Is the IC a hindrance to unity?

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

mardukm

Guest
The proscription contained in the Decree Ineffabilis Deus is not a proscription against denial of the IC. Rather, it is a proscription against obstinately opposing the teaching authority of the Church on the matter. So if you believe it is a theologoumenon (an acceptable teaching, though not a dogma), you would not be under the proscription of the Decree. The Decree on the IC accommodates the notion, “well I believe it, but I don’t believe it should be imposed on others,” for you would not be obstinately opposing the Church’s teaching. The Decree on the IC even accommodates the notion, “I’m not sure if it is true, I need to study it more and let the Holy Spirit guide me,” for you would not be obstinately opposing the Church’s teaching. The only thing that the Decree prohibits is the notion, “This is a heresy. There is absolutely no way it can be true.”

It is actually and only those who teach that it is a heresy who are imposing an absolute dogmatic imperative of belief on others and are guilty of separating the Church over the matter, not the Catholic Church. Lucky for all of us, no Orthodox Synod (Eastern or Oriental) has ever definitively defined the IC to be a heresy. So let’s go with the flow, and instead of prematurely accusing the Catholic Church of heresy on the matter, let’s study the matter in the hopes of achieving understanding. At the very least, as stated, if one can admit that it is a valid theologoumenon, then the dogma of the IC, according to the Decree, would pose no obstacle to unity.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
If I oppose the doctrine am I not opposing the authority of those who teach it? Along with the Assumption it is most certainly a hindrance to unity.
 
Nine_Two said:
If I oppose the doctrine am I not opposing the authority of those who teach it?
Click to expand...
There are different levels of opposition, and there is a difference between opposition and doubt.

If you oppose the teaching due to misunderstanding, the proscription does not apply.

If you oppose the teaching because you just can’t wrap your head around it due to being indoctrinated in another Tradition, the proscription does not apply.

If you doubt the teaching in good conscience and are willing to be led by the Holy Spirit into understanding, the proscription does not apply.

If you oppose the teaching with full understanding of it, the proscription applies.

If you oppose the teaching simply because the Church dogmatized it, the proscription applies.

If you oppose the dogmatization itself, but not the teaching, the proscription does not apply.

The use of the words “obstinately” and “self-condemned” in the proscription indicates that the Church is explicitly mitigating the proscription with the principle of invincible ignorance, and also that the Church does not presume to know what your conscience holds and does not rashly seek to condemn anyone.
Along with the Assumption it is most certainly a hindrance to unity.
Click to expand...
So you oppose what the Assumption teaches? If you do not oppose the teaching, then the proscription does not apply to you, so it is no hindrance to unity between Catholics and Orthodox.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
That seems a rather liberal interpretation.

I don’t oppose the teaching of the Assumption, I oppose it, along with IC, being dogma, and the question, if I understand correctly, is whether holding them as dogma hinders unity, of which I would say yes.
 
mardukm said:
The proscription contained in the Decree Ineffabilis Deus is not a proscription against denial of the IC. Rather, it is a proscription against obstinately opposing the teaching authority of the Church on the matter. So if you believe it is a theologoumenon (an acceptable teaching, though not a dogma), you would not be under the proscription of the Decree. The Decree on the IC accommodates the notion, “well I believe it, but I don’t believe it should be imposed on others,” for you would not be obstinately opposing the Church’s teaching. The Decree on the IC even accommodates the notion, “I’m not sure if it is true, I need to study it more and let the Holy Spirit guide me,” for you would not be obstinately opposing the Church’s teaching. The only thing that the Decree prohibits is the notion, “This is a heresy. There is absolutely no way it can be true.”

It is actually and only those who teach that it is a heresy who are imposing an absolute dogmatic imperative of belief on others and are guilty of separating the Church over the matter, not the Catholic Church. Lucky for all of us, no Orthodox Synod (Eastern or Oriental) has ever definitively defined the IC to be a heresy. So let’s go with the flow, and instead of prematurely accusing the Catholic Church of heresy on the matter, let’s study the matter in the hopes of achieving understanding. At the very least, as stated, if one can admit that it is a valid theologoumenon, then the dogma of the IC, according to the Decree, would pose no obstacle to unity.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Good show, Marduk. Great defense there of the IC. Glad to see some common sense on the issue. :clapping::clapping::clapping:

One thing, though----

The IC would be a hindrance to unity only because SOME in the OC side would MAKE it a hindrance to unity. I know that is sort of what you are saying, but it IS, I think (to restate) THE major obstacle to Unity.
MY opinion only, of course. I’m basically basing that on my interpretation of what you posted. If I’m wrong, please by all means correct me. 😃

Although most Melkite I know personally agree with the RC on the IC question, there are some (not many that I know of) who follow the Orthodox line on it. Still considered Melkite Catholic. That is one of the benefits of being considered in COMMUNION WITH ROME, not Part of Rome.

Do you or any OC here (or anyone else here, for that matter) think that the idea that the IC is a VALID Theologoumenon be acceptable to our Orthodox brethren???

To be honest, I am pessimistic here. The Orthodox (from my POV) are too entrenched in the “It’s Heresy” flow—in SPITE of the fact that (as you say) no Eastern or Oriental synod has ever FORMALLY declared the IC to be heretical----there is still (my impressions) the underlying ASSUMPTION and belief that the IC is “Heretical” among the OC and OC-related Churches.
And it would be very hard to counteract that underlying assumption. I wish it could (with all my heart) but one does have to be realistic.

One can only dream…🙂
 
Nine_Two said:
If I oppose the doctrine am I not opposing the authority of those who teach it? Along with the Assumption it is most certainly a hindrance to unity.
Click to expand...
Not really----please see MardukM’s response to your question above this one.
 
Nine_Two said:
That seems a rather liberal interpretation.

I don’t oppose the teaching of the Assumption, I oppose it, along with IC, being dogma, and the question, if I understand correctly, is whether holding them as dogma hinders unity, of which I would say yes.
Click to expand...
Do you ACTIVELY believe it to be a Heresy, though? As in MardukM’s definition, “There is absolutely no way this can be true?”

From what you stated above, you would not be REQUIRED to accept it as DOGMA but as an “Acceptable Teaching, but not Dogma,” as a Theolgoumenon.
 
Nine_Two said:
Seems idealistic. Basically saying you can believe what you want as long as you have some sort of excuse.
Click to expand...
That is an absolutist way of putting it-----not even the RC is Totally Absolutist—“believe this the exact way I tell it to you or else.” :rolleyes:

What I believe MardukM is saying is just what he is saying----there are different levels of opposition, and there IS a difference between opposition and doubt.

As to the Assumption itself, you yourself have said you oppose the Dogma, not the teaching. Therefore, it would fall under it being a Theologoumenon. 👍
 
This discussion is mostly for Catolics who understand such technical words as “proscription” which means (I believe) to undergo disgrace or such nice Greek contrivance as “theologumenon” for which I found Catolic understanding in Polish dictionary.

But to think that such teaching of Immaculate Conception is the “biggest” problem to reunion is to me strange. The problem with such Immaculate Conception teaching is that it is idiosynkrasic or unique to Latin view of things. Based on teachings of St. Augustine (yes, Saint, but with philosophy not adhered to so strictly by Orthodox as by Catolics) and then this “teaching” deduced from idiosynkrasic philosophy is promoted to level of “doctrine” by Pope. This is the “biggest” problem to reunion - idiosynkrasism of Roman Catolic teachings which do not even consider Orthodox (traditional ancient Christian) understandings (what ever you think happened to this idea of breathing with both lungs which is here so popular). Then there is problem of so-called universall authority of Bishop of Rome. This kind of approved interference of Roman bishop into every matter - doctrinal, organizational, liturgical - is even bigger “biggest” problem.

Only Catolics would be concerned for Pope announcing them disgraced and use Greek expressions but ignore Greek theology.
 
Volodymyr said:
This discussion is mostly for Catolics who understand such technical words as “proscription” which means (I believe) to undergo disgrace or such nice Greek contrivance as “theologumenon” for which I found Catolic understanding in Polish dictionary.

But to think that such teaching of Immaculate Conception is the “biggest” problem to reunion is to me strange. The problem with such Immaculate Conception teaching is that it is idiosynkrasic or unique to Latin view of things. Based on teachings of St. Augustine (yes, Saint, but with philosophy not adhered to so strictly by Orthodox as by Catolics) and then this “teaching” deduced from idiosynkrasic philosophy is promoted to level of “doctrine” by Pope. This is the “biggest” problem to reunion - idiosynkrasism of Roman Catolic teachings which do not even consider Orthodox (traditional ancient Christian) understandings (what ever you think happened to this idea of breathing with both lungs which is here so popular). Then there is problem of so-called universall authority of Bishop of Rome. This kind of approved interference of Roman bishop into every matter - doctrinal, organizational, liturgical - is even bigger “biggest” problem.

Only Catolics would be concerned for Pope announcing them disgraced and use Greek expressions but ignore Greek theology.
Click to expand...
I don’t think MardukM was saying the IC IS the biggest obstacle to unity here, Volodymyr. He was simply addressing the objections that OC and OC-related churches would have to the IC and addressing them by suggesting a sort of “compromise” (sort of).

I happen to agree issues like the “Universal Authority of the Pope” are more pressing and important to address in order for Reunification to occur----but we were addrressing the IC here in this post, so we are discussing that here exclusively. But I agree there ARE more “important” issues to deal with before possible Reunification can happen. 👍

BTW, Augustine may not hold QUITE the same standing in the OC as it does in the RC, but he is still considered a major influence and writer by every EC and OC that I personally know of. 🙂
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
That is an absolutist way of putting it-----not even the RC is Totally Absolutist—“believe this the exact way I tell it to you or else.” :rolleyes:

What I believe MardukM is saying is just what he is saying----there are different levels of opposition, and there IS a difference between opposition and doubt.

As to the Assumption itself, you yourself have said you oppose the Dogma, not the teaching. Therefore, it would fall under it being a Theologoumenon. 👍
Click to expand...
The line Mardukm was talking about in the first post:
Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
Click to expand...
Sounds absolutist to me. None of those exceptions.
 
This is the text of the definition:

“Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid!–to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.”

Mardukm - on what what are you basing your highly nuanced interpretation of this?
 
Dear brothers Dcointin and Nine_Two,
dcointin said:
“Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid!–to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.”
Click to expand...
Before I respond to your posts, may I ask the source for your translation? It’s not very accurate.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Nine_Two said:
The line Mardukm was talking about in the first post:

Sounds absolutist to me. None of those exceptions.
Click to expand...
To be honest, it does. I was simply pointing out that you do not oppose teaching the IC, only the “dogma.” So it falls under the Theologoumenon.

Nobody said Reunification was around the corner-----only that there should be “dialogue.”
At least we are engaging in that.🙂
 
dcointin said:
This is the text of the definition:

“Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid!–to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.”

Mardukm - on what what are you basing your highly nuanced interpretation of this?
Click to expand...
:D:D:D
 
mardukm said:
Dear brothers Dcointin and Nine_Two,

Before I respond to your posts, may I ask the source for your translation? It’s not very accurate.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I forgot about that. That IS a good question.
 
The following is the English translation and Latin text from Christian Classics Ethereal Library:

“Therefore, if some should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined (which God forbid), they shall know and thoroughly understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the faith, and fallen away from the unity of the Church; and, moreover, that they, by this very act, subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if, by word or writing, or any other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their hearts.”

"Quapropter si qui secus ac a nobis definitum est, quod Deus avertat, præsumpserint corde sentire, ii noverint, ac porro sciant, se proprio judicio condemnatos, nanfragium circa filem passos esse, et ab unitate Ecclesiæ defecisse, ac præterea facto ipso suo semet pœnis a jure statutis subjicere si quod corde sentiunt, verbo aut scripto vel alio quovis externo modo signiftcare ausi fuerint. "

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.iii.html
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
To be honest, it does. I was simply pointing out that you do not oppose teaching the IC, only the “dogma.” So it falls under the Theologoumenon.

Nobody said Reunification was around the corner-----only that there should be “dialogue.”
At least we are engaging in that.🙂
Click to expand...
Actually I do oppose the teaching of IC, it seems to me to be a loophole for the Augustinian view of Original Sin, however that was not the question of this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top