Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, what i meant to ask was, are absolutely ALL ECs officially required to accept all 21 ecumenical councils as authoritative, along with all of their dogmatic pronouncements?
Of course.

NOTE however, that no denies the special place of the first 7. Also, remember the common understanding of councilor decrees may not be accurate or may not be dogma.

NO EC church denies any Catholic dogma.

What individuals may do, believe or think is another issue.
 
Indeed it is curious. But counting Councils is a problem for many it seems- EC, RC and EO, even. For example see:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848)
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, to the Easterns
Refers in several places to 8 Ecumenical Councils. This letter was subscribe to by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria as well as the Synods of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. Curious, indeed.
Ancient texts confirm that this mis-reference was a typo.😉
 
Ancient texts confirm that this mis-reference was a typo.😉
I take it this is a joke.

Orthodox apologist T.R. Valentine insists that there are nine ecumenical councils and cites several Orthodox theologians who apparently believe the same thing.
 
This ideas of individuals studying the ‘science of Theology’ is frightful to me.

It was once the teaching of the ‘whole’ of Christianity that the Saints were the ‘worthy vessel’ given ‘theological sight’ into the mysteries of our Faith (God-Seers).

I honestly believe we need to get back to this… 😦
Theology is not now, and never has been, excusively the province of saints, and is the ordinary duty of the Bishop/Eparch.

Lay theologians have a lot to add, sometimes being able to enlighten bishops to understanding the Doctors of the Church and the Fathers of the Church. But the Bishops are the ones who must be theologians, to keep an eye on the preaching of the priests, and to prevent the rise of Heresies.

For if we do not have systematic theology, each individual takes the doctrines and liturgical elements and comes to unique understandings of Christ’s message. With systematic theology, we have tools for teaching correct personal understandings besides just the liturgy and doctrines.

And theology is allowed to vary far more than doctrine, which is allowed a little more flex (being mostly fixed, but varying from Church to Church within the Catholic Communion/Union), and Dogma, a specific subset of Doctrine, being mandated to be universal.

Theology is the study of God, and is part of most peoples’ theosistic journey. Theosis is the process of becoming ever more and more like God; our ultimate goal is to become enough like God to be allowed into Heaven.

I study theology to improve both my understanding of God and of the Church, and of the Liturgy as well.
 
Of course.

NOTE however, that no denies the special place of the first 7. Also, remember the common understanding of councilor decrees may not be accurate or may not be dogma.

NO EC church denies any Catholic dogma.

What individuals may do, believe or think is another issue.
What about purgatory? I’ve heard it said that ECs dispute it, but do they disagree that there is a process after death of sin-purgation for the saved, or just with its Latin-derived name? Also, what is dogmatic about OS?

Thanks.
 
What about purgatory? I’ve heard it said that ECs dispute it, but do they disagree that there is a process after death of sin-purgation for the saved, or just with its Latin-derived name? Also, what is dogmatic about OS?

Thanks.
The dispute is over the claims of it being a specific amount of time after death for each sin, and indulgences reducing this, as well as it being a place of punishment.

As to Original Sin: The Sin of Adam affects us all, and required Christ’s sacrifice to overcome. Details about how this affects us are varied.
 
The dispute is over the claims of it being a specific amount of time after death for each sin, and indulgences reducing this, as well as it being a place of punishment.

As to Original Sin: The Sin of Adam affects us all, and required Christ’s sacrifice to overcome. Details about how this affects us are varied.
We Latins have never claimed that purgatory was a place, simply a process, nor have we ever held those being purged are thereby punished. As for indulgences lessening one’s time therein, is this not something which has been dogmatically defined?%between%URL=“http://catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
hope i linked this right!
 
Having personally heard several Roman Rite bishops teach otherwise…
85% of Eastern Bishops have taught Arianism at one point…

Therefore the point is you must find the official position on the teaching of Purgatory by the Church to draw a valid conclusion.
 
85% of Eastern Bishops have taught Arianism at one point…

Therefore the point is you must find the official position on the teaching of Purgatory by the Church to draw a valid conclusion.
Thank you, HailMary.
 
i’m sorry, i meant officially:blush:
Check the 1913 catholic encyclopedia:
1913 catholic encyclopedia:
I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:
Code:
"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).
Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.
Temporal Punishment

That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him “to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow” until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the “land of promise” (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God’s enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.
Venial Sins

All sins are not equal before God, nor dare anyone assert that the daily faults of human frailty will be punished with the same severity that is meted out to serious violation of God’s law. On the other hand whosoever comes into God’s presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His “eyes are too pure, to behold evil” (Habakkuk 1:13). For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory.

So deep was this belief ingrained in our common humanity that it was accepted by the Jews, and in at least a shadowy way by the pagans, long before the coming of Christianity. (“Aeneid,” VI, 735 sq.; Sophocles, “Antigone,” 450 sq.).
We Latins have never claimed that purgatory was a place, simply a process, nor have we ever held those being purged are thereby punished. As for indulgences lessening one’s time therein, is this not something which has been dogmatically defined?catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp
hope i linked this right!
Never is such a strong word, and is quite wrong in this case. The Latin theological construct is that purgatory is a place of punishment for sin. It is no longer doctrine of the Roman Church, but it is still a common teaching.

The Eastern Theological construct is quite different.

The dogmatic definition is that it is possible one can be in neither heaven nor hell, and this state (be it a place or condition) is purgatory.
 
Check the 1913 catholic encyclopedia:

Never is such a strong word, and is quite wrong in this case. The Latin theological construct is that purgatory is a place of punishment for sin. It is no longer doctrine of the Roman Church, but it is still a common teaching.

The Eastern Theological construct is quite different.
notice the words ‘‘OR condition’’ implying that one may refer to it as such should one:) so chose, Aramis. It was never mandatory, at least dogmatically, to think of purgatory as a place.
 
The dogmatic definition is that it is possible one can be in neither heaven nor hell, and this state (be it a place or condition) is purgatory.
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in *the state *called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

Wouldn’t it be a common misconception for most to concieve a “state” as a “place”?

Peace.
 
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in *the state *called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

Wouldn’t it be a common misconception for most to concieve a “state” as a “place”?

Peace.
Yes it would, Joab.
 
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in *the state *called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

Wouldn’t it be a common misconception for most to concieve a “state” as a “place”?

Peace.
Perhaps, when I am in a *state of grace, *it is not a place. I, personally have no problem understanding it a state or place, its inconsequential IMO.
 
The dogmatic definition is that it is possible one can be in neither heaven nor hell, and this state (be it a place or condition) is purgatory.
This is horribly wrong from a RC standpoint. Aquinas himself believed that Purgatory was a level of hell. This is a false dichotomy between Eastern and Latin thought.
 
This is horribly wrong from a RC standpoint. Aquinas himself believed that Purgatory was a level of hell. This is a false dichotomy between Eastern and Latin thought.
And St. Thomas Aquinas is not the dogmatic definition, either.

The dogma itself is vague; it has to be to accommodate both the Latin and the Eastern views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top