Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What i mean is that there were more books in the Septuagint’s OT than Trent promulgated and both the Orthodox and ECs keep the extended canon, at least so i hear.
 
Yes, i know that, but i hear it said that ECs use Orthodox Bibles.
There’s a thread on it here at CAF.
 
fulloffaith said:
Yes, i know that, but i hear it said that ECs use Orthodox Bibles.
There’s a thread on it here at CAF.
Click to expand...
There is no real problem with using an orthodox bible, except when they start asserting those uninspired books are part of the Canon, which is now closed.
 
Well, why would they keep the Orthodox one when they could use Catholic versions?:confused:
 
fulloffaith said:
Well, why would they keep the Orthodox one when they could use Catholic versions?:confused:
Click to expand...
Isn’t the Orthodox one a Catholic one w/ some added books? I suppose they enjoy those books, but you’re asking the wrong guy because I never read them before.
 
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...
What is death? Bodily death only? Eternal death?

Christ died bodily - he took on our sins, but did his death or concomitant descent into Hell equate with “death”.

Mary died but immediately was bodily assumed to eternal life - is that really “death.”

Was the death Adam and Eve took on because of OS - mere bodily death, bodily death without certain subsequent eternal life (and without Christ certain eternal death)?

Is bodily death with immediate bodily assumption into life eternal “death” in any ordinary understanding of that term? For all of us bodily death is not followed by bodily assumption into eternal life.

I just don’t see the grave contradiction here. Death is certainly the consequence of sin. I don’t think anyone - RC or EC really believe something irreconcilable - frankly I don’t believe we believe anything different at all. We do express ourselves differently; we do have history to deal with; we have pride to deal with; we have language differences; we have cultural differences. But, we also have each other like brothers and sisters. And we all know how brothers and sisters fight. 😛

I’m not trying to downplay anything. I just think we all sometimes make too much of particular understandings that may be narrower or broader than we are in the habit of understanding them.
 
jimmy said:
That is great that the CCC teaches it, but it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
What the CCC teaches isn’t irrelevant any more than your cultural customs.
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.
Click to expand...
This exibits obstinance and a stiff necked pride.
You can believe as you like but as an eastern Catholic I will believe the tradition of my particular Church.
Click to expand...
I believe as a Catholic. The tradition of your Church is CATHOLIC not orthodox. Sorry but your confused between Dogma and Custom and they are not at odds.
It is useless for you to force your beliefs upon me.
Click to expand...
It appears even useless to reason with you. One has to CHOOSE to be Catholic. No matter I see dissenters all the time even in my own Church and I was once there in that place too. A stubborn will is more important than Gods will. God alone knows what we need. Pray for the Holy Spirit to come upon you and help your unbelief.
 
Joab_Anias said:
What the CCC teaches isn’t irrelevant any more than your cultural customs.

This exibits obstinance and a stiff necked pride.

I believe as a Catholic. The tradition of your Church is CATHOLIC not orthodox. Sorry but your confused between Dogma and Custom and they are not at odds.

It appears even useless to reason with you. One has to CHOOSE to be Catholic. It appears you choose to NOT be. No matter I see dissenters all the time even in my own Church and I was once there in that place too. A stubborn will is more important than Gods will. I let God deal with you now as he alone knows what you need. Pray for the Holy Spirit to come upon you and help your unbelief.
Click to expand...
That is great, I exhibit a ‘stiff necked pride’ you exhibit a pharisaical self-righteousness.
 
thedejongs said:
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.”
Click to expand...
I would say that accusing someone of ‘stiff necked pride’ breaks this rule.
 
jimmy said:
I never said that and I never implied it.
Click to expand...
Is the west in error? Are Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and Purgatory all true doctrines?
 
thedejongs said:
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.🤷
Click to expand...
It has anathematized the fathers then as I already said.
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.
Click to expand...
This is an emphasis of how we disagree. I tend to see that the Holy Spirit was guiding each of the saints in the truth. Whereas you seem to see that the views of the fathers were simply opinion(that might not be an accurate statement of what you believe). I tend to see the guidance of the Holy Spirit more in each saint whereas you see it in the Church as a legislating body. I see it phenomenologically, you see it more along the lines of scholasticism.

Yes, certain saints made errors from time to time but you can’t say that almost all of them erred on a matter. it is their beliefs which we are to follow. A dogma that does not have the support of the fathers is meaningless because it wasn’t given by God. This is the view in the west as well.
 
East_and_West said:
Is the west in error? Are Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and Purgatory all true doctrines?
Click to expand...
Even if these are errors I wouldn’t necessarily say that the west isn’t being guided by God. If they have erred I would say that they haven’t fully submitted themselves to Gods providence. They are still part of the Church and they still have bishops and priests and etc. It is not like they are some apostates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top