No, we only need to work towards agreement on some things. And actually, there are more than two choices on the latter depending upon the circumstances. I can’t recall seeing a conciliar statement that read “you must believe this under pain of anathema.” Even if one did, there are many of our dogmas that the ECs have never seen. There are others that may or may not ever apply to them. True, there are certain things that none of us can believe because they are four-square against Catholicity. Totally disagree with you on all the rest though.
And that which the church says “You must believe under pain of Anathema” has a specific name for the class of required beliefs: Dogma.
Neither of those are doctrines-simple, but dogmas, and thus universally required.
Really? Because the Church declares an anathema on anyone who rejects Papal infallibility.
Accepting the IC and denying it is a contradiction. Plain and simple
That is a very good link. Thank you.
East and West,
Doctrines-simple is a technical way of saying “Doctrines which are not also dogmas.”
Yes I understand that.
True.
Yes, I have looked it up previously several times. Thanks though.
Also understood and what you say clarifies what I was getting at in simple terms. Thanks. The only problem I have is when misconceptions cause discord which I see no need of.
Thank you.
I think if you concentrate your study on the differences between Dogma and Doctrine you should understand Eastern Catholic Theology is not contrary to Church Dogma though some of it may express doctrines in a different way.
Joab,
It seems that the inscrutable east is really eluding you!
Except that, going with your thoughts about John the Baptist, Mary was concieved without Original Sin, whereas, St. John was born w/o OS.
IMO, I’m sure in others, this could translate to St. John being born w/o OS, but its not definitive. Whereas, the IC, is de fide.
The IC does not force Mary to be sinless. Adam and Eve were created Immaculate as well but they still fell into sin. Mary still could have sinned had she chosen to.It seems that the inscrutable east is really eluding you!
The best way to understand this concept is by going back to the predominant Latin attitude about the nature of fallen man as opposed to the predominant attitude of the east about the nature of fallen man.
There have been many, many discussions about the two ideas of Original Sin (or First Sin) but I must ask you in charity to please not be readily dismissive of this.
Over time there was a considerable gulf between the understandings, and I am not stating that one or another was better!
If you can imagine all of us claiming an Immaculate Conception I am sure you would feel a bit of revulsion at the thought. So just gather that in…and feel it for a moment. That is the Latin attitude leaning toward the general level of depravity of all of us…certainly an unworthy bunch!
In that sense, no one can conceive of the Blessed Virgin being just like us…so unworthy and prone to almost any level of sin at any time. So the idea of Mary’s conception being special grew in the minds of many.
In the east, the mother of God Mary is primarily a heroic figure, something like a Horatio Alger success story. She did not sin because of her gumption, her true grit. The right stuff.
In other words, her sinlessness is not a foregone conclusion. In fact she is certainly not the only one so blessed (John the Baptist is another). It is a function of her will in cooperation with the Grace of God showering down upon us like the rain.
If one thinks in these terms, the concept of immaculate conception is unnecessary and superfluous. She is endowed with the same conception of all of us…in a sinless state any woman would have been just like her, because they were similarly born.
Michael
Yes, of course. God made us with free will.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception assumes that God is outside of time. That is certainly how John Duns Scotus defended it.
Not important.