Magisterium in the East

[Sophronius]

What would be the equivalent term and understanding one would use when speaking of the Magisterium in the Byzantine Tradition? “The Consensus of the Fathers?” “The Mind of the Fathers?”

What would the Magisterium be called in the Oriental and Assyrian Traditions?

 

[Zekariya]

What would be the equivalent term and understanding one would use when speaking of the Magisterium in the Byzantine Tradition? “The Consensus of the Fathers?” “The Mind of the Fathers?”

What would the Magisterium be called in the Oriental and Assyrian Traditions?

There is only one Magisterium of the Church. The Consensus of the Fathers is used in our Eastern language to describe the same doctrines as the West. We have different terminology but, share the same doctrines of the Catholic Faith. We would be heretics if we had different doctrines.

 

[Aramis]

There is only one Magisterium of the Church. The Consensus of the Fathers is used in our Eastern language to describe the same doctrines as the West. We have different terminology but, share the same doctrines of the Catholic Faith. We would be heretics if we had different doctrines.

Not quite. You’ve conflated Dogma and Doctrine. Dogma, yes, different dogma is different faith, and thus heresy. Doctrine, no - Doctrine is merely that which must be taught, and what is doctrinal does differ amongst the sui iuris churches - not much, but the best examples are theosis and deification (two subtly different explanations), and the Dormition vs the Assumption. The dogma is the same on both sides, but the required teaching surrounding it differs in little ways.

Go compare the propers of dormition and for Assumption… they DO say some different things.

 

[Zekariya]

Not quite. You’ve conflated Dogma and Doctrine. Dogma, yes, different dogma is different faith, and thus heresy. Doctrine, no - Doctrine is merely that which must be taught, and what is doctrinal does differ amongst the sui iuris churches - not much, but the best examples are theosis and deification (two subtly different explanations), and the Dormition vs the Assumption. The dogma is the same on both sides, but the required teaching surrounding it differs in little ways.

Go compare the propers of dormition and for Assumption… they DO say some different things.

Honestly, I could never understand the difference between dogma and doctrine. I have considered them words the mean official Theological teaching of the Church. Could you define the differences for me?

 

[Aramis]

Honestly, I could never understand the difference between dogma and doctrine. I have considered them words the mean official Theological teaching of the Church. Could you define the differences for me?

Dogma is required belief. It’s universal as well.
Doctrine is required teaching - you must give assent of will, but are not actually required to believe it.

All Catholic dogma is universal to the Catholic Communion. All the Churches Sui Iuris share it, and not believing it imperils one’s soul. Dogma is also immutable - once defined, it may not be changed, only clarified.

Doctrines can be either universal, or be specific to a given church sui iuris… If one is teaching the faith, one must teach them, but one does not imperil one’s soul by not believing them. One is expected to act as tho’ one believes it, however (assent of will). Doctrine can be changed, tho seldom is.

Not all of the teaching of the church falls into those two categories.

Theology is speculative, varies widely even within some churches sui iuris, and explains the doctrines and dogmas and their relationship to the faithful.

Limbo was a theological speculation treated as doctrine for some years, but has again been reduced to mere theologumenon.

 

[Zekariya]

Dogma is required belief. It’s universal as well.
Doctrine is required teaching - you must give assent of will, but are not actually required to believe it.

All Catholic dogma is universal to the Catholic Communion. All the Churches Sui Iuris share it, and not believing it imperils one’s soul. Dogma is also immutable - once defined, it may not be changed, only clarified.

Doctrines can be either universal, or be specific to a given church sui iuris… If one is teaching the faith, one must teach them, but one does not imperil one’s soul by not believing them. One is expected to act as tho’ one believes it, however (assent of will). Doctrine can be changed, tho seldom is.

Not all of the teaching of the church falls into those two categories.

Theology is speculative, varies widely even within some churches sui iuris, and explains the doctrines and dogmas and their relationship to the faithful.

Limbo was a theological speculation treated as doctrine for some years, but has again been reduced to mere theologumenon.

So… Would doctrine be considered a non-infallible teaching to explain a Theological concept?

 

[Zekariya]

I just read this on EWTN:

Colin B. Donovan, STL
“Doctrine. The word doctrine comes, by way of the Latin doctrina, from the Greek word doxa, meaning belief. The doctrine(s) of the Church, therefore, are those teachings which must be believed by the faithful. These include 1) dogmas, teachings which the Church has solemnly defined as formally revealed by God, and, 2) other teachings definitively proposed by the Church because they are connected to solemnly defined teachings. The first (dogmas) can be called doctrines of divine faith, the second doctrines of catholic faith. Together they are said to be “of divine and catholic faith.” Both kinds of doctrine require the assent of faith. Both are infallibly taught by the Church. Dogmas require it because they are formally revealed by God. Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church require it, because the infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and morals is itself divinely revealed. A side note, doctrine shares the same root as orthodox, meaning correct belief. Those who hold the Church’s doctrines faithfully are thus orthodox.”

Source: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=2&recnu=35

 

[Sophronius]

For instance the teaching (doctrine) of the East is that the Father should not be depicted in image or iconography and this is blasphemous?

Whereas this is acceptable or noble in the West?