General Eastern Catholic Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Marc_Anthony

Guest
Hello,

I am a Roman Catholic who has profound respect for the Eastern Church (specifically the Byzantine Church). I just had a few questions on the Eastern Theology.
  1. What is the difference between Eastern and Western teaching on Purgatory?
  2. How does the Eastern Church understand the Immaculate Conception?
  3. How does the Eastern Church understand original sin?
  4. I remember vaguely hearing something about how Easterns didn’t see Christ as making “reperations” for our sins, but instead that he “conquered” sin and death. Can anybody clarify?
  5. What about the Eucharist? Is the teaching exactly the same?
  6. What reason would Eastern Catholics give for suffering in the world?
Any other differences in theology that you guys have I would love to know.

Thank you!
 
Concerning the Eucharist, we believe that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of our Lord. We tend not to use the term transubstantiation. Also, the Eastern tradition, to the extent that it locates a moment when the consecration occurs, would point to the epiclesis, rather than the Words of Institution. However, there are those in the East (myself included) who tend to view the entire Anaphora as being consecratory and are not so concerned about a particular moment when the consecration occurs. We know that it happens. We know that it is the work of the Holy Spirit. How it happens, or the exact moment when it happens is not something that is important for us to know.
 
The Eastern Church does not generally view the Crucifixion in terms of Christ making satisfaction. Sin is a spiritual illness that ultimately causes death. The Incarnate Christ experiences that death in the Crucifixion and conquers it in the Resurrection. By virtue of our baptism, we share in Christ’s death, but also in his conquest over death in the Resurrection.
 
As for Purgatory, you will find different beliefs. There are those in the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” camp who simply reject Purgatory. However, like the Orthodox, they still believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious in some way. On the other hand, there are Eastern Catholics who believe that they are bound to accept Purgatory as a matter of dogma.
 
With respect to original sin, Eastern Christians generally have believed that Adam’s sin introduced the spiritual sickness that is sin into humanity. However, the idea that we are born with any stain of guilt is foreign to the Eastern tradition. There is guilt only for sins that are actually committed. This is why the Orthodox generally reject the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, which they believe to be needed only when one holds to an Augustinian notion of original sin, which they reject. On the other hand, many Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception as a matter of following Catholic dogma. However, most Orthodox and Eastern Catholics believe in the sinlessness of the Theotokos from her conception, regardless of whether they hold to the Immaculate Conception. Those who don’t tend to believe that she was sinless from the time of the Annunciation.
 
Hmm. I think some of these have been discussed vociferously before, though I never entered those threads because they appeared to get heated (though I sometimes will enter heated threads…ouch) . I am no theologian but an Eastern Catholic might say, in regards to purgatory or the Immaculate Conception, that the belief and concept are the same as the Roman Catholic, just that Eastern Catholics may put a different theological emphasis on same in some regards.

There is a purging after death as if through the cleansing fire in a state called purgatory for those souls who enter purgatory after death and one prays for these souls, as does the Roman Catholic. The Immaculate Conception is sung in a tropar in Ukrainian Catholic Services honoring the Mother of God, and many churches are named after same.

I shall see how this thread progresses if I can add more because, as I said, I am no theologian but just a guy. 😊
 
RyanBlack said:
With respect to original sin, Eastern Christians generally have believed that Adam’s sin introduced the spiritual sickness that is sin into humanity. However, the idea that we are born with any stain of guilt is foreign to the Eastern tradition. There is guilt only for sins that are actually committed. This is why the Orthodox generally reject the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, which they believe to be needed only when one holds to an Augustinian notion of original sin, which they reject. On the other hand, many Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception as a matter of following Catholic dogma. However, most Orthodox and Eastern Catholics believe in the sinlessness of the Theotokos from her conception, regardless of whether they hold to the Immaculate Conception. Those who don’t tend to believe that she was sinless from the time of the Annunciation.
Click to expand...
So, Eastern Catholics, becausde they are bound to Catholic dogma, must believe in the Immaculate Conception as the Latin Church understands it?
 
Marc_Anthony said:
So, Eastern Catholics, becausde they are bound to Catholic dogma, must believe in the Immaculate Conception as the Latin Church understands it?
Click to expand...
Where in the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches that was published by Rome does it state the quote mentioned above?

U-C
 
Marc_Anthony said:
So, Eastern Catholics, becausde they are bound to Catholic dogma, must believe in the Immaculate Conception as the Latin Church understands it?
Click to expand...
I’m not Eastern, but Oriental. Your questions #3 and #4 would be answered differently by an Oriental than an Eastern, and #6 might be answered differently by an Oriental than an Eastern.

As for your quesiton on the IC, I believe the Eastern would respond “NO.” Especially given the different understanding of “original sin” held by many in the Eastern Tradition today, the dogma as worded would present a stumbling block. As I’ve expressed in another thread on the IC, the meaning of the dogma can just as easily be affirmed without using Latin theological terminology.

Blessings
 
Ungcsertez said:
Where in the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches that was published by Rome does it state the quote mentioned above?

U-C
Click to expand...
I’m confused. What quote are you referring to?

I make no claims about knowing what the Eastern Church teaches. That’s why I’m asking.
 
mardukm said:
I’m not Eastern, but Oriental. Your questions #3 and #4 would be answered differently by an Oriental than an Eastern, and #6 might be answered differently by an Oriental than an Eastern.

As for your quesiton on the IC, I believe the Eastern would respond “NO.” Especially given the different understanding of “original sin” held by many in the Eastern Tradition today, the dogma as worded would present a stumbling block. As I’ve expressed in another thread on the IC, the meaning of the dogma can just as easily be affirmed without using Latin theological terminology.

Blessings
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer. How exactly do the Eastern understand the IC then?
 
Whoa, very confused here.

The more I read Byzantine theology the more I love it, and I’m starting to prefer it over Latin theology. In one of the links 5Loaves gave I found a link to an excellent blog, with answers to many of my questions, alled “From East to West”. However, the writer of the blog said something that confused me. He said:

"The dispute with the Orthodox over Mary’s immaculate conception is mostly about semantics. Traditionally Eastern and Western Christianity have arrived at very different definitions of “original sin,” which means that we approach Mary’s immaculate state from different perspectives. Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians readily admit that Mary never sinned, as you know from speaking with your friend. According to the Western definition original sin is a sinful nature, and anyone who has it is powerless to stop sinning. Because Mary was sinless, she must not have had original sin.

In contrast, the Eastern Fathers defined original sin first and foremost as the onset of mortality and death. Because (according to the Eastern Fathers) Mary died before her body was assumed into heaven, she must have had original sin… otherwise she would have not aged, and would have been immortal. Thus many Eastern Orthodox theologians have concluded that Mary must have had original sin - but remained sinless by God’s grace.

As you can see, this entire dispute goes back to how one chooses to define “original sin.” Because the Eastern Catholic Churches follow the guidance of the Pope of Rome, we believe that Mary was freed from original sin at the very first moment of her existence."

But this doesn’t seem to make sense-to an Eastern Catholic, if Mary is not immortal, then how could she possibly have had original sin, since the stain of original sin is death in Eastern theology?

It seems like the author of the blog is saying, “According to us, Mary did have original sin, but the Western Church says she didn’t so even though it completely contradicts our definition of original sin we’ll just say she didn’t have original sin anyway.”

How does that make sense? How coul Eastern Catholics claim Mary did not have original sin while also claiming that the stain of original sin is death and believing that Mary died?

How is this reconciled?
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Whoa, very confused here.

How does that make sense? How coul Eastern Catholics claim Mary did not have original sin while also claiming that the stain of original sin is death and believing that Mary died?

How is this reconciled?
Click to expand...
When Westerns say, “Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin,” they are not saying that Mary did not die. “The stain of Original Sin” is a specific theological term in Latin theology meaning “separation from God.” It is a spiritual, not physical, consequence of the Fall. In effect, the dogma of the IC simply states that Mary was united to God - by the Grace of God - from the first moment of her existence.

If Westerns understood “original sin” in the same way that Easterns do, then the dogma of the IC would be saying, “Mary was immortal.” But as you know very well, and as explained above, that is not what the dogma of the IC teaches.

Therefore, there is no contradiction.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
When Westerns say, “Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin,” they are not saying that Mary did not die. “The stain of Original Sin” is a specific theological term in Latin theology meaning “separation from God.” It is a spiritual, not physical, consequence of the Fall. In effect, the dogma of the IC simply states that Mary was united to God - by the Grace of God - from the first moment of her existence.

If Westerns understood “original sin” in the same way that Easterns do, then the dogma of the IC would be saying, “Mary was immortal.” But as you know very well, and as explained above, that is not what the dogma of the IC teaches.

Therefore, there is no contradiction.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Yes, that definitely makes sense. Thank you for responding, this was very helpful.
 
DO I have this straight about the belief in the saints , with the Eastern Catholics , that any who are now in heaven are considered saints , like Adam , etc. , whether they are acknowledged here on earth or not ? Is this correct . I am also a Roman Catholic who has a respect for the Eastern Catholics beliefs . I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this ?
 
goodbeliever said:
DO I have this straight about the belief in the saints , with the Eastern Catholics , that any who are now in heaven are considered saints , like Adam , etc. , whether they are acknowledged here on earth or not ? Is this correct . I am also a Roman Catholic who has a respect for the Eastern Catholics beliefs . I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this ?
Click to expand...
Unless I’m much mistaken, this is the Roman Catholic view of the Sainthood too. All who are in Heaven are considered Saints. The difference is whether we acknowledge them as Saints or not.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Whoa, very confused here.

The more I read Byzantine theology the more I love it, and I’m starting to prefer it over Latin theology. In one of the links 5Loaves gave I found a link to an excellent blog, with answers to many of my questions, alled “From East to West”. However, the writer of the blog said something that confused me. He said:

"The dispute with the Orthodox over Mary’s immaculate conception is mostly about semantics. Traditionally Eastern and Western Christianity have arrived at very different definitions of “original sin,” which means that we approach Mary’s immaculate state from different perspectives. Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians readily admit that Mary never sinned, as you know from speaking with your friend. According to the Western definition original sin is a sinful nature, and anyone who has it is powerless to stop sinning. Because Mary was sinless, she must not have had original sin.

In contrast, the Eastern Fathers defined original sin first and foremost as the onset of mortality and death. Because (according to the Eastern Fathers) Mary died before her body was assumed into heaven, she must have had original sin… otherwise she would have not aged, and would have been immortal. Thus many Eastern Orthodox theologians have concluded that Mary must have had original sin - but remained sinless by God’s grace.

As you can see, this entire dispute goes back to how one chooses to define “original sin.” Because the Eastern Catholic Churches follow the guidance of the Pope of Rome, we believe that Mary was freed from original sin at the very first moment of her existence."

But this doesn’t seem to make sense-to an Eastern Catholic, if Mary is not immortal, then how could she possibly have had original sin, since the stain of original sin is death in Eastern theology?

It seems like the author of the blog is saying, “According to us, Mary did have original sin, but the Western Church says she didn’t so even though it completely contradicts our definition of original sin we’ll just say she didn’t have original sin anyway.”

How does that make sense? How coul Eastern Catholics claim Mary did not have original sin while also claiming that the stain of original sin is death and believing that Mary died?

How is this reconciled?
Click to expand...
God is timeless, He could have removed it at the annunciation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top