H
Hesychios
Guest
However, the Theotokos is not.
- Status
H
HailMary
Guest
Sorry friend, I am familiar with the Western and Eastern understanding of the IC.
a dogma is a dogma for the east and the west. This whole eastern/western thing doesn’t exist in Heaven anyhow. Truth is truth, it doesn’t matter whether it was revealed in the East or the West or which terms are used to describe it.
Greek tradition is not DOGMA. A dogma is something that all Catholics are bound to believe in. I know you are orthodox and there are no new dogmas in your faith since probably the latest council you accept, but as a Catholic, we still have councils and in one of these, this dogma was revealed.
*John 14:26: *The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.
J
jimmy
Guest
Neither the Theotokos nor the incarnation are outside of time.
H
Hesychios
Guest
You are assuming that the Latin theological constructs are domanant over the Greek.
Not even your own church can, or will, say this. It cannot, or the entire concept of two (or more) theologies in one church will be shown to be a farce.
The fact is under the modern Catholic (as in Papal) understanding there would be an underlying Truth difficult (if not impossible) to express in human terms, and the latin expression is not more accurate than the Greek. You cannot insist that the Greeks affirm a dogmatic interpretation that makes no sense to them.
Your interpretation is that the Latin is most correct, and the Greek is flawed or incorrect, you cannot really say that. Imposing Latin formulated dogma upon the Greek Catholic theological system is not only wrong, it is sometimes dangerous.
Furthermore, assuming that the Latin general councils of the west are ecumenical and therefore protected from error is not a foregone conclusion, even among Eastern Catholics! As noted elsewhere on this thread and in this forum even Archbishops and Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic churches dispute that. Your Pope must deal with this reality and so do you.
You might quote Ott as if he were an infallible interpreter of doctrine for Catholics (and hurl de Fides around as you see appropriate) but he is not. His book is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and the English translation of his work has already been demonstrated to be flawed. You are dancing on quicksand when you discuss theology with the East using Ott and other latin sources like the Old Catholic Encyclopedia and TAN books!
But, since that seems to be all you are willing to work with, I can understand why you aren’t getting it.
*Michael
*
H
HailMary
Guest
I am not the one asserting anything superiority of wester/eastern understanding. I am simply being Catholic and using both lungs of the Church.You are assuming that the Latin theological constructs are domanant over the Greek.
Not even your own church can, or will, say this. It cannot, or the entire concept of two (or more) theologies in one church will be shown to be a farce.
The fact is under the modern Catholic (as in Papal) understanding there would be an underlying Truth difficult (if not impossible) to express in human terms, and the latin expression is not more accurate than the Greek. You cannot insist that the Greeks affirm a dogmatic interpretation that makes no sense to them.
Your interpretation is that the Latin is most correct, and the Greek is flawed or incorrect, you cannot really say that. Imposing Latin formulated dogma upon the Greek Catholic theological system is not only wrong, it is sometimes dangerous.
Furthermore, assuming that the Latin general councils of the west are ecumenical and therefore protected from error is not a foregone conclusion, even among Eastern Catholics! As noted elsewhere on this thread and in this forum even Archbishops and Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic churches dispute that. Your Pope must deal with this reality and so do you.
You might quote Ott as if he were an infallible interpreter of doctrine for Catholics (and hurl de Fides around as you see appropriate) but he is not. His book is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and the English translation of his work has already been demonstrated to be flawed. You are dancing on quicksand when you discuss theology with the East using Ott and other latin sources like the Old Catholic Encyclopedia and TAN books!
But, since that seems to be all you are willing to work with, I can understand why you aren’t getting it.
*Michael
H
Hesychios
Guest
You don’t appear to be…I am not the one asserting anything superiority of wester/eastern understanding. I am simply being Catholic and using both lungs of the Church.
But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Michael
T
thedejongs
Guest
EXACTLY-- my point and the point of many others on this thread. The RCC not only assumes the dominance of Latin theological constructs in certain cases, it actually imposes them. It is insufficient for certain dogmatic statements to take refuge in the “we believe the same end but have different theological expressions of it” in cases in which the RCC has made a contrary dogmatic statement as to the proper expression, in addition to the end. I’m glad to see an Eastern Catholic finally recognizing that the concept of two or more theologies in one church is, indeed, a farce (your words; not mine).
Methinks that this is a bit uncalled for. Ott is, in fact, a decent reference source. However, people on this thread apparently believe that some of us refuse to work with original texts and are comfortable simply quoting a secondary source, just because a comment we make may be mirrored in Ott. There’s no dancing on quicksand at all when one refers to magisterial authorities applicable to the entire RCC (such as the documents of ecumenical councils, the CCC, and papal encylicals) when those happen also to be “latin sources.” We’re working with original documents but still aren’t getting it-- other than, perhaps, clarifying the notion that having one’s cake and eating it, too, is much rarer than EC’s appear to believe.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
But this is exactly what has happened between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church in talks over the “monophysite” issue that has divided us.
The Church doesn’t think in Greek, Latin, or any other language eventhough certain churches do. It’s theological formulations are dependent upon the language and culture from which it came.
If one tries to understand the east’s perspective through the latin understanding, there are going to be problems. The same with trying to understand the latin Church with the eyes of the east.
I really don’t udnerstand why it is so hard to acknowledge that these Churches have a distinct perspective that isn’t necissarily easily transalable to the other Churches that have different languages, cultures, and such.
Our Eastern brothers have a very valid point about latinizations in the eastern Churches. But on the other hand, they cannot insist on hellenizations to the latin Church either. IMO, both sides are going to need to move from their current position in order to accept the other’s perspective.
E
East_and_West
Guest
Blah blah blah… Latin theological Constructions… blah blah blah… Latinizations… blah blah blah… Latin bad, East Good… You assume that doctrines are nothing more than Latin theologies because you are divorcing yourselves from history. The fact of the matter is that many of these ideas such as the filioque and Purgatory, were made dogma when, for the most part, there were no other Churches in the Catholic Church but the latin Church. At that time, to be Catholic was to be Latin. During that time, the Catholic Church did not cease to be the Catholic Church, the body of Christ. It still tauhgt with authority through her councils…And it really has nothing to do with everyone being latin, but with the fact that almost the entire east was in schism and unable to be part of Church councils.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
If I could interject:
They were allowed to retain their own understanding without having to accept latin theological formulations and distinctions, but the ideas of what purgatory is, is believed by them.
The reason that Rome doesn’t force the Eastern Catholic Churches to recite the filioque in their Creed is the same reason why the west doesn’t need to drop the filioque. The faith of east and west is the same. What is different is the expressions east and west use to proclaim that same faith. If you use the eastern perspective with their tradition and patrimony to understand the filioque, you’re going to find a problem. In the same way, if you use a western perspective with our tradition and patrimony on something like original sin, you’re going to insist that the east adopt our view of the Immaculate conception and original sin.
Yet, when each side sees the others as complimentary within their own tradition and patrimony, they aren’t contradictory, just two sides of the same coin. Neither side should be asked to give up what is theirs in order to make them look more like the other, for both have the same faith, IMHO.
But they are latin expressions of theologies. You might be confusing expressions of faith, which is what theology explains, with faith itself. The Ukrainian’s did not have to accept the word Purgatory in the Union of Brest because the theological underpinnings of purgatory are explained in latin terms. However, the Ukrainians did have to confess the totality of the Catholic faith.
They were allowed to retain their own understanding without having to accept latin theological formulations and distinctions, but the ideas of what purgatory is, is believed by them.
The reason that Rome doesn’t force the Eastern Catholic Churches to recite the filioque in their Creed is the same reason why the west doesn’t need to drop the filioque. The faith of east and west is the same. What is different is the expressions east and west use to proclaim that same faith. If you use the eastern perspective with their tradition and patrimony to understand the filioque, you’re going to find a problem. In the same way, if you use a western perspective with our tradition and patrimony on something like original sin, you’re going to insist that the east adopt our view of the Immaculate conception and original sin.
Yet, when each side sees the others as complimentary within their own tradition and patrimony, they aren’t contradictory, just two sides of the same coin. Neither side should be asked to give up what is theirs in order to make them look more like the other, for both have the same faith, IMHO.
H
Hesychios
Guest
You seem upset…
E
East_and_West
Guest
Not at all. Its just silly that some Catholics think its ok to deny articles of the faith.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I think that you are the one in denial.
Try learning about the Eastern Faith, and listening…instead of dictating to it.
Peace,
Michael
H
HailMary
Guest
In fact, they required we (Chaldeans) recite the Creed without it as a part of our reformed Liturgy:
kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/QA_NewMass.html
E
East_and_West
Guest
I am talking about Catholicism here, as defined by ALL the councils. It has nothing to do with being Eastern or Western.
H
HailMary
Guest
As I said before, there is no such thing as Western Truth, and Eastern Truth in Heaven. Truth is Truth in all eras and all rites.
E
East_and_West
Guest
I agree with you.
C
Catherine_Grant
Guest
Moderator Note:
We understand that there is a wide diversity of expression of theology, spirituality, and discipline between and within the Eastern, Oriental, and Western rites and churches. While these topics may legitimately be discussed in charity, calling into question the catholicity, orthodoxy, or personal faith of another is outside the purpose of this forum and will not be tolerated. Please review our forum guidelines on charity before posting. Thank you.
We understand that there is a wide diversity of expression of theology, spirituality, and discipline between and within the Eastern, Oriental, and Western rites and churches. While these topics may legitimately be discussed in charity, calling into question the catholicity, orthodoxy, or personal faith of another is outside the purpose of this forum and will not be tolerated. Please review our forum guidelines on charity before posting. Thank you.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
Very true, and that truth is expressed in different ways by the east and west (and orientals too), but it is still one faith.
J
jimmy
Guest
The filioque was essentially made dogma before the Great schism. The pope inserted it into the creed for the liturgy in Rome. There is nothing more authoritative than the liturgy. If it has entered the liturgy it is dogma to those who have entered it in. The east however did not add it. This is the beginning to the schism.
- Status