Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thedejongs said:
Great observation and great request, but I suspect you’re going to get a full ear of all sorts of differences in the ways ECs articulate Christian theology. There will typically be a claim that the difference is in the expression but not the belief. The rub comes when you start pressing the specific issues-- such as Original Sin, the IC, Purgatory/Indulgences/Merits-- and you discover that some ECs will toe the line of the infallible statements of the RCC and that others will outright reject them in these areas, making “local synod” type arguments based on nothing authoritative. This is where the “exemplary doublespeak” shines through. Can we get at this doublespeak directly, please? Shall I lay out, again, why the “local council” argument is flawed or will someone do us the favor of explaining the argument (leaving the non-authoritative Ravenna out of it) and why it works? Further, even if the argument works, why someone who didn’t believe in things declared infallible by the RCC would want to be in communion with the RCC? There’s the self-contradiction, I think.

Jimmy- It’s great that you follow the fathers of the Church; it’s just that if you choose to do so in communion with the RCC, you can’t pick and choose which “fathers of the Church” you want to follow. From the RCC perspective, the Council of Nicea and the First Vatican Council and the Council of Trent enjoy equal status.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
right again, dejongs!
 
Apotheoun said:
Thankfully, you are not my Eparch.
Click to expand...
Will you answer this question? Why would a person want to be in communion with Rome, a Church they believe to be in error, when such a person could be in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, a group such a person does not believe to be in error.
 
East_and_West said:
Will you answer this question? Why would a person want to be in communion with Rome, a Church they believe to be in error, when such a person could be in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, a group such a person does not believe to be in error.
Click to expand...
Because I accept the doctrine of primacy within synodality. I simply reject the erroneous teachings on papal supremacy enunciated at the local councils of the Latin Church (i.e., Vatican I and II).
 
Apotheoun said:
Because I accept the doctrine of primacy within synodality. I simply reject the erroneous teachings on papal supremacy enunciated at local councils of the Latin Church (i.e., Vatican I and II).
Click to expand...
The EOs believe in primacy. But it seems what you believe in is a Church that does not exist. Somewhere between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It just isn’t anywhere to be found.
 
johnnykins said:
Admittedly I have not read all the posts in this thread. I do note some sloppy - if well meant - readings of documents, etc., that are very technical and precise. I certainly do not see in anything from Ravenna that Cardinal Kaspar or anyone else denies that the councils the west has declared “ecumenical” are anything but ecumenical.

There also seems to be some angst over differing philosophies underlying the theology of the east and west. . . .

An eastern catholic that says I do not like the expression or underlying philosophy of this or that dogmatic expression, but within its context I do not reject it - is NOT in heresy.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Johnnykins. I think that those of us pressing on this issue would agree completely with you. However, speaking of sloppy-- if well meant-- many folks assume that the underlying philosophy of a truth defined by the RCC as de fide can simply be denied in favor of a different “expression,” rather than first checking whether the underlying philosophy itself has also been similarly defined. We should keep in mind that the RCC rarely makes a singular definition but often defines the entire field, as well. If folks wish, we could take a diversion into the depths of Lumen Gentium to discover what a RC Christian is required to believe (i.e. how the RCC defines what must be believed). I think we’d find it’s a whole lot broader than a couple of conciliar or papal pronouncements on narrow issues.😉
 
East_and_West said:
The EOs believe in primacy.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that Eastern Orthodox posters here at CAF were banned for supposedly trying to convert Catholics to the Orthodox Church, and yet you are allowed to post messages that tell me, a Ruthenian Catholic, to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Truly sad.
 
Apotheoun said:
I find it interesting that Eastern Orthodox posters here at CAF were banned for supposedly trying to convert Catholics to the Orthodox Church, and yet you are allowed to post messages that tell me, a Ruthenian Catholic, to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Truly sad.
Click to expand...
I am not telling you to convert. I simply see an inconsistancy in your position.
 
thedejongs said:
It’s a bit unfortunate that this thread is becoming so polemical. No one here, yet, has laid out why and how an Eastern Christian can (or would even want to try to) reject the infallible teachings of the RCC yet still somehow claim to be in communion with the RCC.

Despite the advances of the Joint Commission at Ravenna, folks here would do well to remember that the statement at Ravenna has neither been approved by the Vatican nor by the Moscow Patriarchate. Many EOs and RCs believe that it goes to far, and it is wise to recognize that it is not a binding document at all. The official pronouncements of the RCC at Vatican I carry far more weight than the statements of a Joint Commission.

For those who are attempting to frame the Ravenna statement as some sort of acknowledgment by the RCC that Trent and the Vatican Councils are local synods, please review the following quote:

“In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.”

I do not see any such conclusion in the above statement but merely a recognition that there needs to be a means of re-establishing ecumenical consensus.

Keep your hats, on, please folks. I’d like to get satisfactoryanswers to the apparent contradictions I’ve put forward, rather than simply watching folks trade barbs. Remember that we’re all (hopefully) Christians, here, and have an obligation to act like it.
Click to expand...
Vatican I was the Latins legislating and the easterners being forced to submit. The Melkites were against the dogma of infallibility. The same with Trent. The Maronites opposed Trent but the pope sent Jesuits to make changes in the Maronite church after the council. The Jesuits rewrote our liturgical books and got rid of those which were not in accord with Rome. These councils were not universal, they were latin councils. They were not supported by us. We do not ask for full agreement on all things. We simply seek communion.
 
Apotheoun said:
I do not see my position as at all inconsistent, because I do not equate being Catholic with being Latin.
Click to expand...
But you are in communion with a Church you believe to be in error when you could be in a communion with a Church you believe is orthodox instead. This is an inconsistancy.
 
jimmy said:
Vatican I was the Latins legislating and the easterners being forced to submit. The Melkites were against the dogma of infallibility. The same with Trent. The Maronites opposed Trent but the pope sent Jesuits to make changes in the Maronite church after the council. The Jesuits rewrote our liturgical books and got rid of those which were not in accord with Rome. These councils were not universal, they were latin councils. They were not supported by us. We do not ask for full agreement on all things. We simply seek communion.
Click to expand...
If you take this position, it would seem as if you’re STILL seeking it. How do you justify claiming communion with Rome in light of all this baggage? As some posters have said, why even bother?

FWIW, I split my marriage when I converted to EO; my wife remains RC. EC would have been a really nice way for us to keep it all together, but I could never get to the consistency mentioned as lacking above by another poster. So, I still try once in a while to figure it all out, but EC ends up at the same dead end time and time again.
 
thedejongs said:
EC ends up at the same dead end time and time again.
Click to expand...
EC does not have to be a dead for one who remains Catholic both in Communion and Profession. My Ruthenian pastor is very happy being an Eastern Catholic and still professing Catholic Dogma.
 
thedejongs said:
Great observation and great request, but I suspect you’re going to get a full ear of all sorts of differences in the ways ECs articulate Christian theology. There will typically be a claim that the difference is in the expression but not the belief. The rub comes when you start pressing the specific issues-- such as Original Sin, the IC, Purgatory/Indulgences/Merits-- and you discover that some ECs will toe the line of the infallible statements of the RCC and that others will outright reject them in these areas, making “local synod” type arguments based on nothing authoritative. This is where the “exemplary doublespeak” shines through. Can we get at this doublespeak directly, please? Shall I lay out, again, why the “local council” argument is flawed or will someone do us the favor of explaining the argument (leaving the non-authoritative Ravenna out of it) and why it works? Further, even if the argument works, why someone who didn’t believe in things declared infallible by the RCC would want to be in communion with the RCC? There’s the self-contradiction, I think.

Jimmy- It’s great that you follow the fathers of the Church; it’s just that if you choose to do so in communion with the RCC, you can’t pick and choose which “fathers of the Church” you want to follow. From the RCC perspective, the Council of Nicea and the First Vatican Council and the Council of Trent enjoy equal status.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
So if two thirds of the fathers, the Greeks and Syriacs say that OS is death but Trent says that OS is not just death are we supposed to reject the theological view of the Greeks and Syriacs? I would say not since the same council(Trent) which declared the canon you quoted also said that we take the unanimous view of the fathers.
 
East_and_West said:
The EOs believe in primacy. But it seems what you believe in is a Church that does not exist. Somewhere between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It just isn’t anywhere to be found.
Click to expand...
It is actually how the Eastern Churches function, synodally. It exists perfectly fine within the east. And it is the same as the Eastern Orthodox(the EO accept primacy) except that we are in communion with Rome.
 
jimmy said:
So if two thirds of the fathers, the Greeks and Syriacs say that OS is death but Trent says that OS is not just death are we supposed to reject the theological view of the Greeks and Syriacs? I would say not since the same council(Trent) which declared the canon you quoted also said that we take the unanimous view of the fathers.
Click to expand...
Assuming you are correct about the Fathers’ understanding of OS (although i would have to check it out), could not the Fathers and Trent be talking about two different Aspects of OS? And what about the other 1/3? Are they just wrong?
 
Apotheoun said:
Because I accept the doctrine of primacy within synodality. I simply reject the erroneous teachings on papal supremacy enunciated at the local councils of the Latin Church (i.e., Vatican I and II).
Click to expand...
It’s great to believe things, but believing that I have five million bucks in the bank doesn’t change my balance at all (unfortunately). I have to call the bank and check my balance.

In RC/EC terms, that means actually checking what the RCC says and maintaining some internal consistency within its documented positions. Bottom line, the RCC doesn’t buy your beliefs and its statements (even the non-authoritative Ravenna statement) bear that out. Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II were clearly ecumenical councils. As an RC, whether Eastern or Western in liturgical leaning, you’re obligated to accept their teachings, regardless of what other theories you’d really prefer to “accept” or which make you or your parish priest “happy.”
 
Apotheoun said:
Because I accept the doctrine of primacy within synodality. I simply reject the erroneous teachings on papal supremacy enunciated at the local councils of the Latin Church (i.e., Vatican I and II).
Click to expand...
Eastern Bishops participated in these councils.
 
East_and_West said:
EC does not have to be a dead for one who remains Catholic both in Communion and Profession. My Ruthenian pastor is very happy being an Eastern Catholic and still professing Catholic Dogma.
Click to expand...
That is a dead EC. It is basically latins playing dressup. It is vanity. You like insence and priests with beards and you like an old liturgy but that is all vanity if it doesn’t come with eastern theology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top