TrentCath:
OK, so let’s go over these matters.
With respect to the papal dogmas, Eastern Catholics would accept anything any pope would declare as being infallible.
It is just that the Marian dogmas add nothing to our understanding of our Lady from centuries ago, so they come as neither a suprise nor a supplement to anything we’ve always believed about her Person.
As for papal jurisdiction, the Eastern Catholic Churches with their ecclesial particularity and primates/patriarchs have the right to govern themselves as especially laid out in the decree on the EC Churches.
Our patriarch, the Ven. Joseph Cardinal Slipyj was just that and he spent 18 years in Siberia, tortured horribly, for the Catholic faith. Rome’s moves to curb his enthusiasm for Eastern Catholicism were merely political, as we already agree. As the decree on the EC churches affirms, the EC primates share the government of their Particular Churches with the Pope. I don’t believe that is a problem, it never has been and our other great primate, the Ven. Andrew Sheptytsky told Pope St Pius X about our “rights to self-government as a particular Church” to which the holy pope responded, “Then make us of your rights!” (And he gave the Metropolitan full jurisdiction over the Catholics of the then Russian empire). I don’t see nor consider any of this to contradict papal jurisdiction or papal supremacy at any level. It shows a strength of the Catholic Church, not any weakness. Please feel free to take up any further issues with our Patriarch in Lviv, His Beatitude Syatoslav!
As for Original Sin, we accept that Original Sin (and I feel like one of the bishops writing a letter to Rome iin 1596 . . .) is the impact of Adam’s sin on our human nature that we have inherited from him. It amounts to an absence of grace at our conception which requires that Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist be administered to infants.
Our Lady was conceived in the fullness of holiness and grace (as was St John the Baptist, but not on the same level) as shown by our ancient feast-days in honour of these two who were “least unworthy” of our Lord, owing to their central role in salvation history.
I don’t really know what “pre-destination” is but, to me at least, it smacks of a form of Augustinianism that, in its extreme version, is a form of Calvinism. Perhaps you can explain what this means in fact, but you are right - such a term is absent from Eastern Christian Soteriology.
As for indulgences, the Orthodox Catholic East has ALWAYS maintained that works of “supererogation” are needed for our salvation and for that of others, prayers, good works, fasting etc. In response to these, God grants us His Grace and indulgence - but we may never know how much and so must perform these works of faith until our dying breath. The Latin system of indulgences has been reduced and simplified of late. To many EC’s, they smack of a western spiritual “accounting system” where we hold God accountable to respond to our good works.
In addition to forgiveness of sins in Confession, we must do works of supererogation to satisfy God’s justice in having committed sin. This talked about at length in the Orthodox “Confession of Dositheus” and I feel that every Latin Catholic would do well to study that document!
God does require us to “trade in spiritual goods until I return” as our Lord affirmed. If anything, the Latin West has had a much weakened sense of long prayers, fasting (virtually non-existent - for shame!) and other spiritual works.
In fact, the West can teach the East nothing about spiritual enthusiasm for good works, where the chief good work is, of course, PRAYER and asceticism by which we bring under control the sinful urging of our fallen human nature as a result of Original Sin. We must pray “Lord have mercy on me a sinner” until our dying breath.
When I used to collect indulgences, I had a sense that I’ve “paid off” the debt of my sins. I then thought “Well, I’ve nothing to spiritual strive for, I’m in the clear!” And spiritual sloth set into my soul. I’ve since stopped “countiing” partial and plenary indulgences (and the latter, I’ve learned, can only be “real” if there is no attachment to sin in our souls - and who can truthfully ever say that?). So we dedicate ourselves to confessing our sins and doing penance/ascetical works and good works of charity throughout our lives, praying ceaselessly as we go.
This IS the true faith of the Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church and we should all embrace it (especially your North American confreres in the Latin Church).
As for the Canon of Scripture, there has never been a controversy between East and West on this score.
The Orthodox East accepts all the books of the Old Testament that Rome approves, but it also has about six other books that are included as well. I don’t see how that contradicts anyone or anything. We have always used the Prayer of Manasses liturgically etc. In addition, the inclusion of these books by EC’s is a recent thing and it isn’t “universal” so I don’t know how far one may push this.
In fact, I am looking now at a Ukrainian language bible with the entire OT Orthodox Canon of Scripture (which I’ve enshrined in my study here) and which, in the front, has the Imprimatur not only of the Ukrainian Catholic primate, Patriarch Lubomyr (Husar) but also that of the ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIMATE OF UKRAINE.
So if you or any Latin would like to excommunicate us for our slightly longer canon of Scripture, then please be assured that we are taking your RC primate along with us!
The fact that there are divergent canons of scripture (in addition to the books accepted by all Catholics and Orthodox) shows how it is the Church that defines the bible and no one else.
respectfully submitted under my hand
in the year of Our Lord 2011
Alex
