I'm confused about Eastern Catholics and dogmatic teachings

[ByzCathCantor]

Did you see that post in the catechism thread with the response of the Eastern Catholic bishops to the proposed universal catechism (destined to become the CCC)? I found their criticisms rather well thought out. That process of restoration you mention seems to be working.

I did, and remember it “in it’s day”, as well. I’m glad you found it encouraging.

I also hope you might have read the second article written by Msgr. John Sekellick, JCL. By reputation, he is a well educated, good and honest priest. I also thought his comments were interesting.

 

[yablabo]

“elevator explanation”-EOC and RCC belive in the same, Jesus and Holy trinity, the only diference is in creed of Nicea-"…and the Holy Spirit who proceed from the Father(EOC) -AND from the Son-RCC". EOC does not belive in purgatory, priest can be married, some follow old calendar. Im not an expert and apologise if I did not contribute to the topic. God Bless! @ yablabo-elaborate this

The “eo” or eastern schismatics who I have corresponded with have concluded such things as we are all forced to endure God’s presence in heaven after death (there is no hell). They also conclude that the Roman Pontiff has neither Primacy over the Universal Church nor a Supremacy of teaching power over which there is no other except His Divine Majesty.

These are the conclusions that I was referring to. There are more, I merely am in a hurry so only giving a few examples.

– Nicole

 

[yablabo]

Forgive me if I am being presumptuous, but your perspective seems not to take into account the great deal of nuance that comes into play when interpreting and understanding texts. Take for example, the concept of merits. That word has next to no meaning in Eastern theology, as it was never a concept used by the Greek Fathers. So how then is an Eastern Catholic supposed to understand the anathematism from Trent which states that through baptism, the merits of Christ are applied to the baptized? There, out of necessity, must be a redefinition, if you will, of what a merit is to make the concept fit well with Eastern theology, which understands salvation as being an ontological change, restricting the use of legal terminology (guilt, merit, etc.) to metaphors.

Those who are familiar with me here as a poster know that I am not too fond of the “it’s the same faith but with different ways of expressing it” mentality, but that is because I am not convinced that Latin theology reaches the same conclusions or describes the same faith as Eastern theology. These Eastern Catholic posters here, all good Christians (even the ones I constantly butt heads with ), and solid in their faith, however, have come to a different conclusion than mine, namely that authentic Eastern theology (the same theology used by the Orthodox) is not incompatible with beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church, expressed primarily in Latin theology.

Out of an eirenic spirit of charity and love for your coreligionists, perhaps it would be best to lay your suspicions aside temporarily and to try to understand where they are coming from, and how they understand the Christian faith, before tossing around statements made by bishops, anathemas and conciliar statements. Many here, in fact, hold fast to the opinions of their own bishops, and they sincerely believe that their understanding of the faith does not contradict any dogmas defined by the Roman Catholic Church. Who knows, if you give these folks a chance to explain their understanding of Christianity, you may come to like it (or you might come to disagree with it, but that’s perfectly fine; Thomists and Scotists did not always agree, yet that didn’t make one side heretical for having a different understanding of a particular doctrine).

No redefinition of terms would be necessary as that would be in essence changing the dogmatic sense, but rather a translation into the terms used in Eastern theology. A good example of this was stated by a poster above regarding the term “transubstantiation” which is not used often by Eastern Catholics, but rather the Real Presence is the focus. They do not deny Transubstantiation, they merely don’t express the concept using that word, but the concept is the same between the East and West.

It would be by a translation that the Eastern Catholics would understand the canon from Trent regarding the application of the merits of His Divine Majesty to those baptized. There is no doubt that even the Eastern Fathers believed that it was by this work of our salvation which Our Lord began and finished that we are able to experience a spiritual regeneration and removal of the original condition in which we were born, that in effect would not allow us to see the Most August Trinity after our deaths and particular judgment without first being fixed.

I would agree with you that the “eastern orthodox” have a different “faith” from the Latin/Western and Eastern Catholics. I do agree that the theology which the “eastern orthodox” use is incompatible with the beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church, as well.

– Nicole

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I would like to offer some thoughts on the Council of Trent in its decrees on Original Sin, and see how Eastern Catholics would understand them.

I’m not an Eastern Catholic, but these quotes and your responses underscore for me why I’ve always found eastern theology more compelling than western theology. I just relate to it far more and feel it cuts to the heart of matters in a way that I understand far better. For instance:

This seems to say that death is a punishment which God inflicted upon man in wrath for his sin. This is contrary to the Orthodox teaching that death is the natural result of sin, which creates alienation from God, the source of life. This language reminds of strongly of Anselm of Canterbury in “Cur Deus Homo” who argued that the purpose of the Incarnation was to appease the wrath of God. Our problem is not the wrath of God, who “desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”, but of our bondage to sin, death, and the Devil.

I actually wholeheartedly agree with what you just said, and I honestly don’t believe I’m violating my Church’s Council of Trent. I’ve been taught that language about the wrath of God is always an example of analogous language (very popular in western theology).

The translation in the Vulgate “in whom all have sinned” is incorrect. The verse actually reads “because all men have sinned”. We would disagree that we inherited sin in the sense of a thing, but rather that we inherited a corrupt nature, death, and alienation from God. We are not guilty of Adam’s sin, but we do face the consequences of that action.

Someone more learned than I can correct me if I’m wrong, but once again, I’m with you on this subject. I think it’s quite telling that when Trent elsewhere speaks of the guilt we inherit, it uses the word reus (or grammatically divergent variations of it) rather than culpa. Culpa is personal guilt - i.e. I steal from you, so I am guilty. Reus is more like the justly incurred consequences for a fault that is not one’s own; i.e. if I inherit my father’s estate after he dies, discover that he was engaged in all manner of illegal and fraudulent activity, and am now legally responsible for it. Speaking in Latin, I am not personally guilty (culpa) of what my father did, but the consequences and the penalties are now mine to deal with (reus).

I believe that passages like the one to which you were responding must be interpreted in light of what the rest of Trent says about original sin. There’s a reason the contemporary Catechism of the Catholic Church says that original sin “does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendents” (CCC 405). Thus my belief - and that of my church, I’m pretty confident - is that just as you said, we “face the consequences” of Adam’s sin but are not personally guilty of it. Because the language used by authoritative Latin documents is that of reus guilt and not culpa guilt, I believe that these “inherited consequences” are what Latin theology has always meant by “inherited guilt.”

The assertion here seems to be that infants require Baptism because they possess sin itself, not just the consequences of Adam’s sin. Again we see the quotation of “in whom all men have sinned” as the key passage for this understanding.

It pretty clearly maintains that infants do inherit original sin, but as before, my understanding is that - per the above - speaking of “original sin” in this manner is analogous language: we are conceived and born without God’s grace in us due to the effects of sin, and we receive that grace through baptism.

In any case, even if I’m wrong, I know for sure that my church does not teach that infants are personally guilty of Adam’s sin: original sin “does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendents” (CCC 405).

How would you understanding the following from paragraph 5?

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted… let him be anathema.”

Don’t have the Latin in front of me, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that the word “guilt” there is “reus” or “reatus” or something like that, not “culpa.” The “guilt of original sin” is the inherited spiritual consequences of that act, one of which is that we are born without God’s grace. Thus by receiving grace in baptism, that aspect of original sin’s consequences is done away with it - hence the analogous language, “the guilt of original sin is remitted.”

Does that seem unduly convoluted? Yes, that’s why I personally prefer and relate to eastern theology far more. I feel it’s more direct, and that legal metaphors muddle things up rather than clarify them, at least to the typical 21st century person. I’ve never heard an explanation of ancestral sin by an eastern Orthodox Christian in which I’ve found anything to disagree with as a Catholic.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The “eo” or eastern schismatics

Just so you know, forum rules prohibit calling them “schismatics,” because they’re not. Yes, their churches are in schism from ours, but the Catholic Church now considers that label to apply only to those personally guilty of schism. Modern-day eastern Orthodox believers are born into and raised in churches that are already outside communion with Rome.

It’s parallel to the situation of Protestants: are some distinctly Protestant beliefs heresy? Yes, but we are not to regard Protestants - the persons, the individuals - as heretics or call them such.

The eastern Orthodox are our brothers and sisters in Christ. According to our Catechism, “Those ‘who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.’ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist’.” (CCC 838)

who I have corresponded with have concluded such things as we are all forced to endure God’s presence in heaven after death (there is no hell).

That idea is not a denial of hell, but an interpretation of it: the punishment of the damned, in their view, consists in their inability to enter into a relationship of love with God, such that throughout eternity, exposure to His all-pervading light, love, and glory will be agony for them.

They also conclude that the Roman Pontiff has neither Primacy over the Universal Church nor a Supremacy of teaching power over which there is no other except His Divine Majesty.

Okay, you got me there. We still have to convince them of that.

These are the conclusions that I was referring to. There are more, I merely am in a hurry so only giving a few examples.

Honestly, I think the only substantive, dogmatic incompatibilities are papal supremacy (although many misunderstand it) and papal infallibility. There are a lot of differences, but I honestly get the impression from everything I’ve read and heard said that other than those, we are orthodox by each other’s standards.

I would agree with you that the “eastern orthodox” have a different “faith” from the Latin/Western and Eastern Catholics.

We’ve got a problem, then, as Rome has repeatedly and consistently instructed the eastern Catholic churches to live out their Christian faith in a way that brings them as close as possible to their eastern heritage. Really, if they’re doing it right, as I said above, they ought to be nigh indistinguishable from the eastern Orthodox.

How far would you have eastern Catholics go in being separate from their traditions, Nicole? You pretty clearly seem to want them to adopt western terminology, but what about other ways? For instance, the Byzantine tradition commemorates the eastern Orthodox St. Gregory Palamas on the Second Sunday of Lent every year. The Byzantine Catholic churches do this too, celebrating and teaching about the hesychastic prayer he led into triumph and full acceptance. Also, eastern Catholics pray the Creed without the filioque. Do you object to such things, or are you okay with them?

Because it’s concerning precisely such matters that Rome has asked the eastern Catholics to be faithful to in their own tradition.

I do agree that the theology which the “eastern orthodox” use is incompatible with the beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church, as well.

Honestly, the papacy seems to disagree with you on this, because popes have repeatedly asked the eastern Catholic churches to get as close as possible to living Christianity according to their eastern heritage. The Second Vatican Council, an ecumenical council, asked this of them as well…

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I do agree that the theology which the “eastern orthodox” use is incompatible with the beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church

in·com·pat·i·ble/ˌinkəmˈpatəbəl/

Adjective:

1.(of two things) So opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together.
2.(of two people) Unable to live together harmoniously.

The use of the word “incompatible” assumes a position or state of being that cannot be reconciled.

It would seem that our very own Catholic Church does not teach that Orthodoxy is “incompatible” with Catholicism.

Perhaps “inconsistent” might be a more reasonable term and assertion …

 

[yablabo]

Could you be more specific?

Hi, Fone Bone 2001,

I was speaking in regard to the inherited guilt concept (reus), mostly. I had one man who professed to be Byzantine Catholic tell me that children are basically born in original justice, that there is no inherited sin whatsoever (he brought this up because he’s sending one of his daughters to Latin Rite Catholic school and said he often has to correct her from Latin doctrines). He understood the difference between personal fault and ancestral fault and the guilt that follows either one, but said that he does not need to accept that sin is inherited (and therefore also guilt/reus) due to the original prevarication of Adam. I know that Eastern Catholics are bound to believe that not only the pains of the body and death are transmitted through generation, but also sin, but this fellow and his ilk were obstinately refusing it. Even faced with this canon of Trent: “If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema: - whereas he contradicts the Apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin, death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” he still continued on saying that he was allowed to contradict this in essential belief since he follows the Byzantine tradition without incurring the pain of anathema.

Some Byzantines and other Easterns I have spoken to have stated that since children are born with their “nous” illuminated or in a state of original justice, then there is no real need to express that the Theotokos was conceived in a special fashion, because she wasn’t in effect (from the reasoning I’ve heard). I am not trying to state that they are saying she was conceived in sin, but that merely there is nothing special about the fact that she was not conceived in sin.

What I am getting at is that all of the concepts which the Easterns and Westerns hold regarding the fundamental and dogmatic truths proposed to us by the Universal Church (and scripture and tradition) is the same. However, when we express these truths we do not always use the same words/terms, nor do we always focus on the same aspect. This is the area of legitimate distinction. Now, there are also those who say that contradiction can now be allowed in since one can claim that he is allowed freedom to express things as per his tradition which do objectively contradict the concepts that the Universal Church has given us…and merely chalk it up to legitimate difference of theological tradition (or even worse chalk it up to “mystery”), but this is not the case. Truth cannot contradict truth.

Also, I put the quotation marks around “catholics” there for good reason. I would do the same if I were speaking of Latin “catholics” who express as truth what is anathema. I do not claim that all Easterns are anathema, but those who gravely transgress the canons of the sacred Councils would certainly have a task before them proving that they’re not anathema. True Eastern Catholics should have no concerns regarding my separation of them in terms from those who follow the Eastern Rites and claim to be Catholic, but are in fact anathema.

The status of true Eastern Catholics is not in question in my book. They are part of the Roman Church (Byzantium being the best example of the last hold-over from the original Roman Empire).

Regarding me putting quotation marks around the misnomer “eastern orthodox”: The marks are there to show a separation again between terms used and reality. The ones who call themselves “eastern orthodox” are not orthodox. Orthodoxy demands that one holds the true doctrine by divine and Catholic faith. These who call themselves “eastern orthodox” are truly schismatics. I am not writing that to be unjustly divisive, nor to offend, but to speak truly. They do not subject themselves to the Roman Pontiff and in fact deny both his Primacy of jurisdiction and Supremacy of teaching office.

The Byzantine Catholic Rite takes more into account than the schismatic Byzantines, and the rest of the “eo”. The “eo” theological tradition is separate, as in cut off from the Universal Church, whereas the Byzantine Catholic theology is connected to the Universal Church, but still distinct.

– Nicole

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Byzantine Catholic Rite takes more into account than the schismatic Byzantines, and the rest of the “eo”. The “eo” theological tradition is separate, as in cut off from the Universal Church, whereas the Byzantine Catholic theology is connected to the Universal Church, but still distinct.

IMHO, this statement and others leading up to it require serious re-evaluation.

There is no such thing as a “Byzantine Catholic Rite”. In Catholicism, there are Eastern Catholic Churches sui juris that follow the Byzantine Rite, each with their own unique expression. Likewise, there are autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches that also follow the Byzantine Rite, again with their own forms of expression.

The continued insistent use of the term “schismatic”, now in reference to both Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, is inflamatory. The mutual excommunications between our Churches were lifted in 1965. What is left is repairing over a millenium of damaged relations. This type of rhetoric does not foster such, and is utterly inconsistent with the teachings of the very Church your profess to defend (let alone contrary to the guidelines of this forum).

The so-called “eo” theological tradition is a shared tradition with Eastern Catholics, and the entire Catholic Church for that matter. This is again the teaching of the Church you purport to defend. Use of quotated lower case abbreviations such as this are also inherently disrespectful.

Whatever troubling conversations you may have had with poorly catechized ECs should not be extrapolated upon the entire population of Eastern Catholics. Nor should Eastern Orthodox be disparaged because they maintain views that at times are expressed as being entirely inconsistent with Rome. There are and have been brilliant Popes, including the current Pontiff, who know better and strive, as Christ desires, for us to seek the fullness of unity.

 

[Vico]

… Take for example, the concept of merits. …

The merit is the redemption of Christ and the prayers of the holy ones through which we have salvation, cleansing of our consciences from dead works, forgiveness, redemption. The Church’s ability to loose and bind sins is also given by Christ to it, therefore we have the holy mystery of confession and indulgences from the Church and we help through our prayers for those asleep in Christ.

Matt 18:8
8 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Rev 5:8
8 When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

Heb 7:23-27

23 Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, 24but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. 25 Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them. 26 It was fitting that we should have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens. 27He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself.

Heb 9:11-28

11But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation,12 he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’s ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God. 15 For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.16 Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established. 17For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive. 18Thus not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 When every commandment had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves [and goats], together with water and crimson wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20saying, “This is ‘the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you.’” 21In the same way, he sprinkled also the tabernacle and all the vessels of worship with blood. 22 According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf. 25Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own; 26if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice. 27Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, 28so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.