Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[jimmy]

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.

Death is not an honor to anyone, not even the martyr. What is the honor to the martyr is that they have been granted the chance to die for their Lord. Paul calls death ‘the last enemy’. It is the enemy and it has been conquered by Christ. If death was a blessing then I would have to say that suicide was a good and holy act.

 

[yeshua]

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

In case you haven’t noticed, most of the normal EC and OC posters are gone. One has to wonder why.

Jimmy’s proposals are not rare, in fact, are upheld by a majority of Eastern and Oriental Catholics who normally post. But again, they are no longer participating.

His experience as an Oriental Catholic with these issues is anything but isolated.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[HailMary]

Death is not an honor to anyone, not even the martyr. What is the honor to the martyr is that they have been granted the chance to die for their Lord. Paul calls death ‘the last enemy’. It is the enemy and it has been conquered by Christ. If death was a blessing then I would have to say that suicide was a good and holy act.

Do you think he was referring to death in the way that Christianity refers to death? Death has been conquered, but we still have to deal with it.

Later in that chapter he says:
I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Maybe you need to look at death in a different light. Why don’t you look how our late Pope dealt with death. Also, you might look into the lives of the Saints at their death bed.

Here are a couple of quotations from our Church’s thoughts on death:

1011 In death, God calls man to himself. Therefore the Christian can experience a desire for death like St. Paul’s: “My desire is to depart and be with Christ.” He can transform his own death into an act of obedience and love towards the Father, after the example of Christ:

My earthly desire has been crucified; . . . there is living water in me, water that murmurs and says within me: Come to the Father.

I want to see God and, in order to see him, I must die.

I am not dying; I am entering life.

1010 Because of Christ, Christian death has a positive meaning: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” "The saying is sure: if we have died with him, we will also live with him. What is essentially new about Christian death is this: through Baptism, the Christian has already “died with Christ” sacramentally, in order to live a new life; and if we die in Christ’s grace, physical death completes this “dying with Christ” and so completes our incorporation into him in his redeeming act:

It is better for me to die in (eis) Christ Jesus than to reign over the ends of the earth. Him it is I seek - who died for us. Him it is I desire - who rose for us. I am on the point of giving birth. . . . Let me receive pure light; when I shall have arrived there, then shall I be a man.

 

[Apotheoun]

Great posts Jimmy!

 

[Apotheoun]

In case you haven’t noticed, most of the normal EC and OC posters are gone. One has to wonder why.

I am a Ruthenian Catholic, and a member of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and I also have noticed that this sub-forum now appears to be focused upon forcing Eastern Catholics to accept Latin doctrinal formulations.

Such is life I suppose. It is sad to say, but apparently Latinization of Eastern Catholics remains important to many members of the Roman Church.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Thank God for the Byzantine Catholic forum.

 

[SiempreFiel]

I am a Ruthenian Catholic, and a member of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and I also have noticed that this sub-forum now appears to be focused upon forcing Eastern Catholics to accept Latin doctrinal formulations.

By “Latin doctrinal formulations”, do you mean immutable truths of the Catholic Faith or simply Latin theology?

 

[Threepwood]

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.

I agree.

 

[dbacks5439]

Both East and West theology have the goal of humbling ourselves before the Truth. In the West, we have OCD. We can’t leave it alone. Every rock has to be turned over. In the East, we can simply meditate and just stand in awe at the awesome mystery of the Truth. We in the West realize that the more we know, the more we know that we really don’t know, and that allows us to really stand in awe that we are just so powerless and we have no choice but to postrate ourselves to the Truth. Eastern theology leads to the same conclusion. It is not that Eastern theology is ignorant, but rather they acknowledge that if God wanted them to know, He will reveal it. Of course there is development of doctrine, but not spelled out. An Eastern Catholic reflects and ponders on the mystery of the Truth and strives to understand the Truth. In the end, both East and West find that the Truth is too great to comprehend, and both theologies cannot help but humble themselves. Our God is an awesome God!

 

[Irenicist]

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.

We must be careful. I’m not so quick to write off Jimmy’s understanding just yet. Perhaps someone in apologetics can help us out here. I don’t have the background in Eastern theology to make my way through this on my own with confidence.

Can it be that we should be making a distinction between the “taint” of original sin and its “consequences”? If Syriac theology understands the “consequences” of original sin as death, but does not address the nature of the “taint” or stain of original sin (as it is understood by Latins), then there needn’t be a problem for anyone. After all, I don’t recall the formulation saying anything about Mary being free of the consequences of original sin per se, which presumably afflict us all, merely from the actual sin itself. Mind you, I am not a theologian, so I am winging it on this one, and better minds than my own can probably resolve this better.

I am confident that there cannot be a fundamental problem here, however, as Pius is on record as having consulted over 1,000 Eastern and Western bishops before making the definition and there is no record, that I know of, of any Eastern Catholic qualms being expressed at the time.

Just on a side note for Jimmy, the moderators have informed me that my observation that he was “claiming” to be Catholic could be construed as questioning his Catholicism or as an insult. Let me be clear that this was in no way my intent. It was instead intended as an acknowledgment of his claim and part of the expression of a desire to resolve this matter amongst Catholics. I think we have succeeded, despite some Orthodox voices egging us on from the sidelines.

Irenicist

 

[Joab_Anias]

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.

I think you would find Latin Catholics with the same concern. I know I did at first. Its a hard thing to ascend to. Though I trusted the Church I still found I needed to reason this out for myself. I can’t say where I would be on the issue if I hadn’t trusted the Church though.

Peace.

 

[East_and_West]

East and West;2944386:

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.

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.

So then do you believe these doctrines are false?

 

[East_and_West]

Such is life I suppose. It is sad to say, but apparently Latinization of Eastern Catholics remains important to many members of the Roman Church.

No, what we are concerned about is the Church professing ONE faith, not two.

 

[Vintagecoils]

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

I just have to say that your understanding of this is exactly how I was working my way out of protestantism and then through the Roman Church and on to the Eastern Churches. It was Augustines concept that has so sent the protestants away from the true church. That may seem strange but many of them use him to prove tha Catholics wrong. I saw where the Roman Church in all its love of Augustine was guided by the Holy Spirit to develope this dogma to return the chuch to a clarity of what had already been believed. It seemed to me Augustine doctrine unknowingly forced the church to do this. Where as the Eastern CAtholics in communion as well as the Eastern Orthodox never took that route to have to then develpe a doctrine to explain it through Augustines teachings. Well I may not clarify for those who believe the understanding to be completely different but it was how I could better understand the communion of Roman and Eastern Catholics. It is why I had thought Pope John Paul was attempting to work through unity of the Churches. Because there is an open chanel that can be traversed.

Thank you for your better clarification

 

[jj2011]

Can it be that we should be making a distinction between the “taint” of original sin and its “consequences”? If Syriac theology understands the “consequences” of original sin as death, but does not address the nature of the “taint” or stain of original sin (as it is understood by Latins), then there needn’t be a problem for anyone. After all, I don’t recall the formulation saying anything about Mary being free of the consequences of original sin per se, which presumably afflict us all, merely from the actual sin itself. Irenicist

I believe the formula among the Latins is that Our Lady is free from the stain of original sin, not from such consequences of original sin as death and suffering.

At Lourdes, however, Our Lady bowled over the theologians by declaring to Bernadette, *“I am the Immaculate Conception.”
*

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Blessed Mother was not freed from Original Sin but she was without the stain of Original Sin. She did not suffer the consequences of original sin.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Would it be correct to say “Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite”?>>

It would be better to say, “Eastern Catholic Churches.”

 

[jj2011]

St. Ephraem, one of the great lights of the Syriac Church: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . … flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37), as cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[jimmy]

St. Ephraem, one of the great lights of the Syriac Church: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . … flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37), as cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I am not sure if you are quoting St. Ephrem as supporting the Immaculate Conception. No where in that quote does he support the IC. He does not speak about her conception. He simply says she is immaculate and pure and spotless. No one has denied that. There is a big difference between saying that and making the claim that she was not subject to Original Sin while all of the rest of man was. Especially since she died. Original Sin does not make her impure in the eastern understanding. It means she is going to die. Death is what is handed down as OS. The east can not maintain its tradition and profess the IC. Rome is either going to have to tell the eastern churches that they can not maintain their tradition or they are going to have to accept us as we are.

 

[jj2011]

Original Sin does not make her impure in the eastern understanding. It means she is going to die. Death is what is handed down as OS. The east can not maintain its tradition and profess the IC.

I will have to disagree here. Soloviev was an eastern Christian, and he defended the Immaculate Conception from the liturgical books of his own church. Dimitri of Rostov, considered a saint in the Russian Church, is said to have defended the IC as well.

Now as to this:
Original Sin does not make her impure in the eastern understanding. It means she is going to die.*

I cannot accept the premise. If Christ was subject to no sin but evidently died, the same can be affirmed about His holy mother. Thus the traditions of east and west are complementary, and there is no contradiction in affirming the Immaculate Conception, Dormition and Assumption of the Mother of God.

 

[jimmy]

I will have to disagree here. Soloviev was an eastern Christian, and he defended the Immaculate Conception from the liturgical books of his own church. Dimitri of Rostov, considered a saint in the Russian Church, is said to have defended the IC as well.

Now as to this:

Original Sin does not make her impure in the eastern understanding. It means she is going to die.

I cannot accept the premise. If Christ was subject to no sin but evidently died, the same can be affirmed about His holy mother. Thus the traditions of east and west are complementary, and there is no contradiction in affirming the Immaculate Conception, Dormition and Assumption of the Mother of God.

I am not sure what you don’t accept about my premise. Do you not accept that OS according to eastern Christianity is simply death? The bishops of the eastern(Catholic) churches will outright say that OS is simply death and that Mary was subject to it since she died. There is no contradiction in affirming Mary’s sinlessness as I have said but there might be a contradiction in the fact that the declaration of the IC is founded upon the Augustinian view of OS, which we reject.

We don’t say that Mary was subject to sin from conception so in that sense maybe we could affirm the IC but we also wouldn’t say that any other human was subject to sin from conception. So if we are forced to accept the IC of Mary we must also say that every one who is discussing this question on this board is immaculately concieved since none of us are subject to the guilt of sin as of our conception. But we are all subject to death, which is what has been handed down to us and called OS, and so was Mary. The difference between us and Mary is that we haved sinned through our own free will and Mary did not. It was not some extraordinary Grace at her conception that prevented her from contracting the stain of sin.

I don’t know what Dmitri of Rostov said and I don’t know what Soloviev said.