and Greeks, have an apophatic theology that does not approach God with a speculative theology, it is consequently Romes job to make sure their theology does not develop in a way that we can not accomodate.

So in other words, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches do not profess one faith but two faiths?

 

[manualman]

It seems jimmy disagrees with some other of my eastern brethren. I find it hard to know who to believe.

And I meant no offense for the rites comment. I’m used to thinking there is only ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Is this not true? Not sure I get what the motivation is to be considered separate churches instead of separate rites within the ONE church??? Would someone educate me more on that?

 

[SiempreFiel]

And I meant no offense for the rites comment. I’m used to thinking there is only ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Is this not true? Not sure I get what the motivation is to be considered separate churches instead of separate rites within the ONE church??? Would someone educate me more on that?

Open up a new thread and ask the question.

 

[thedejongs]

Either Mary truly was, by supernatural intervention, freed from Original Sin, or she was not. This is an objective question.

Either purgatory exists, or it does not. It is an objective question.

JuanCarlos,
Thank you for pointing up something I have never understood. I have heard a ton of “wiggling” on the part of Eastern Catholics in these areas and can never get a truly “straight answer.” Basically, the wiggle here will be that the “Easterners” never define whether or not this is the case but are free to believe it. So, phrasing these items as “objective questions” may be walking yourself into more “wiggle.” In other words, they will never deny these things but will never come clean on whether they embrace them. Another “wiggle” I’ve often seen is a denial that the teachings of any ecumenical council are not binding on them if Eastern Catholics weren’t present during such council. So, let’s try this and put a finer point on your excellent question:

Rome has defined the following as dogmatic truths which must believed de fide by all Catholics of any stripe:

1. Mary truly was, by supernatural intervention, never at any point in her life subject to Original Sin.
2. Purgatory exists for the purpose of its inhabitants rendering satisfaction for sins to God the Father by suffering the temporal punishments that were not suffered during the terrestrial lives of the purgatorial inhabitants.

If Eastern Catholic Churches do not believe dogmas solemnly defined by the Church, then they are rejecting the Deposit of Faith and cannot be in communion with Rome.

This is objective- one cannot say they wholly agree with a professor who says 1+1=2 and then on one’s own proclaim 1+1=3

Like what an earlier poster said, it is impossible to be a Catholic and reject Rome’s teachings

Exactly. I have struggled with this for years, and no Eastern Catholic seems to be capable of giving me a real answer on this. They all seem to want to be in communion with the Pope but to avoid embracing the infallible teachings of the Universal Church. With this post, I’d sure appreciate it if anyone at all can offer me a satisfactory explanation.

 

[CatholicCid]

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.

Would this be because of it’s wording?
As in, We acknowledge that is correct and understand it through Latin theology, but taking it verbatum into the Eastern Heritage would cause it to become contradictory to our teaching.
Or is it just flat out rejected?

God Bless.

 

[jimmy]

So in other words, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches do not profess one faith but two faiths?

That is not what I said and I don’t think I would say that. But if Rome goes off track then it is their job to correct themselves. It is not our job to change our faith when we have remained what we always were. These dogmas are defined according to Latin theology. I do not deny them because I believe the essence of them(I believe Mary did not sin in any sense of the word). But the details of the proclamation seem problematic.

 

[jimmy]

It seems jimmy disagrees with some other of my eastern brethren. I find it hard to know who to believe.

And I meant no offense for the rites comment. I’m used to thinking there is only ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Is this not true? Not sure I get what the motivation is to be considered separate churches instead of separate rites within the ONE church??? Would someone educate me more on that?

I generally take the view that we Eastern Christians are to hold to our respective traditions as the VII council professes. Some easterners hold to a view that is basically Latin. And there are various degrees between these two extremes.

There are seperate autonomous heirarchies and traditions for each church although they are all in communion with Rome.

CatholicCid:

Would this be because of it’s wording?
As in, We acknowledge that is correct and understand it through Latin theology, but taking it verbatum into the Eastern Heritage would cause it to become contradictory to our teaching.
Or is it just flat out rejected?

I accept the essence of the proclamation of the IC(I can’t recall the title of the document) which is that Mary was sinless but when defined in the way it is within the Latin theology it becomes contradictory to us. Now maybe it can be pointed out that our language is not precise and we are explaining things that are too complex for the human mind. I can understand that and maybe it is true.

 

[JuanCarlos]

In Orthodoxy, what if the Western-Rite movement suddenly decided that they wanted to get more in touch with their western roots; and by this not so subtley teach that the Filioque is true, that Original Sin is real, and the Immaculate Conception really did occur? Why, they’d be kicked out! They’d never dream of being able to get away with that!

 

[jimmy]

JuanCarlos,
Thank you for pointing up something I have never understood. I have heard a ton of “wiggling” on the part of Eastern Catholics in these areas and can never get a truly “straight answer.” Basically, the wiggle here will be that the “Easterners” never define whether or not this is the case but are free to believe it. So, phrasing these items as “objective questions” may be walking yourself into more “wiggle.” In other words, they will never deny these things but will never come clean on whether they embrace them. Another “wiggle” I’ve often seen is a denial that the teachings of any ecumenical council are not binding on them if Eastern Catholics weren’t present during such council. So, let’s try this and put a finer point on your excellent question:

Rome has defined the following as dogmatic truths which must believed de fide by all Catholics of any stripe:

1. Mary truly was, by supernatural intervention, never at any point in her life subject to Original Sin.
   …

If Eastern Catholic Churches do not believe dogmas solemnly defined by the Church, then they are rejecting the Deposit of Faith and cannot be in communion with Rome.

Why did Mary die then if she was in no way subject to Original Sin? The feast that is the Assumption in the west is the Dormition in the east which means she died. Death, not an inherited guilt, is specifically the effect of Original Sin according to the Greek fathers.

Exactly. I have struggled with this for years, and no Eastern Catholic seems to be capable of giving me a real answer on this. They all seem to want to be in communion with the Pope but to avoid embracing the infallible teachings of the Universal Church. With this post, I’d sure appreciate it if anyone at all can offer me a satisfactory explanation.

I think Irenicist made a good point when he said on another thread, “You shouldn’t confuse the truth with the words and terminology used to communicate it. One is the content, the other is the vessel.” The actual object of our inquiry is beyond our knowledge. The truth of the doctrine of the IC is basically that Mary was free from the guilt of sin from conception to death. Eastern Catholics would agree with this statement but not necessarily with the Augustinian theological perspective that it was defined.

 

[HailMary]

Why did Mary die then if she was in no way subject to Original Sin? The feast that is the Assumption in the west is the Dormition in the east which means she died. Death, not an inherited guilt, is specifically the effect of Original Sin according to the Greek fathers.

Because Christ would not rob her of any glory. Death is no longer something to be afraid of, its no longer a curse. if you view death as a curse, you are saying you wish to be under the Old Covenant.

 

[jimmy]

In Orthodoxy, what if the Western-Rite movement suddenly decided that they wanted to get more in touch with their western roots; and by this not so subtley teach that the Filioque is true, that Original Sin is real, and the Immaculate Conception really did occur? Why, they’d be kicked out! They’d never dream of being able to get away with that!

The western rite Orthodox are not equivalent to the eastern Catholic Churches. The western rite Orthodox are basically Greeks with a liturgy that has been modified for westerners. They do not have their own theology as eastern Catholics do. Rome recognizes that the Maronites and the Chaldeans have a Syriac theology and that the Melkites and Ruthenians have a Greek theology.

 

[jimmy]

Because Christ would not rob her of any glory. Death is no longer something to be afraid of, its no longer a curse. if you view death as a curse, you are saying you wish to be under the Old Covenant.

Death is a curse. There is nothing good about death. The only thing that is good is what is recieved after death. Mary recieved no glory from death. What is the glory in death? She died because she was a human and she was subject to death.

 

[Irenicist]

If the Latin church thinks they are superior to both the Greek and Syriac fathers that they can contradict their theologies and tradition then the Latins are the ones who need to fix themselves because they need to realize that Latin theology is not superior to that of the Syriacs and Greeks. Neither of these two traditions professes the Augustinian view of OS. If Rome is going to take Augustines theology and develop and define it so that it contradicts Greek and Syriac patristics then Rome is wrong because they have rejected the tradition of the Church which is much bigger than St. Augustine. Patristics is not up for reinterpretation, it is what it is. Since we, Syrians and Greeks, have an apophatic theology that does not approach God with a speculative theology, it is consequently Romes job to make sure their theology does not develop in a way that we can not accomodate.

I just risked getting pounced by all the Latins on this forum.

In case you haven’t noticed, you are being jumped upon mainly by Eastern Catholics.

It may be we have a definitional problem here. You seem to be hung up on this “original sin” bit. That’s not central to the definition. The point is that Mary was free from any taint of sin for the full time of her existence. Is this not what your theology teaches you?

The Latin terminology to express this truth uses the expression “Immaculate Conception” because Latin theology draws in large part on an Augustinian understanding of sin. But you don’t have to look at this truth from that perspective. If you see Mary as “ever pure” or “ever holy” or “ever immaculate,” you are expressing the exact same theological truth Latins intend when they refer to her immaculate conception.

I can’t understand why you think an Augustinian understanding of original sin is required to proclaim Mary as “ever pure, holy, and immaculate”. You may have difficulty with how Latins arrived at this truth, but not with the truth itself. It’s not the theological methodology that’s binding on all Catholics but the conclusion.

In any case, we are not going to resolve this here. Please speak to your bishop and get back to us. Then we will have more to discuss. If you are right, you will have more ammo with which to convince us. If this is all a terminological misunderstanding, he will help clear things up.

Irenicist

 

[JuanCarlos]

I do not argue that Greeks have their own theological tradition in our shared Catholic religion; but because their is one faith, in which we are both equal members, I would think we literally would hold the same faith- we would both believe what Holy Mother Church teaches. And She, in no ambiguous terms, has defined thusly-

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from *all *stain of original sin.” -Ineffabilis Deus

If you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, we do not hold the same faith; our faith, no matter in how many other ways similar, would not be not exactly the same.

 

[HailMary]

Death is a curse. There is nothing good about death. The only thing that is good is what is recieved after death. Mary recieved no glory from death. What is the glory in death? She died because she was a human and she was subject to death.

Death is a curse if you are under the Old Covenant.

Was Christ not glorified from his Passion, DEATH, Resurrection, and Ascension?

Are we not to share in that glory if we are to be partakers in Him?

Try talking to all the Martyrs who died for Christ. You just smacked them all in the face.

 

[jimmy]

In case you haven’t noticed, you are being jumped upon mainly by Eastern Catholics.

It may be we have a definitional problem here. You seem to be hung up on this “original sin” bit. That’s not central to the definition. The point is that Mary was free from any taint of sin for the full time of her existence. Is this not what your theology teaches you?

The Latin terminology to express this truth uses the expression “Immaculate Conception” because Latin theology draws in large part on an Augustinian understanding of sin. But you don’t have to look at this truth from that perspective. If you see Mary as “ever pure” or “ever holy” or “ever immaculate,” you are expressing the exact same theological truth Latins intend when they refer to her immaculate conception.

I can’t understand why you think an Augustinian understanding of original sin is required to proclaim Mary as “ever pure, holy, and immaculate”. You may have difficulty with how Latins arrived at this truth, but not with the truth itself. It’s not the theological methodology that’s binding on all Catholics but the conclusion.

In any case, we are not going to resolve this here. Please speak to your bishop and get back to us. Then we will have more to discuss. If you are right, you will have more ammo with which to convince us. If this is all a terminological misunderstanding, he will help clear things up.

Irenicist

The way you present it I agree 100%. I would not deny what you say here. If that is all the IC is then I have no problem with it.