I'm confused about Eastern Catholics and dogmatic teachings

[ZxM]

With EC’s it gets a little complicated for me, because by now some of you know that I think that the same rules that apply to Roman Catholics in terms of dogma should apply to Eastern Catholics, so that sort of gets in my way.
.

ok im confused, i thought the theology/doctrine is the same but the liturgy/discipline/devotions were different.

are you saying that EC’s dont have to accept dogma like for example the immaculate conception?

what about the filioque?

 

[dvdjs]

ok im confused, i thought the theology/doctrine is the same but the liturgy/discipline/devotions were different.

I would say it this way. Our liturgy expresses our belief. We may or may not highlight some particular element of theology or another in our lived expression of the faith. However, those that are not highlighted are not necessarily rejected: we do not reject RC understandings - that is, reject as erroneous or heretical - whether we use them in our own praxis or not.

 

[Vico]

ok im confused, i thought the theology/doctrine is the same but the liturgy/discipline/devotions were different.

are you saying that EC’s dont have to accept dogma like for example the immaculate conception?

what about the filioque?

Read what that eastern canon law (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) has:

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

      **Canon 1436** – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be       believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who       totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having       been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate       with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other       penalties, not excluding deposition.
      § 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a       teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the       authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who       affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after       having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate       penalty.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The theology is the same. Remember, theology is not the faith, but rather the understanding of it. So while we profess one faith East and West, we have different understanding of it.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The theology is the same. Remember, theology is not the faith, but rather the understanding of it. So while we profess one faith East and West, we have different understanding of it.

Contsantine,

Do you mean that the theology is not the same? I’m not trying to be nit picky here, I just want to make sure I understand your post before making a response.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

ok im confused, i thought the theology/doctrine is the same but the liturgy/discipline/devotions were different.

are you saying that EC’s dont have to accept dogma like for example the immaculate conception?

what about the filioque?

Many Roman Catholics (and Christians East and West in general it seems) have a hard time distinguishing between theology and dogma. The two are not the same. Dogmas are the essential elements of the Faith that we must believe. If a group of people decide that they do not agree with a certain dogma, oftentimes they form their own splinter group. This is, after all, what happened with Protestantism, and is currently happening with the various schismatic groups such as the sede vacantists and the SSPX.

Theology, on the other hand, is different and very diverse within the Church. Academic theology is systematic on the Word of God and currently defined dogmas. This reflection oftentimes leads to the formation of a dogma when controversy arises - perhaps it’d be better to say “confirmation” of a dogma because the Church doesn’t form new dogmas, but rather confirms that which it has always believed.

Theology is also more than mere academic reflection. In fact, from an Eastern perspective academic reflection is one of the lowest forms of theology. Rather, theology is a living relationship with God mediated to us through the life of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Theology is participation in the life of God - theosis/deification - and then our attempts to communicate that participation to others. It not only varies from East to West, but within the particular traditions of East and West it can take on many different expressions. For example, in the East many saints put a very strong emphasis on praying the Jesus prayer, others hardly mention it at all. Similarly in the West some saints insist on praying the rosary daily, others say nothing on the matter, and others still probably never even heard of the rosary (St. Francis of Assisi for example). That’s just a very minor example.

I believe it was St. Augustine who insisted on unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials, and charity above all else.

 

[DadDave]

ok im confused, i thought the theology/doctrine is the same but the liturgy/discipline/devotions were different.

are you saying that EC’s dont have to accept dogma like for example the immaculate conception?

what about the filioque?

May I humbly suggest checking this out: youtube.com/watch?v=17YdvKVl2HA

The filioque has been nuanced to be understood by both East & West:
scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html Just to clarify that the meaning of the word “proceed” has a different meaning between East & West.

As far as the IC: I believe the EC would say something to the effect that they don’t NOT believe in it, it just that their concept of “original” sin doesn’t exist in a way that it does in the western churches – so it really doesn’t come up. But that the effect of the IC – that the Theotokos was made pure/sinless is the same for East & West.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I believe it was St. Augustine who insisted on unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials, and charity above all else.

A useful motto for this sub-forum, perhaps …

Interestingly, I had read some time ago that this quote is truly attributable to one Marco Antonio de Dominis (1566–1624), with an interesting background, perspective on and relationship with the Church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_necessariis_unitas,_in_dubiis_libertas,_in_omnibus_caritas

 

[DadDave]

A useful motto for this sub-forum, perhaps …

A useful motto for ALL inter-Christian dialogue…

 

[ByzCathCantor]

A useful motto for ALL inter-Christian dialogue…

Indeed!

 

[jam070406]

Many Roman Catholics (and Christians East and West in general it seems) have a hard time distinguishing between theology and dogma. The two are not the same. Dogmas are the essential elements of the Faith that we must believe. If a group of people decide that they do not agree with a certain dogma, oftentimes they form their own splinter group. This is, after all, what happened with Protestantism, and is currently happening with the various schismatic groups such as the sede vacantists and the SSPX.

Theology, on the other hand, is different and very diverse within the Church. Academic theology is systematic on the Word of God and currently defined dogmas. This reflection oftentimes leads to the formation of a dogma when controversy arises - perhaps it’d be better to say “confirmation” of a dogma because the Church doesn’t form new dogmas, but rather confirms that which it has always believed.

Theology is also more than mere academic reflection. In fact, from an Eastern perspective academic reflection is one of the lowest forms of theology. Rather, theology is a living relationship with God mediated to us through the life of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Theology is participation in the life of God - theosis/deification - and then our attempts to communicate that participation to others. It not only varies from East to West, but within the particular traditions of East and West it can take on many different expressions. For example, in the East many saints put a very strong emphasis on praying the Jesus prayer, others hardly mention it at all. Similarly in the West some saints insist on praying the rosary daily, others say nothing on the matter, and others still probably never even heard of the rosary (St. Francis of Assisi for example). That’s just a very minor example.

I believe it was St. Augustine who insisted on unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials, and charity above all else.

To be fair, the SSPX do not reject any Dogma.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Definition” within the paradigm of theology becomes the stumbling block IMHO.

Nicene Creed is a perfect example. Or as we see here from above…

“As far as the IC: I believe the EC would say something to the effect that they don’t NOT believe in it, it just that their concept of “original” sin doesn’t exist in a way that it does in the western churches – so it really doesn’t come up. But that the effect of the IC – that the Theotokos was made pure/sinless is the same for East & West” by DadDave

The theology’s allow for East/West beliefs, of course some may disagree, here would have to make a critical view of the point of contention. In Charity of course.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

To be fair, the SSPX do not reject any Dogma.

I believe the announcement either way will be this month “May” with communion? Its been a week or so since I listened to this on the news. It seemed pretty positive. Not to change the topic.

 

[TrueLight]

ok im confused, i thought the theology/doctrine is the same but the liturgy/discipline/devotions were different.

are you saying that EC’s dont have to accept dogma like for example the immaculate conception?

what about the filioque?

Oops I never even saw this.

I don’t claim to not ever mix up theology and dogma , but here is an example:

The Immaculate conception is a dogma in the Western Church. Are we agreed on that?

One can argue that even though the East has a different viewpoint of theology regarding that, in the end, they do believe that Mary was sinless.

Okay.

Do I as a Latin Catholic have the option of choosing the Eastern viewpoint?

Either something is a dogma for the whole Catholic Church or it shouldn’t be a dogma - just theology.

That’s the way I see it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Contsantine,

Do you mean that the theology is not the same? I’m not trying to be nit picky here, I just want to make sure I understand your post before making a response.

Yes, that is what I meant

I posted at 11pm, way past my bedtime

 

[yablabo]

All Catholics believe the same dogmas, whether they are from the East or West.

This notion that theological wranglings bring those in the East or West to different understandings of dogmas is poppy-cock. It’s like the First Vatican Council states in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith: “Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

All Catholics hold the teaching of the Council of Trent regarding original sin (or risk the anathema) and all Catholics hold the teaching of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception. There is no hedging under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

– Nicole

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This notion that theological wranglings bring those in the East or West to different understandings of dogmas is poppy-cock.

Oh, really?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Ms. Expert. I’m sure your exhaustive knowledge of the intricacies of western, eastern, and oriental theology more than qualifies you to make such an assessment.

How silly of those who have firsthand, lived experience of the differences between western and eastern theology to think otherwise.

All Catholics believe the same dogmas, whether they are from the East or West.

On that I agree with you.

 

[yablabo]

Oh, really?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Ms. Expert. I’m sure your exhaustive knowledge of the intricacies of western, eastern, and oriental theology more than qualifies you to make such an assessment.

How silly of those who have firsthand, lived experience of the differences between western and eastern theology to think otherwise.

Yes, really…and you’re most welcome. I don’t have to claim any expertise on any of this, anyway. The First Vatican Council is that to which all Catholics must submit. Anyone is free to look it up for himself, no need to take my word for it.

Besides, it’s ridiculous to posit implicitly that I am in the wrong by applying universal teaching to the Universal Church. If a person cannot use the universal teachings to judge between good and evil, right and wrong, then even you have no foot to stand on ridiculing me.

One does not need an expertise in theology of any sort to judge something as simple and straight-forward as this issue…and it is absolutely absurd to make this issue out to be something complex or intricate.

You do presume much, as well…by implicitly excluding me from those who have experienced first-hand the differences between the East and West, but that’s entirely up to you to do. I hope you’re happy with the position you’ve taken and that you find what you seek in life.

– Nicole

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, really…and you’re most welcome. I don’t have to claim any expertise on any of this, anyway. The First Vatican Council is that to which all Catholics must submit. Anyone is free to look it up for himself, no need to take my word for it.

Besides, it’s ridiculous to posit implicitly that I am in the wrong by applying universal teaching to the Universal Church. If a person cannot use the universal teachings to judge between good and evil, right and wrong, then even you have no foot to stand on ridiculing me.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to ridicule you. I realize that the precise tone of sarcasm can be difficult to convey through mere words, and I apologize for heedlessly giving the impression that I thought you worthy of “ridicule.”

One does not need an expertise in theology of any sort to judge something as simple and straight-forward as this issue…and it is absolutely absurd to make this issue out to be something complex or intricate.

Okay, but then how do you explain what is self-evident upon the lightest exposure to a different tradition of (orthodox) Christian theology - that vocabularies, methodologies, and even some fundamental principles do in fact vary? I don’t understand how you can think it credible to say that different theological traditions don’t - or can’t - interpret the dogmas of our faith differently…

To concretize my assertions: Pope Pius IX infallibly defined as a dogma of the faith the teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.

How do you deal with the fact that the very phrase “free from every stain of original sin” uses exclusively western terminology that must, if it is to be comprehended properly by eastern Catholics (let alone accepted), be “translated” into the theological vocabulary of the eastern tradition?

You do presume much, as well…by implicitly excluding me from those who have experienced first-hand the differences between the East and West, but that’s entirely up to you to do.

Perhaps I do. I confess I find it hard to believe that the assertion of yours to which I originally responded could be made by an individual who truly understands how different the eastern Christian approach can be from the Latin one…

I hope you’re happy with the position you’ve taken and that you find what you seek in life.

I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I’m pretty sure we’re both seeking the same thing, since we’re both Catholic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

To concretize my assertions: Pope Pius IX infallibly defined as a dogma of the faith the teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.

How do you deal with the fact that the very phrase “free from every stain of original sin” uses exclusively western terminology that must, if it is to be comprehended properly by eastern Catholics (let alone accepted), be “translated” into the theological vocabulary of the eastern tradition?

Right, valid point. I’m not sure how Eastern Catholics view this. I understand the arguement since I have heard it.

Immaculate is very old. Yet the two concepts of Immaculate and Original Sin do not appear until I believe the 9th century.

On the other hand Original Sin is not a complete break for East theology I don’t think?