Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[Joab_Anias]

Did the fathers of the Church define mortal vs venial?

Why yes they did:

“These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal.” Pacian of Barcelona, Penance, 4 (A.D. 385).

“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.” Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397).

That is all that we need to know as to whether it is a necessary definition. Apparently they didn’t need it.

This is what all Catholics ascend to and nothing less and what you need to know:

The following De Fide statements comprise “Our Catholic Faith without which it is impossible to please God” (The Council of Trent, Session V, explaining the correct interpretation of Hebrews 11: 6).

These positive “articles of faith” have the function of fundamental principles which the faithful accepts without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, Who is absolute truth (Council of the Vatican).

They represent the mind of Christ as St. Paul says:

1 Cor. 2:16. But we have the mind of Christ.

Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ yesterday, and today: and the same for ever.

Since Our Catholic Faith comes from God, they are not open for debate, and they are not reversible.

The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes:

1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgement.

There is, then, no place for “pick and choose” in the truths proposed to the Faith of Christians by the Infallible Teaching Church for they are bound in Heaven by God Himself.

If something is decreed on earth and is also bound in Heaven, that thing must be the truth. Otherwise, God is no longer the Truth, which is contrary to the Gospel:

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.

The Catholic Church is infallible because it is :

1 Tim 3:15. the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.

If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop.

1. The Unity and Trinity of God
2. God the Creator
3. God the Redeemer
4. The Mother of the Redeemer
5. God the Sanctifier
6. The Catholic Church
7. The Communion of Saints
8. The Sacraments
9. Baptism
10. Confirmation
11. Holy Eucharist
12. Penance
13. Holy Orders
14. Matrimony
15. Extreme Unction
16. The Last Things

(Excerpts from the Catechism)

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy 234 of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”

 

[jimmy]

That is great that the CCC teaches it, but it is irrelevant. I am not going to discuss mortal vs venial. I have said this several times and I will not respond again to any mention of it. You can believe as you like but as an eastern Catholic I will believe the tradition of my particular Church. It is useless for you to force your beliefs upon me.

 

[fulloffaith]

We are distinguished by theology, tradition and spirituality. I think that LakaYaRabb and Woodstock have posted on other threads some conciliar and canon quotes that mention this. To tell the truth, in essentials we agree, on non-essentials there is freedom. The essential aspect of original sin that we agree on is that all men need a savior. Since Adam we are all fallen and we all need a savior. The essential aspect of the Immaculate Conception is Mary’s purity and freedom from sin. We all agree that Mary never sinned but we do not agree on details. In the details there is freedom.

This might be my most sane post on this thread. The others were a little reactionary, although they are pretty much true.

Thanks SO much for finally being clear!!!

 

[fulloffaith]

From the guidelines for the new Eastern Christianity forum sponsored by CAF:
“The new focus of this forum is to . . . help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate in compliance with the stated purpose of the forum . . . . calling into question the catholicity, orthodoxy, or personal faith of another is outside the purpose of this forum and will not be tolerated.”

As someone who is constantly attempting to ensure that I have found the Truth and a person who is married to a Latin Catholic who is also struggling with the same, I believe that, EO though I am, I am in compliance with the stated purpose of the forum by urging clarity regarding what theological positions an EC must accept to be considered Catholic. If I have at all questioned the catholicity, orthodoxy, or personal faith of another, I request the questioned party to judge me for that and have me banned from this forum.

Gotta’ agree with fulloffaith, though, that no one is really coming clean as to the main issue: Must EC’s adhere to dogma that has been infallibly (whether papally, conciliarly, or general teaching that rises to infallibility) defined by the Roman Catholic Church? If not, please display the analysis that legitimates this and further explain how communion is maintained in light of the disagreement on such essential matters that the RCC found it necessary to define them and to anathematize all those holding inconsistent positions.

Thank you, that’s exactly my beef with this forum!

 

[fulloffaith]

What about the councils? Do ECs accept all 21 of them, or just the first seven, as do the Orthodox?

 

[thedejongs]

We are distinguished by theology, tradition and spirituality. I think that LakaYaRabb and Woodstock have posted on other threads some conciliar and canon quotes that mention this. To tell the truth, in essentials we agree, on non-essentials there is freedom. The essential aspect of original sin that we agree on is that all men need a savior. Since Adam we are all fallen and we all need a savior. The essential aspect of the Immaculate Conception is Mary’s purity and freedom from sin. We all agree that Mary never sinned but we do not agree on details. In the details there is freedom.

Granted that they’d have a little difference with you on the IC, any run-of-the-mill Protestant would readily concur with your statement on original sin. That certainly doesn’t qualify them as in communion with the RCC, does it?

“The essentials”
“The details”
The question here is WHO is making the call as to what are “essentials” and what are “details?” The RCC is abundantly clear in its statements as to what definitely (and definitively) constitute “essentials.” The RCC makes itself clear by anathematizing those who take contrary positions. As posted several pages earlier, the RCC has anathematized those who do not agree with a largely Augustinian view of Original Sin. This is obviously an essential from the RCC perspective, not a detail in which there is “freedom.” The RCC has defined the freedom out of this. This is, in a nutshell, exactly why I left the RCC and could not go to the EC-- too many things that I viewed as “details” had been defined as “essentials” and there was no freedom to believe otherwise. Exactly HOW does one stay in communion with Rome while rejecting positions it has defined as infallibly true? This is the fundamental question of this thread, I think, and the thing for which I have yet to see a rational and satisfactory answer. Perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss the authorities that are binding on the entire Catholic Church? I suspect that if we started that thread outside the EC forum, the outrage that some ECs don’t recognize the Pope as infallible would be endless . . . but perhaps the only question would be whether the outrage would be justified.

 

[fulloffaith]

You dejongs, are the ONLY one who seems to understand EXACTLY what perplexes me about ECs; Kudos again for being so direct when others weren’t.

 

[thedejongs]

You dejongs, are the ONLY one who seems to understand EXACTLY what perplexes me about ECs; Kudos again for being so direct when others weren’t.

Thank you, fulloffaith. I am very passionate about this question precisely because I made a decision to leave the RCC over these serious theological differences and caused great pain in my family as a result (we live the Schism daily), yet there appear to be others around who claim that these differences are meaningless and can just be passed over. This presents an extremely confusing situation for my RC spouse who points to this and says “See, you didn’t have to leave.”

There appear to be so many EC folks out there who don’t buy into the magisterial statements on papal supremacy, penance, sin, and the like, but none seems able, unfortunately, to articulate how rejection of such clear statements reconciles with continued communion with Rome.

I’ve told my family that I would willingly kneel before the Pope personally in repentance if someone could show me that I was wrong in walking out of the RC. After years have passed, I still remain EO.

I don’t intend any offense. Please forgive me if offense is taken or I am perceived as attempting to “convert ECs” (would be a kind of odd take, given that I think fulloffaith is a Latin-rite RC and we’re both asking for the same clarity). I’m just a seeker after the Truth.

 

[fulloffaith]

yep, that’s right, I am a Latin Catholic, and we indeed are asking for just that.

 

[East_and_West]

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.

I guess you have not read the Eastern Code of Cannon law then.

 

[HailMary]

Did the fathers of the Church define mortal vs venial? no. That is all that we need to know as to whether it is a necessary definition. Apparently they didn’t need it. I am done with the conversation.

earth to Jimmy, the ECFs were not always correct and do not constitute in themselves the Church. St. John Chrysostom said that Mary sinned and St. Thomas didn’t support the Immaculate Conception. If I were to go with either of these saints today without adhering to the teachings of the Church today on these subjects, and I knowingly did it, I would be in big trouble.

 

[chrisb]

Thank you, fulloffaith. I am very passionate about this question precisely because I made a decision to leave the RCC over these serious theological differences and caused great pain in my family as a result (we live the Schism daily), yet there appear to be others around who claim that these differences are meaningless and can just be passed over. This presents an extremely confusing situation for my RC spouse who points to this and says “See, you didn’t have to leave.”

There appear to be so many EC folks out there who don’t buy into the magisterial statements on papal supremacy, penance, sin, and the like, but none seems able, unfortunately, to articulate how rejection of such clear statements reconciles with continued communion with Rome.

I’ve told my family that I would willingly kneel before the Pope personally in repentance if someone could show me that I was wrong in walking out of the RC. After years have passed, I still remain EO.

I don’t intend any offense. Please forgive me if offense is taken or I am perceived as attempting to “convert ECs” (would be a kind of odd take, given that I think fulloffaith is a Latin-rite RC and we’re both asking for the same clarity). I’m just a seeker after the Truth.

I too am very impressed with your thoughts on these issues and I’d like to have your views on other issues as well. Would you might discussing ‘Original Sin’ with me. This has been a ‘real’ sticking point with me which I’ve never gotten an answer from Orthodox on…

Let me know and God Bless.

 

[thedejongs]

Chrisb,
I am humbled by your request. In particular, I want to be very careful about two things:

1. Being EO, I do not want to be perceived as trying to convert anyone; I understand that this has formerly been a perceived problem in this forum and understand the need for ECs to have a place to discuss EC problems and issues of interest without EO pressure;
2. I am admittedly no expert in these areas and could not claim to speak for the Church itself or even claim that I’ve been able to sort it all out.

That said, I am very willing to dialogue with you on this topic more fully but will suggest that we take the dialogue off the forum and simply communicate directly on the matter. To this end, I will drop you a private message shortly.

 

[East_and_West]

Yes, I trust the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide the pope and the Latins only. He guides the whole Church and as far as I see He has continued to guide the east to remain eastern. The way your ecclesiology has it is that the Holy Spirit protects the pope from error while the rest of the Church simply hangs on the pope. The Holy Spirit is the principle of unity, not the pope.

But according to your view, the Holy Spirit does not guide the whole Church because Catholics in the west are in error. In your view, He only guides Catholics in the East.

 

[chrisb]

Chrisb,
I am humbled by your request. In particular, I want to be very careful about two things:

1. Being EO, I do not want to be perceived as trying to convert anyone; I understand that this has formerly been a perceived problem in this forum and understand the need for ECs to have a place to discuss EC problems and issues of interest without EO pressure;
2. I am admittedly no expert in these areas and could not claim to speak for the Church itself or even claim that I’ve been able to sort it all out.

That said, I am very willing to dialogue with you on this topic more fully but will suggest that we take the dialogue off the forum and simply communicate directly on the matter. To this end, I will drop you a private message shortly.

This is a wonderful idea. It is absolutely not my intention to get you in trouble.

Take Care and God Bless.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

What about the councils? Do ECs accept all 21 of them, or just the first seven, as do the Orthodox?

All 21.

Now watch the fun.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

But according to your view, the Holy Spirit does not guide the whole Church because Catholics in the west are in error. In your view, He only guides Catholics in the East.

Or at the very least, no theological concearns or developments of understanding eminating from the West in the past 1000 years are of to be of much significance?

 

[HailMary]

All 21.

All Catholics Churches accept them.

 

[fulloffaith]

Chrisb,
I am humbled by your request. In particular, I want to be very careful about two things:

1. Being EO, I do not want to be perceived as trying to convert anyone; I understand that this has formerly been a perceived problem in this forum and understand the need for ECs to have a place to discuss EC problems and issues of interest without EO pressure;
2. I am admittedly no expert in these areas and could not claim to speak for the Church itself or even claim that I’ve been able to sort it all out.

That said, I am very willing to dialogue with you on this topic more fully but will suggest that we take the dialogue off the forum and simply communicate directly on the matter. To this end, I will drop you a private message shortly.

I’d like to do the same, dejongs

 

[fulloffaith]

All Catholics Churches accept them.

Then why do ECs keep the Orthodox OT canon?