Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[HailMary]

The Maronite bishops were present at Trent and gave their consent to this canon. Are you suggesting they anathemized themselves?

It appears that way.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Joab, I would gladly discuss this with you exactly as you have spoken. Hopefully if it comes up that we can not resolve them then we can simply accept eachother as St. Ephrem accepted the two points of his paradoxes. If we are going to discuss this we should probably start it on a new thread about Original Sin specifically. This thread has been wide and varied, it would be good to have a focused discussion on the matter. I defer to you to start the discussion from the CCC.

In light of recent developements in this forum I do not want to begin a thread engaging Catholics with Catholic Dogma.

I see the bredth of this thread as broad enough to encompass the topic as the theology of original sin in the church is dogma and directly related to the theology of sin.

If you wouldn’t mind I would prefer to keep it here as not to appear inflamitory, arrogant or assuming that I already know there is some desparity between east and west Catholics on this issue which I do not.

I hope you will understand that all I wish to do is simply post the results of a search in the CCC on original sin for you to consider, with your permission of course. As I see your open to that I will go ahead and make the pertinient quotes for you but also let you know its late here and I have to get up early so may not continue with it much futher this evening. I will italicize words that I personally find key.

Peace.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. [redemption].

Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” *only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act. *

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a *deprivation of original holiness *and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and *inclined to sin *- an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 … The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”…

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer “bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” (GS § 18).

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism…

 

[jimmy]

The Maronite bishops were present at Trent and gave their consent to this canon. Are you suggesting they anathemized themselves?

Somehow you have become convinced that for Easterners, the only consequence of Adam’s sin is death. I have quoted from an EO bishop who sees more consequences than this. You have been invited to consult the catechism’s description of original sin by another Easterner. Perhaps you could offer us Eastern sources of your own that state that death is indeed the only consequence of Adam’s sin.

Irenicist

I am hoping that Joab is going to start a thread on this subject. But to start off, you could read Meyendorf’s book Byzantine Theology. Remember that Meyendorff was a very ecumenically minded theologian and for this reason many EO do not like him. He basically says that death is the result of OS. Sin is the result of death. He uses St. Maximus the Confessor as one of his main sources for this.

 

[Irenicist]

In an effort to resolve this issue of just what is the Maronite perspective on the IC and OS quickly, I would invite jimmy and others to visit the following Maronite website :

stmaron.org/Immaculate%20conception.html

I don’t think we need add anything further to this discussion. If a Maronite eparchy is publicly celebrating the IC and describing Mary as conceived free of OS, that would seem to settle matters.

Irenicist

 

[HailMary]

Anyone have experience with this site?
www.east2west.com
Looks like a Byzantine Catholic is the author of it.
Under the Doctrine section, he says, regarding OS:

Original Sin #3: Can you explain the difference in the way the East views Original Sin?

I’ll try to briefly summarize the issue, but I can’t do it justice in so little space.

In the East: The primary consequence of Original Sin is death. The reality of death causes people to desire that which can distract them from the reality of their impending death. Hence, people turn to sex, money, and power as a way to forget about death. In this way, death leads to sin.

In the West: The primary consequence of Original Sin is a “stain” of guilt. People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as possible.

Both the East and the West agree that original sin causes an ABSENCE of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism, the Holy Spirit can again dwell within man.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church has adopted a much more Eastern understanding in recent years. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very Eastern in its approach to original sin.

That in mind, it becomes readily clear why the teaching of Immaculate Conception is a necessity.

 

[jimmy]

In an effort to resolve this issue of just what is the Maronite perspective on the IC and OS quickly, I would invite jimmy and others to visit the following Maronite website :

stmaron.org/Immaculate%20conception.html

I don’t think we need add anything further to this discussion. If a Maronite eparchy is publicly celebrating the IC and describing Mary as conceived free of OS, that would seem to settle matters.

Irenicist

That really doesn’t solve much regarding Maronite tradition. Maronites are the most latinized of any of the eastern churches. They don’t preach their own tradition very well. For example, check out the regulations for fasting. The tradition for fasting is everyday in lent from meat and dairy. But what they tell the people to do is to abstain from meat on all fridays of Lent and on Ash Monday. In other words they have simply assumed the Latin form.

Now, since the Church supports them going back to their own tradition this latinization is a problem and must be solved.

 

[yeshua]

The Maronite bishops were present at Trent and gave their consent to this canon. Are you suggesting they anathemized themselves?

The Maronites were actually quite resistant to Trent. So much so that the Pope sent Jesuit legates to physically enforce it’s mandates. Quite a tragic story, the lead Jesuit was known for personally editing the Syriac missals and ordering the mass burning of those texts that seemed to counter Trent.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

In an effort to resolve this issue of just what is the Maronite perspective on the IC and OS quickly, I would invite jimmy and others to visit the following Maronite website :

stmaron.org/Immaculate%20conception.html

I don’t think we need add anything further to this discussion. If a Maronite eparchy is publicly celebrating the IC and describing Mary as conceived free of OS, that would seem to settle matters.

Irenicist

I would certainly not say so. I have had Bishops, who certainly predate Bishop Mansour, say that the IC is not a part of tradition. All of this is yet another example of the dichotomies existing amongst the Eastern and Oriental Catholic experiences.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Anyone have experience with this site?
www.east2west.com
Looks like a Byzantine Catholic is the author of it.
Under the Doctrine section, he says, regarding OS:

That in mind, it becomes readily clear why the teaching of Immaculate Conception is a necessity.

HM,

Note that the first link above is incorrect. It should be .org - not .com - www.east2west.org. The second link is correct.

The author, Anthony Dragnani, is indeed a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic and was formerly the resident Eastern Catholic on EWTN’s expert Q&A panel.

Many years,

Neil

 

[richardwy]

Read this entire thread. What’s your reaction to it all. Honestly?

 

[yeshua]

Anyone have experience with this site?
www.east2west.com
Looks like a Byzantine Catholic is the author of it.

Peace,

There certainly are problems with East2West.com, such as the erroneous “doctrine” of “Final Theosis:”
East2West.org:

In the East, we tend to have a much more positive view of the transition from death to Heaven. Rather than “Purgatory,” we prefer to call it “the Final Theosis.” This refers to the process of deification, in which the remnants of our humans nature are transformed, and we come to share in the divine life of the Trinity. Rather than seeing this as a place to “sit and suffer,” the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Final Theosis as being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also powerful glimpses of joy.

I would like to note no Church Father discussed “Final Theosis,” because, well, such a theological concept doesn’t exist. I would ask that a discussion on Final Theosis be tabled indefinitely, as all normative posters of the Eastern Christianity posters know, this has been entirely refuted and the request has come from both Catholic and Orthodox to change this deceitful paragraph; obviously this has not happened.

There are other aspects that bother me, as the author proceeds with his discussion equating “different definitions” as “different perspectives” which I find to be both theologically and scholastically irresponsible.

Furthermore, the author draws conclusions about current discussions that have yet to be understood unilaterally, such as the Eastern traditions stance on contraception.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[thedejongs]

And that is why many Eastern Christians, including bishops, say that the councils of the west were only general councils of the west. The recent document in Ravenna, which is supported by the pope, supports the eastern bishops. Trent is therefore a general council of the west, not ecumenical.

Jimmy,
I think the following quote from the Third Session of the First Vatican Council, which Eastern Catholics certainly own as ecumenical, is sufficient to show the error in the above statement:

"Now this redemptive providence appears very clearly in unnumbered benefits, but most especially is it manifested in the advantages which have been secured for the christian world by ecumenical councils, among which the council of Trent requires special mention, celebrated though it was in evil days. "

 

[thedejongs]

I hope you will understand that all I wish to do is simply post the results of a search in the CCC on original sin for you to consider, with your permission of course. As I see your open to that I will go ahead and make the pertinient quotes for you but also let you know its late here and I have to get up early so may not continue with it much futher this evening. I will italicize words that I personally find key.

Joab/All,
Please be aware that the CCC is simply one attempt at putting into plain English an understanding of Catholic theology for the masses. It is by no means exact or exhaustive. Although it is “correct,” it is not full. In my experience, it glosses over the tough issues but certainly does not deny them. To get a clear view of the theology at issue, you must go to the sources, not summaries of them intended for common consumption. This would be a like the Supreme Court adjudicating a very complicated legal issue solely on the basis of an newspaper editorial explaining the relevant law. Go deeper, please, than the CCC.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy,
I think the following quote from the Third Session of the First Vatican Council, which Eastern Catholics certainly own as ecumenical, is sufficient to show the error in the above statement:

"Now this redemptive providence appears very clearly in unnumbered benefits, but most especially is it manifested in the advantages which have been secured for the christian world by ecumenical councils, among which the council of Trent requires special mention, celebrated though it was in evil days. "

Vatican I would be one of those which would be considered general councils of the west. Again, the Ravenna document supports this.

 

[jimmy]

Joab/All,
Please be aware that the CCC is simply one attempt at putting into plain English an understanding of Catholic theology for the masses. It is by no means exact or exhaustive. Although it is “correct,” it is not full. In my experience, it glosses over the tough issues but certainly does not deny them. To get a clear view of the theology at issue, you must go to the sources, not summaries of them intended for common consumption. This would be a like the Supreme Court adjudicating a very complicated legal issue solely on the basis of an newspaper editorial explaining the relevant law. Go deeper, please, than the CCC.

So is it your opinion that all eastern Christians must submit to Latin theology?

 

[Apotheoun]

There certainly are problems with East2West.com, such as the erroneous “doctrine” of “Final Theosis:” . . .

Yes, the concept of “final theosis” is not patristic. In fact, theosis is a never-ending process, a stretching (epektasis) of man into eternity, i.e., into the infinity of God, who is infinitely beyond the infinite.

 

[wynd]

Yes, the concept of “final theosis” is not patristic. In fact, theosis is a never-ending process, a stretching (epektasis) of man into eternity, i.e., into the infinity of God, who is infinitely beyond the infinite.

Do you know any books or patristic works that elaborate on theosis?

 

[Apotheoun]

Do you know any books or patristic works that elaborate on theosis?

Statements by the Fathers on theosis are dispersed throughout their writings, but I would recommend St. Gregory of Nyssa’s “The Life of Moses,” and his homilies on “The Lord’s Prayer,” and the “Beatitudes,” for some insight into the doctrine of divinization.

Another good source is St. Gregory Palamas’ “The Triads.”

Select Patristical Quotations on the Doctrine of Theosis

 

[thedejongs]

So is it your opinion that all eastern Christians must submit to Latin theology?

Jimmy,
The official documents and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (I use this term in its full meaning as including those who are in communion with the Pope of Rome) anathametize all those who hold to opinions contrary to any dogmas that the Roman Catholic Church holds infallible. Thus, certain doctrines on which “Eastern Christians” tend to have views different from Rome, such as Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the declarations of Trent, etc. which, according to Lumen Gentium are all infallible (let alone those things on which the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have agreed and teach) must be held by Eastern Catholics if they wish to remain in communion with the Pope of Rome.
I am extremely puzzled at the notion that these doctrines can be rejected. If this is indeed the case, then no reason at all (other than politics) exists for the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox to remain apart. What need, then, for the joint theological committees, etc.? The whole reason for separation between EOs and RCs is disagreement over these doctrines.
As I have mentioned in other posts, I have yet to meet an Eastern Catholic who can explain adequately how they reject these dogmas but still remain in communion with Rome-- Rome has anathematized those who hold differing opinions. Please note that these anathemas hold for everyone, not just those “in the local West.” It sure is nice to think otherwise, but keep in mind that Trent wasn’t really aimed at people inside the RCC but at the Protestants outside. It should equally encompass anyone else who defies these doctrines.
Finally, these defined dogmas are either true or they are not. To the extent they are essential, why would anyone who doesn’t believe them want to be in communion with someone who does? Kind of looks like communion in appearance but not in substance. Why fake it instead of having true communion?

 

[fulloffaith]

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.

Thank you, Dejongs; I, like you, have thought this ever since hearing of the ECCs.

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.