K
KathleenGee
Guest
K…about other traditions…I would think JPII was referring to those where we cannot share at the same communion table.
- Status
C
Cybophonia
Guest
They don’t believe in the Original Sin, but instead in the Ancestral Sin, just like Orthodox.Ummm…what just happened?
Are you retracting this post that you made earlier?
Are you now wanting to dig in your heels for your position?
Incidentally, none of the differences you posted are theological/doctrinal.
I mean, really,* vestments?* That’s what you want to point out as a difference?
You might as well say: Eastern Orthodox churches have their light switches at 4 feet but Roman Catholic churches have their light switches at 5 feet.
Okey dokey, then.
They don’t believe in Purgatory, just like Orthodox.
They don’t believe in the Immaculated conception, just like Orthodox.
They believe in Hesychasm just like Orthodox, Roman Catholics, don’t.
I think it depends of who you ask. The Eastern Catholics are so diverse. I am speaking mostly of the Byzantines (Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Bielorussian, Romanian, etc) , who joined the Roman Catholic Church after 1500 A.D and who from what I gathered I think they retain and have everything the Eastern Orthodox Church does (even the Paschalion?) , namely they are full Eastern Orthodox but in communion with Rome. That is the only thing they got in common with Rome, that they are in communion with the Pope. They are Catholic as they are in the communion with the Catholic Church and not with the Orthodox Church. But their theology with the exception of being in communion with the Pope(the only thing in common with the RC’s) is Eastern Orthodox.
If you are more knowledgeable than me and if I am wrong I would ask you to point out the doctrines that Eastern Catholics have in common with the Roman Catholics and not with the Eastern Orthodox
. If I am wrong I am asking you to correct me, as I have no (recent?) physical experience of Eastern Catholicism. I only express what I gather from internet information.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I
In_His_Grace
Guest
Having been born and raised Baptist, most of my life Baptist until recently, I was responding to the OP’s question about the meaning of the Eucharist for those who hold to a symbolic understanding. I agree with you, Jesus went deeper, “his own walked away”, “a hard saying; who can hear it”…“eat my flesh and drink my blood” like John 6 says and I also believe John 6 is about the sacrament.Loving the memory of Jesus’s work of Salvation? Like eating a type of cake that someone people loved who died used to make? (The latter PRMerger) spoke about. They loved this person wholeheartedly.
To me, this is sharing a collective memory of someone loved dearly. However Jesus went deeper and many of his own walked away.
MJ
Thank you.
C
Cybophonia
Guest
Here is the Byzantine view presented by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky in his book, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:
According to the Roman teaching, the burden of the sin of our first ancestors consists in the removal from mankind of a supernatural gift of grace. But here there arosea theological question: if mankind had been deprived of the gifts of grace, then how is one to understand the words of the Archangel addressed to Mary: “Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women . . . Thou hast found grace with God?” One could only conclude that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been removed from the general law of the “deprivation of grace” and of the guilt of the sin of Adam. And since her life was holy from her birth, consequently she received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. Such a deduction was made by the Latin theologians. They called this removal a “privilege” of the Mother of God One must note that the acknowledgement of this dogma was preceded in the West by a long period of theological dispute, which lasted from the 12th century, when this teaching appeared, until the 17th century, when it was spread by Jesuits in the Roman Catholic world.
…]
On the one hand, we see that God did not deprive mankind, even after its fall, of His grace-giving gifts, as for example, the words of the 50th Psalm indicate: “Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me… With Thy governing Spirit establish me;” or the words of Psalm 70: “On Thee have I been made fast from the womb; from my mother’s womb Thou art my protector.”
On the other hand, in accordance with the teaching of Sacred Scripture, in Adam all mankind tasted the forbidden fruit. Only the God-man Christ begins with Himself the new mankind, freed by Him from the sin of Adam. Therefore, He is called the “Firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29), that is: the First in the new human race; He is the “new Adam.” The Most Holy Virgin was born as subject to the sin of Adam together with all mankind, and with him she shared the need for redemption (the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Par. 6). The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of grace that was poured out upon her. “Thou hast found grace with God,” the Archangel said to her in his greeting: “thou hast found,” that is, attained, acquired, earned. The Most Holy Virgin Mary was prepared by the best part of mankind as a worthy vessel for the descent of God theWord to earth The coming down of the Holy Spirit (“the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”) totally sanctified the womb of the Virgin Mary for the reception of God the Word.
Read more: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/__P1N.HTM
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=380779
Treaty of Brest.
If 1 is correct than 3 is also correct. The dogma of IC says that Mary alone was born without the guilt and stain of “original” sin. The EO and EC believe everyone is born like that because of the different understanding of Original Sin. We don’t believe in Original Sin, we believe in Ancestral Sin.
"
Dear sister Monica,
From having talked to many Eastern and Oriental Catholics on the matter, I’ve found that Oriental Catholics are generally more receptive to it than Eastern Catholics. The Eastern Catholics - once again, from my experience - fall in three categories:
- They accept it as dogma. 2) They accept it, but not as dogma. 3) They reject it.
It should be noted that the proscription contained in the dogma of the IC is only against those who do not accept it. IMHO, a person who accepts it, but not as a matter necessary for salvation (i.e., dogma), would not fall under the proscription stated in the dogma. In fact, the Catholic Church officially recognizes an hierarchy of Truths within the Church (i.e., some Truths are more necessary and important than others for the maintenance of the Faith), so my opinion would have a good likelihood of being within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy.
Blessings,
Marduk"
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=380779
catholicmom.com/2014/12/08/why-dont-eastern-catholics-celebrate-the-immaculate-conception/
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, Cybo.
Michael Pomazansky is an Orthodox priest. He is not espousing the Eastern Catholic view.
Please cite a source from an Eastern Catholic perspective that they reject the Catholic view of Original Sin.
Do NOT cite a source from an Orthodox site.
Thanks.
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL!
A political agreement is NOT a source for religious doctrine.
Please cite a source from an Eastern Catholic site that asserts that they reject the doctrine of purgatory.
Incidentally, I searched this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk and found not a single reference to purgatory.
I am interested in where you think this political treaty referenced purgatory? Please cite what you are referencing.
Thanks.
C
Cybophonia
Guest
And what is your part in this conversation?
C
Cybophonia
Guest
Ignorance is bliss!
P
PRmerger
Guest
You indicated that your lack of knowledge in this area was huge.
Is this not your post?
I suggest that all lurkers disregard the comments made here by Cybo re: Eastern Catholicism.Cybophonia said:
He admits that he did not really know.
He has been asked to provide sources to support his erroneous claims.
And he has not provided a single source.
QED.
Please note, all lurkers: Eastern Catholicism professes everything that Catholicism professes here:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
And that includes: purgatory, Original Sin, Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
Again, what was posted by Cybo is INCORRECT.
C
Cybophonia
Guest
I really did not and do not have time for such a debate that’s why I said that. And also I have a different notion of knowledge than you do. To me knowledge (non-ignorance) encompasses correct whole understanding and certification. I also said that as one who does not (recently?) have a first hand experience of the Eastern Catholic Church(verifiability). I don’t like polemics (you don’t seem like a pleasant person to have this type of controversial conversations). I already have too many polemics in my life. I found it extremely rude that you had to bring this up in a personal thread that I opened in another section. It is because of that that I chose to involve and respond to your inaccuracies and to make a fool out of yourself. Don’t worry by the time I will finish with you, you will be humiliated in more ways than 1.
- Everyone who is uningorant knows that the Byzantine Catholics are mostly former Eastern Orthodox who have come in union with the Pope, and who retain all that the Eastern Orthodox Church does (many of them came into Union with Rome, after the last great Pan-Orthodox Synod, meaning that they are exactly Orthodox, but in communion with Rome with probably a few acknowledgements of Western theology, more or less adopted). Well the Eastern Catholic movement is pretty diverse, there are diverse Patriarchies at diverse times and circumstance who made an union with Rome. An example that stands out is the Maronite Church. So I am covered in what I say. The practice, the liturgy, the archeology, the vestments, much of the doctrines are Orthodox, so there was no need of the dissacation of what I said.
- You showed yourself ignorant to the Eastern Catholic movement once again when you didn’t have the slightest clue of what the Treaty of Brest is.
- You show that you have no understanding of what ‘doctrine’ means
P
PRmerger
Guest
And yet here you are, using your time to debate and present what you already stated you are ignorant about.
Cybophonia said:
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am still waiting for your citations from the Treaty of Brest which affirm that Eastern Catholicism rejects the teaching on Purgatory.
Please cite that.
Thanks.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Careful, Cybo.
It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned.
But this type of threat is not permitted here on the CAFs.
I suggest you figure out how to post with charity in the future so you can learn a little more about what Catholicism professes…and especially to extinguish any ignorance (as you self-professed) regarding Eastern Catholicism.
Again, lurkers, please note: Eastern Catholicism submits to and endorses everything that is written here:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
C
Cybophonia
Guest
“There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam; in the eleventh-century commentator Theophylact of Ohrida; and in later Byzantine authors, particularly in Gregory Palamas. The always-more-sophisticated Maximos the Confessor, when he speaks of the consequences of the sin of Adam, identifies them mainly with the mind’s submission to the flesh and finds in sexual procreation the most obvious expression of man’s acquiescence in animal instincts; but as we have seen, sin remains, for Maximos, a personal act, and inherited guilt is impossible. For him, as for the others, “the wrong choice made by Adam brought in passion, corruption, and mortality,” but not inherited guilt.” - Fr. Meyendorf on the Original Sin
On the Immaculated Conception : books.google.dk/books?id=Of3SAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=meyendorf+immaculated+conception&source=bl&ots=-47Dh85eF1&sig=Zer_Le69pZ3Ktoqt9RxPcJ7fAyU&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwA2oVChMIocGgtd_JxwIVg4csCh1ZwwhJ#v=onepage&q=meyendorf%20immaculated%20conception&f=false
C
Cybophonia
Guest
Is that why Vatican II has said this :
Preservation of the Spiritual Heritage of the Eastern Churches
- History, tradition, and numerous ecclesiastical institutions manifest luminously how much the universal Church is indebted to the Eastern Churches. 12 This sacred Synod, therefore, not only honors this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage with merited esteem and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks upon it as the heritage of Christ’s universal Church. 13 For this reason, it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, fully enjoy the right, and are in duty bound, to rule themselves. Each should do so according to its proper and individual procedures, inasmuch as practices sanctioned by a noble antiquity harmonize better with the customs of the faithful and are seen as more likely to foster the good of souls.
- All Eastern rite members should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their lawful liturgical rites and their established way of life, and that these should not be altered except by way of an appropriate and organic development. Easterners themselves should honor all these things with the greatest fidelity. Besides, they should acquire an ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them. If they have improperly fallen away from them because of circumstances of time or personage, let them take pains to return to their ancestral ways.
C
Cybophonia
Guest
More on the Byzantine’s view of the Immaculated Conception:
"Byzantine homiletic and hymnographical texts often praise the Virgin as “fully prepared,” “cleansed,” and “sanctified.” But these texts were to be understood in the context of the doctrine of original sin, which prevailed in the East: the inheritance from Adam was mortality, not guilt, and there was never any doubt among Byzantine theologians that Mary was indeed a mortal being.
The preoccupation of Western theologians to find in Byzantium ancient authorities for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has often used these passages out of context. And, indeed, Sophronius of Jerusalem († 638) praises Mary: "Many saints appeared before thee, but none was as filled with grace as thou… No one has been purified in advance as thou hast been…"34 Andrew of Crete († 740) is even more specific, preaching on the Feast of the Virgin’s Nativity: "When the Mother of Him who is beauty itself is born, [human] nature recovers in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model, truly worthy of God. … In a word, the transfiguration of our nature begins today…"36 This theme, which appears in the liturgical hymns of the Feast of September 8, is further developed by Nicholas Cabasilas in the fourteenth century: "Earth she is because she is from earth; but she is a new earth since she derives in no way from her ancestors and has not inherited the old leaven. She is… new dough and has originated a new race."36
Quotations can easily be multiplied, and they give clear indications that the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it has been defined in 1854 if only they shared the Western doctrine of original sin. But it should be remembered — especially in the context of the poetical, emotional, or rhetorical exaggerations characteristic of Byzantine liturgical Mariology — that such concepts as “purity” and “holiness” could easily be visualized even in the framework of pre-Christian humanity, which is considered as mortal but not necessarily “guilty.” In the case of Mary, her response to the angel and her status as the “new Eve” gave to her a special relation to the “new race” born of her. Yet never does one read in Byzantine authors any statement, which would imply that she receives a special grace of immortality. Only such a statement would clearly imply that her humanity does not share the common lot of the descendants of Adam.
In order to maintain a fully balanced view of Byzantine Mariology, it is necessary to keep in mind the essentially Christological framework of the veneration of the Theotofos in Byzantium (a point, which is stressed in the next chapter). Yet the absence of any formal doctrinal definition on Mariology as such allowed the freedom of poets and orators as well as the reservation of strict exegetes. They always had available in hundreds of copies the writings of the greatest of Byzantine patristic authorities, John Chrysostom, who found it possible to ascribe to Mary not only “original sin,” but also “agitation,” “trouble,” and even “love of honour.” 38
**No one, of course, would have dared to accuse the great Chrysostom of impiety. So the Byzantine Church wisely preserving a scale of theological values, which always gave precedence to the basic fundamental truths of the Gospel, abstained from enforcing any dogmatic formulation concerning Mary, except that she was truly and really the Theotokost, “Mother of God.” **No doubt, this striking title, made necessary by the logic of Cyrillian Christology, justified her daily liturgical acclamation as “more honourable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim.”
What greater honour could be rendered to a human being? What clearer basis could be found for a Christian theocentric anthropology?"
holytrinitymission.org/books/english/byzantine_theology_j_meyendorf.htm#_Toc26430267
books.google.dk/books?id=DBVLCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=christian+w+kappes&source=bl&ots=bydttyes7K&sig=QdtUll0Hk0sVX8mtoB0sL_LA5Go&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBmoVChMI9b3pz-nJxwIVxiVyCh1aqwAL#v=onepage&q=christian%20w%20kappes&f=false
"Byzantine homiletic and hymnographical texts often praise the Virgin as “fully prepared,” “cleansed,” and “sanctified.” But these texts were to be understood in the context of the doctrine of original sin, which prevailed in the East: the inheritance from Adam was mortality, not guilt, and there was never any doubt among Byzantine theologians that Mary was indeed a mortal being.
The preoccupation of Western theologians to find in Byzantium ancient authorities for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has often used these passages out of context. And, indeed, Sophronius of Jerusalem († 638) praises Mary: "Many saints appeared before thee, but none was as filled with grace as thou… No one has been purified in advance as thou hast been…"34 Andrew of Crete († 740) is even more specific, preaching on the Feast of the Virgin’s Nativity: "When the Mother of Him who is beauty itself is born, [human] nature recovers in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model, truly worthy of God. … In a word, the transfiguration of our nature begins today…"36 This theme, which appears in the liturgical hymns of the Feast of September 8, is further developed by Nicholas Cabasilas in the fourteenth century: "Earth she is because she is from earth; but she is a new earth since she derives in no way from her ancestors and has not inherited the old leaven. She is… new dough and has originated a new race."36
Quotations can easily be multiplied, and they give clear indications that the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it has been defined in 1854 if only they shared the Western doctrine of original sin. But it should be remembered — especially in the context of the poetical, emotional, or rhetorical exaggerations characteristic of Byzantine liturgical Mariology — that such concepts as “purity” and “holiness” could easily be visualized even in the framework of pre-Christian humanity, which is considered as mortal but not necessarily “guilty.” In the case of Mary, her response to the angel and her status as the “new Eve” gave to her a special relation to the “new race” born of her. Yet never does one read in Byzantine authors any statement, which would imply that she receives a special grace of immortality. Only such a statement would clearly imply that her humanity does not share the common lot of the descendants of Adam.
In order to maintain a fully balanced view of Byzantine Mariology, it is necessary to keep in mind the essentially Christological framework of the veneration of the Theotofos in Byzantium (a point, which is stressed in the next chapter). Yet the absence of any formal doctrinal definition on Mariology as such allowed the freedom of poets and orators as well as the reservation of strict exegetes. They always had available in hundreds of copies the writings of the greatest of Byzantine patristic authorities, John Chrysostom, who found it possible to ascribe to Mary not only “original sin,” but also “agitation,” “trouble,” and even “love of honour.” 38
**No one, of course, would have dared to accuse the great Chrysostom of impiety. So the Byzantine Church wisely preserving a scale of theological values, which always gave precedence to the basic fundamental truths of the Gospel, abstained from enforcing any dogmatic formulation concerning Mary, except that she was truly and really the Theotokost, “Mother of God.” **No doubt, this striking title, made necessary by the logic of Cyrillian Christology, justified her daily liturgical acclamation as “more honourable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim.”
What greater honour could be rendered to a human being? What clearer basis could be found for a Christian theocentric anthropology?"
holytrinitymission.org/books/english/byzantine_theology_j_meyendorf.htm#_Toc26430267
books.google.dk/books?id=DBVLCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=christian+w+kappes&source=bl&ots=bydttyes7K&sig=QdtUll0Hk0sVX8mtoB0sL_LA5Go&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBmoVChMI9b3pz-nJxwIVxiVyCh1aqwAL#v=onepage&q=christian%20w%20kappes&f=false
C
Cybophonia
Guest
And Original Sin : "
"Lastly, Orthodox are not incorrect to criticize Aquinas’ use of this language of guilt. Nonetheless, I think that–even if Aquinas is inconsistent in the Summa Theologiae with the meaning of this term–Thomas is not committed to a litteral intrinsic sense of “guilt” in all men, and usually supports the notion of a privation of grace. From the citations in my present monograph, the Franciscan tradition clearly focuses on Original Sin as a privation of grace in the will. Still, even the Franciscans did not always rid themselves of the confusing guiltladen terminology, to which the primary referent is typically some real intrinsic defect. For this reason I think it is wrong to simply dismiss Orthodox criticisms grosso modo.
One of Bulgakov’s other objections (and it is, I must admit, a question I have myself never found a good answer to) is that dogmatic definitions were once thought to be a stern necessity finally resorted to only in cases of major crisis–a widespread outbreak of heresy, say. But there seems to have been no crisis, no heresy, in the mid-19th century. So how, then, are we to understand Pope Pius IX in 1854 promulgating, as Bulgakov puts it, “dogmatic laws where life does not in the least require them”?
Well, Adam, my knee-jerk response is to start using Scholastic parsing. For example, just because something manifests a new manner of operating does not call into question the virtual reality of the power within the agent. Doxa tô Theô, logical parsing need not have the last word. " easternchristianbooks.blogspot.dk/2014/05/the-immaculate-conceptions-roots-in.html
easterncatholicspiritualrenewal.blogspot.dk/2012/03/spiritual-purity-of-children.html
"Lastly, Orthodox are not incorrect to criticize Aquinas’ use of this language of guilt. Nonetheless, I think that–even if Aquinas is inconsistent in the Summa Theologiae with the meaning of this term–Thomas is not committed to a litteral intrinsic sense of “guilt” in all men, and usually supports the notion of a privation of grace. From the citations in my present monograph, the Franciscan tradition clearly focuses on Original Sin as a privation of grace in the will. Still, even the Franciscans did not always rid themselves of the confusing guiltladen terminology, to which the primary referent is typically some real intrinsic defect. For this reason I think it is wrong to simply dismiss Orthodox criticisms grosso modo.
One of Bulgakov’s other objections (and it is, I must admit, a question I have myself never found a good answer to) is that dogmatic definitions were once thought to be a stern necessity finally resorted to only in cases of major crisis–a widespread outbreak of heresy, say. But there seems to have been no crisis, no heresy, in the mid-19th century. So how, then, are we to understand Pope Pius IX in 1854 promulgating, as Bulgakov puts it, “dogmatic laws where life does not in the least require them”?
Well, Adam, my knee-jerk response is to start using Scholastic parsing. For example, just because something manifests a new manner of operating does not call into question the virtual reality of the power within the agent. Doxa tô Theô, logical parsing need not have the last word. " easternchristianbooks.blogspot.dk/2014/05/the-immaculate-conceptions-roots-in.html
easterncatholicspiritualrenewal.blogspot.dk/2012/03/spiritual-purity-of-children.html
P
PRmerger
Guest
Amen!
Please, note, lurkers: NOTHING is said here about Eastern Catholics being permitted to reject purgatory, Original Sin, Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
QED.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Cybophonia;13230800http://easterncatholicspiritualrenewal.blogspot.dk/2012/03/spiritual-purity-of-children.html [/quote said:
- Status