Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[tdgesq]

Perhaps the following will be more helpful to you: The quote is Canon XXIII of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.

Thank you. I knew it was in the Decree on Justification, so it only took a little while to flip to the right page in the book last night. But it may not always be that easy. There are twenty-five sessions after all.

As to the content of the Canon, I am not sure that it simply reiterates what you’ve been saying all along.

Well, let’s take a look at the portion of my previous post you quoted:

I’m sorry, but I don’t know of any Catholic teaching that states conception without original sin makes one incapable of personal sin. I am at liberty to believe that Mary was capable of sin, and most RC theology about Mary wouldn’t make any sense without assuming that she had free will to commit personal sin.

Do authorities to which you refer state that conception without sin makes one incapable of personal sin? Do they state that Mary had no free will to commit personal sin? Let’s take a look.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.Council of Trent, Session 6.

The first part states that a man once justified can sin and can lose grace. The second part after the semicolon states that a man is not able to during his entire life to avoid all sins, except by special privilege from God (grace) as in the case of Mary. We both agree that Mary was given grace by God. We both agree that Mary did not sin. We may disagree that Mary was given a greater quantum of grace or type of grace than any other person, but I never denied that Mary was given special grace in that regard. I specifically stated on more than one occasion that she was given an abundance of grace. In any case, none of this states or even implies that Mary was incapable of sin or that she lacked free will.

It states expressly that Mary was, by special privilege, exempted from sin unlike any human being other than Christ himself.

Come on thedejongs. It does not “expressly” state that Mary was “exempted” from personal sin. That is an interpretation you’ve inserted without giving any basis in RC teaching. Mystici Corporis doesn’t help you.

Not exactly sure why you’re laughing, but I am certainly happy to give you the exact quote that supports my statement.

I laughed because I know that Mystici Corporis works against your position.

I italicized the portion I believe to be relevant. It comes from the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII “On the Mystical Body of Christ” (Mystici Corporis Christi) The 110th paragraph reads, in full, as follows:
. . .
It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother’s rights and her mother’s love were included in the holocaust.
. . .

I only included the italicized portion. I fail to see how it advances your position that Mary was incapable of sinning or that she lacked free will. It states she was free from personal sin, but we all already agree with that. Here is the relevant portion from the encyclical:

Venerable Brethren, may the Virgin Mother of God hear the prayers of Our paternal heart - which are yours also - and obtain for all a true love of the Church - she whose sinless soul was filled with the divine spirit of Jesus Christ above all other created souls, who “in the name of the whole human race” gave her consent “for a spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature.” (Emphasis added).

If Mary was incapable of doing anything other than the will of God, then there can’t be consent. Yet here Pope Pius says she gave consent. Was it due to the grace given her? Of course. Just like the good actions I perform would not possible without the grace of God. When I was baptized as an infant, I had not done anything to merit the accompanying grace. Are my free actions any less meritorious simply because God has given me a gift that I choose to cooperate with? Is it any different for someone who receives a greater gift of grace and who also chooses to cooperate? Would a “good” act apart from any grace make it more meritorious? I hope you can now see why your analysis of Mary’s free will and ability to sin doesn’t make sense to us.

 

[tdgesq]

I was unsure on how to respond to this, if at all. As you seem fond both of citations and of Ludwig Ott, I shall simply encourage you to consider the meaning and implementation of the fourth and fifth words counted from the end of the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Part 2, Section 21, of Book 4 of Ott’s FCD.

I’m at work, so I don’t have my copy with me. It became immediately apparent to me that your other citations came from Ott. The reason I get fuzzed up about that is because you need to cite to the actual source from which you obtained the information. If you got it from Ott, cite to Ott, not to the primary sources as if they say what you claim. Of course the only dogmatic statement Ott gives on this issue is that Mary was sinless throughout her life. He doesn’t support your proposition.

 

[Marina14]

Ahh - it would be real helpful if you’d bother to learn how to use the word processing on this forum.

Melkites are Catholic - Eastern Catholic., but Catholic in union with Rome accepting all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. In effect you are disparaging the Melkites by claiming they have sold out - denying their own theology for union. NOTHING could be further from the TRUTH. Don’t claim that the Melkites are not Catholic. They are Catholic in faith and doctrine - 100%. Catholic faith and doctrine more than amply accommodates eastern theology as expressed by the Melkite, the Maronites and all other Catholic Churches.

You are claiming I’m saying the exact opposite of what I’m actually saying.

I am not disparaging the Melkite Greek Rite of Catholic Church where my own daughter was Chrismated.

I am not saying the Melkites have “sold out” I am saying that Melkites HAVE NOT SOLD OUT - they continue in the Faith which has been handed down to them since the first Apostles were missionaries in their homelands.

You, on the other hand, are claiming that because their Patriarch came into union with Rome that all of the sudden all of their beliefs/dogma/etc. have changed to be mirror images of what the Roman Catholics have believed. This is non-sense. Absolute non-sense.
The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch doesn’t even claim that - he says, In his Preface to the 1967 French edition of this volume, Patriarch Maximos IV attributes it, first, to the fact that the Catholic Melkites had never lost contact with their Orthodox roots, and thus never became closed in on themselves. This allowed them to discern what is essential (i.e., Catholic) from what is contingent (i.e., Latin) in Catholicism…
www.melkite.org

 

[Joab_Anias]

This allowed them to discern what is essential (i.e., Catholic) from what is contingent (i.e., Latin) in Catholicism…
www.melkite.org

Sister the Dogma are essential. Its the rest; culture and custm that is contingent.

If you study and compare the theology you will see there is no desparity there. Only common misconceptions. Unfortunately these misconceptions unless dispelled are held to as fact when in reality they are not.

Peace.

 

[Aileen74]

O my goodness!

A thread attacking our eastern catholic faith by roman catholics…tisk tisk.

 

[Marina14]

Sister the Dogma are essential. Its the rest; culture and custm that is contingent.

If you study and compare the theology you will see there is no desparity there. Only common misconceptions. Unfortunately these misconceptions unless dispelled are held to as fact when in reality they are not.

Peace.

I’ve studied and compared the theology between the Roman Catholics and Melkite Greek Catholics for 10 years and yes there is a difference.

I’d suggest you take your own advise.

Best Wishes to you. I’m dropping out of this thread - I shouldn’t have to be defending the Melkite Greek Catholic Church against the Roman Catholic Church. I’m Orthodox, I’m not part of this fight. I just couldn’t bare to see the Melkites getting attacked on their own Eastern Catholic Forum. - my natural reaction is to defend those who are being dumped on.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I’ve studied and compared the theology between the Roman Catholics and Melkite Greek Catholics for 10 years and yes there is a difference.

I understand the difference you see. What I am trying to portrait is that the differences aren’t in conflict with the Dogma of the Magisterium where they are correctly interpreted.

I’d suggest you take your own advise.

I am trying. On all the issues I have researched I have consistently concluded a separate expression that speaks the same faith. Even among most of the traditional non-catholic Orthodox positions. Nothing disparaging at all. I perceive two major things that get in the way, 1.) either misconceptions or 2.) an uncharitable us and them mentality.

Best Wishes to you. I’m dropping out of this thread - I shouldn’t have to be defending the Melkite Greek Catholic Church against the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks for the good wishes. I’m sad you feel you need to leave. Your right you shouldn’t have to defend where there is no defense necessary.

I’m Orthodox, I’m not part of this fight. I just couldn’t bare to see the Melkites getting attacked on their own Eastern Catholic Forum. - my natural reaction is to defend those who are being dumped on.

I surely hope you don’t think I was dumping on anyone? Does this really have to be a fight? I see no fight between Catholics of different regions and customs. Sure there are disagreements. That’s natural. There are disagreements between individuals of the same rite. These disagreements shouldn’t cause us schism.

If you feel too emotional to dialogue about the issues that is understandable. Sometimes it helps to put ourselves in another’s shoes to understand where they are coming from.

The tread is about Theology vs. Dogma. I have stated what those Dogma are to the best of my ability in a previous post. I am also willing to discuss the theology behind them in comparison to the seemingly different theologies. As I said, I have done this before and found a common expression that is not contrary to the Dogma at all. Please keep in mind the Dogma are irreversible. How we reconcile that could make the difference between a schismatic fight and a unifying dialogue.

Peace.

 

[fulloffaith]

I understand the difference you see. What I am trying to portrait is that the differences aren’t in conflict with the Dogma of the Magisterium where they are correctly interpreted.

I am trying. On all the issues I have researched I have consistently concluded a separate expression that speaks the same faith. Even among most of the traditional non-catholic Orthodox positions. Nothing disparaging at all. I perceive two major things that get in the way, 1.) either misconceptions or 2.) an uncharitable us and them mentality.

Thanks for the good wishes. I’m sad you feel you need to leave. Your right you shouldn’t have to defend where there is no defense necessary.

I surely hope you don’t think I was dumping on anyone? Does this really have to be a fight? I see no fight between Catholics of different regions and customs. Sure there are disagreements. That’s natural. There are disagreements between individuals of the same rite. These disagreements shouldn’t cause us schism.

If you feel too emotional to dialogue about the issues that is understandable. Sometimes it helps to put ourselves in another’s shoes to understand where they are coming from.

The tread is about Theology vs. Dogma. I have stated what those Dogma are to the best of my ability in a previous post. I am also willing to discuss the theology behind them in comparison to the seemingly different theologies. As I said, I have done this before and found a common expression that is not contrary to the Dogma at all. Please keep in mind the Dogma are irreversible. How we reconcile that could make the difference between a schismatic fight and a unifying dialogue.

Peace.

Thank you for being so irenic in the midst of all these disputes, Joab Anias.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Thank you for being so irenic in the midst of all these disputes, Joab Anias.

My pleasure.

The goal is the same as the Church. Wish I could remember how JPII phrased that goal because it was deep. I looked and couldn’t find the exact quote I had in mind but did find this which is also helpful:

ALL MUST STRIVE FOR GOAL OF FULL UNITY
Pope John Paul II
General Audience July 12, 1995

And from the East:

Bishop John Elya says “To prolong the schism is to remain in sin.”

He thinks it is a matter of conscience to face the division of the churches and he calls for the double communion of the Melkite Church both with Rome and with the Orthodox Churches.
melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Peace.

 

[fulloffaith]

My pleasure.

The goal is the same as the Church. Wish I could remember how JPII phrased that goal because it was deep. I looked and couldn’t find the exact quote I had in mind but did find this which is also helpful:

ALL MUST STRIVE FOR GOAL OF FULL UNITY
Pope John Paul II
General Audience July 12, 1995

Peace.

AMEN!!!

 

[tdgesq]

O my goodness!

A thread attacking our eastern catholic faith by roman catholics…tisk tisk.

I guess I see it a little bit differently. Some of the people who are coming to the ostensible defense of our Eastern Catholic brethren are not Eastern Catholics at all; they are Eastern Orthodox. I have had two now that have badly misrepresented the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Then of course they tell us how we don’t honor Eastern theology due to Rome’s unreasonable dogmatic statements. Happened all the time on the last forum too.

That being said, my experience has been the same as Joab’s. Once I actually understand an Eastern Catholic on a position, most of the time I’ve been able to reconcile it with the dogmatic teachings of the RCC. And not just based upon some funny ecumenical feeling, but because I am truly convinced that they do not conflict.

It is immensely more difficult to do the legwork to find a solution to apparent contradictions than it is to declare insoluble differences. Maybe that’s why we have so many misunderstandings.

 

[Hesychios]

You are claiming I’m saying the exact opposite of what I’m actually saying.

I agree, he is doing just that. He is putting words in your mouth (or keyboard).

I am assuming that these people are frightened of the Truth about their own communion, otherwise I cannot explain their responses.

This is particularly disturbing to me because the Roman Catholic Suopreme Pontiff is making overtures to the Orthodox churches, but for what? To have Orthodoxy become something like what they claim the Melkites have become? That’s not the message we have been getting from Rome.

I am not disparaging the Melkite Greek Rite of Catholic Church…
I am not saying the Melkites have “sold out” I am saying that Melkites HAVE NOT SOLD OUT - they continue in the Faith which has been handed down to them since the first Apostles were missionaries in their homelands.

I agree with you 100%.

You, on the other hand, are claiming that because their Patriarch came into union with Rome that all of the sudden all of their beliefs/dogma/etc. have changed to be mirror images of what the Roman Catholics have believed. This is non-sense. Absolute non-sense.

There is a type of revisionism taking place here, a whitewash over inconvenient truth.

If any church has demonstrated the potential of Orthodoxy in communion with Rome, it is the Melkite church more than any other. Now we see that such a union with Rome would be impossible, if we are to take these arguments at face value.

If these people posting on this thread were correct it would confirm to us that the Eastern Catholic churches are NOT a model for Christian unity as has been hoped for by so many. Hence they cannot live up to the hopes of John Paul II of blessed memory to be a catalyst for change, and they truly ARE an obstacle to reconciliation.

{continued below}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a “particular honor” given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, “servatis servandis”, in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!
H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites

*** The Melkite Initiative -***

***1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. ***
***2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation." ***

The Melkite website has already been referenced.

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a ‘general’ synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"
~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, “Ecumenical Reflections,” Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

The Melkites give us abundant evidence of their fidelity to their original Orthodox Faith and praxis, and little wonder…they were not required to assent to Latin theology when they agreed to come into communion with Rome.

This is starting to look like the proposal Rome is making again, if the Roman church wants Holy Orthodoxy to come into communion, it must keep it’s promises to the Eastern Catholics. If it does not, no deal is possible and the Eastern Catholic churches will be an obstruction to church unity.

Michael

 

[fulloffaith]

Hey, listen, you guys. I know this is off-topic, but does anyone know of a wiki for Eastern Catholicism? FYI, i’m thinking of one which would include catechetics.

Thank you.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I am assuming that these people are frightened of the Truth about their own communion, otherwise I cannot explain their responses.

Hello Michael,

So because you cannot understand the Dogma of the Church you assume we are afraid? When we tell you again and again we want unity because Christs does.

I must say I am disapointed to see such a polemical statement from you.

Is it fear to be intellecually lazy when it comes to understanding the theology behind said Dogma?

I have given every schismatic denial its honest chance to convince me and found nothing to deny a single Dogma. If you give the Dogma the same chance you should find the same.

The Melkite Initiative -

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation."

This includes many things, all of which are contained in the Dogma of the Catholic Church.

Don’t you think any further polemical discussions would need to be taken to the NCR thread where they belong?

Peace.

 

[Hesychios]

Don’t you think any further polemical discussions would need to be taken to the NCR thread where they belong?

Peace.

I thought we were discussing the Melkite Catholic church?

 

[East_and_West]

Bear in mind when you answer, it is the Catholic Church’s position that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the belief system of Holy Orthodoxy, except the deficiency they have in lacking the Petrine ministry. It is because of this that the Catholic Church allows communion with the Orthodox Church (even if you personally disagree with the matter, it does not change this blatant fact).

(I bring in the Orthodox because the beliefs of the EC being asked the question are often claimed synonymous (dare I say the same) with Orthodoxy, and yet they are out of our Catholic communion. The point is if there are two different faiths in the Catholic Communion, and we acknowledge the Orthodox’s faith as having the fundamentals except the Papacy, how can a Latin claim our theology as EC and OC is in need of correcting itself?)

Peace and God Bless!

I am not accusing anyone. I am not saying anyone needs to correct themselves. I have said nothing of the sort as of late. I have kept my opinions concerning these matters to myself the last few days. What i am doing is asking the question: Do we profess two different faiths?

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Don’t you think any further polemical discussions would need to be taken to the NCR thread where they belong?

Polemics do not belong on any CAF board. A discussion of the role of Eastern Catholics is appropriate to this board and may continue.

Polemics has been defined for this board as the following:
Joe Monahan:

I see it as the presentation of a point of view in a manner that does not seek to invite discussion, dialogue, discourse, or debate, in a charitable or civil manner, instead using a style that is confrontational, argumentative, and (effectively) condemnatory to those who might hold an opposite point of view. This does not mean, to me, that anyone should feel it necessary to compromise their faith and beliefs or the doctrinal and/or dogmatic precepts of their Church.

Polemics is in the nature of presentation not content. It does not preclude fervor and shouldn’t be misunderstood for that laudable emotion. Rather than fervor, it is akin to fanaticism or a zealousness that seeks to overwhelm or overpower, rather than educate.

It eschews recognizing that others might believe differently and might hold to other understandings and authorities than does the polemicist. It hurls anathemas and labels others as apostates, heretics, and schismatics with no regard for the environment in which they were raised or educated, the beliefs with which they were inculcated, or other factors. It denies their reasoning without trying to see how it came to be. It is, overall, an unhealthy way to promote one’s point of view, since it dismisses those of others out-of-hand. It is not persuasive but pedantic and, when it succeeds in “turning” another, its effects are not always long-lived, because it has failed to lay a positive basis - often relying on undermining another’s beliefs, rather than affording the other person with a reason to accept the polemicist’s beliefs as correct.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I thought we were discussing the Melkite Catholic church?

I took your assumption that Catholics (“these people”) are afraid of the truth because we hold to the Dogma of the Church as truth as being diminishing to the Melkite Catholics who do the same because they are Catholic.

I would ask why are orthodox speaking for Melkite Catholics and Roman Catholics? On several occasions in this thread I have read from orthodox what Latins believe and in each case I recall it was incorrect. With such credibility how am I to trust what orthodox say Melkite Catholics believe? I assume all Catholics ultimately believe the same thing when it comes to Dogma until I hear differently from those claiming to be Catholic and not those in schism.

Peace.

 

[Woodstock]

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but most Eastern Catholics left this board saying they didn’t want to defend their faith against Roman Catholics.

Several Eastern Catholics participated in this thread and were dismissed. They were told they either believed like this or they weren’t Catholic and what they had to say carried no weight.

I am appreciative for the explanations of those like Hesychios and I pray this board will have the eastern representation you are also looking for.