New possible obstacle for Catholic-Orthodox unity on the sight

[SAVINGRACE]

What are you guys, some kinda of religious nuts?



Okay, but seriously, it really amazes me how much of the you-should-become-Catholic sentiment is directed specifically toward our Orthodox brethren. That is, I think, the heart of what we’re talking about.

You’d better believe it.

Agree with the “you should become Catholic” sentiment on these threads. I don’t really care if they convert or unify with us because they already belong to a “true” Church.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Well that’s … surprisingly negative. I apologize for any offense I caused; it was unintentional.

I do like to kid sometimes about the way that a discussion forum is such a closed-off world from offline-life.

(Okay, I’ll grant that pretending not to know who you were referring to was probably not funny at all.)

Miscommunication due to reading text on a screen without sufficient context to determine what it means. The curse of dialogue on the internet. No worries.

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t seek the Orthodox to become Catholic but we settle our differences and exchange the good each has.

I still recall Christ’s prayer that we be one so the world may believe. Now more than ever.

 

[Peter_J]

Since you brought it up, I’ll add that I on the other hand do (ideally) hope that the Orthodox become Catholic. (While recognizing their complete right to remain separate if they so choose – which I’m fairly certain they will for the near future.)

 

[commenter]

Since you brought it up, I’ll add that I on the other hand do (ideally) hope that the Orthodox become Catholic. (While recognizing their complete right to remain separate if they so choose – which I’m fairly certain they will for the near future.)

My own hope is that Catholics - especially me - start living up to our Faith. The Orthodox (and Protestants, and non-Christians) can’t help but notice how often our actions fall short of Christ’s commands. I don’t think they object to my behavior at Sunday Mass. But they also see my gluttony, greed, thirst for power, lust, laziness, anger, pride, and a slew of other nasties. And that’s just in my first hour Monday morning. That, multiplied by a billion souls, keeps many from converting.

 

[Peter_J]

Lovely. (Hopefully people won’t start calling you Nero or some such. )

Also, if I might commentate on my own post, I edited my words somewhat … Particularly changing “want” to “(ideally) hope that”. If I said I want the Orthodox to become ICWR, I feel like that would give people the wrong idea: I don’t have “expectations” as you might say.

 

[FollowChrist34]

My own hope is that Catholics - especially me - start living up to our Faith. The Orthodox (and Protestants, and non-Christians) can’t help but notice how often our actions fall short of Christ’s commands. I don’t think they object to my behavior at Sunday Mass. But they also see my gluttony, greed, thirst for power, lust, laziness, anger, pride, and a slew of other nasties. And that’s just in my first hour Monday morning. That, multiplied by a billion souls, keeps many from converting.

This is a beautiful, honest post that most of us could have posted. It does apply to Catholics…but also Orthodox. Sometimes I think we romanticize them for whatever reason, a bit of a mystery. (the image of the Orthodox Church we project on to them is about as far from reality as the one of us they project on to us)

 

[SAVINGRACE]

My own hope is that Catholics - especially me - start living up to our Faith. The Orthodox (and Protestants, and non-Christians) can’t help but notice how often our actions fall short of Christ’s commands. I don’t think they object to my behavior at Sunday Mass. But they also see my gluttony, greed, thirst for power, lust, laziness, anger, pride, and a slew of other nasties. And that’s just in my first hour Monday morning. That, multiplied by a billion souls, keeps many from converting.

I also think it’s hubris for some Catholics on here to expect or want to convince Orthodoxians to convert or unify when they already belong to a “true Church”.

 

[Elizium23]

The third dogma is regarding Mary conceived without sin and thus not deserving the wages of death. Pope Pius XII declared Mary’s assumption into heaven as the third dogma in 1950.

Note the word, ‘assumption’. We can only assume Mary was gloriously taken into heaven, whether she was asleep or died.

Ahhh… that is not what ‘assumption’ means in this context.

 

[Kmon23]

There are no more doctrines in defining Christ. The last was done by the Church, not the bible at the Council of Nicea.

I don’t know why you keep saying that the final doctrine(s) of Christ were finalized at Nicaea . That’s not Catholic teaching. And I already responded to this already in the Moscow Patriarch thread.

Beyond these 3 dogmas, there is no long standing faith tradition of believers to define as dogma. That is all.

I would have to disagree with your assessment that there are only 3 dogmas as defined by Papal Infallibility. For one thing, there is a disagreement on what the list of infallible Papal defined dogmas by theologians is. There are definitely two as defined post-Vatican I, but there are other bulls and letters that may also satisfy the requirements. I have no idea of the origin of the idea of there only being 2 or 3 dogmas. However a well respected view is that there can be 7 dogmas as per Papal Infallibility, which was the work of Klaus Schatz, SJ in the 80s, whose work I usually refer to regarding the papacy.

1. Tome to Flavian/Tome of Leo, 449 AD
2. Letter of Pope Agatho, 680 AD
3. Benedictus Deus, 1336 (mentioned prior in What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy? thread)
4. Cum Occasione, 1653
5. Auctoreum Fidei, 1794
6. Ineffabilis Deus, 1854
7. Munificentissimus Deus, 1950

Note the word, ‘assumption’. We can only assume Mary was gloriously taken into heaven, whether she was asleep or died.

Likewise I don’t see a conflict with Orthodox understanding of Mary either.

In practice they aren’t contradictory and just emphasize different things. However, the issue is the lack of dogmatic assertion that the Theotokos died in addition to being assumed, as Orthodox affirm it is part of the teaching that we must accept. For us, tradition is not divided by dogma, doctrine, etc., some which does not need to be believed to be a Catholic in good standing. For Orthodox, no such system exists so it is a problem in a way if there was a Orthodox that affirmed the Theotokos did not die. In our Liturgy, services, and prayers, we fully affirm she died, and hence lex orandi lex credendi. To be honest, this is a very minor issue compared to other teachings, but there is still some issue to be resolved on how the catholic faithful is to understand the teaching end of the Theotokos’ life (and not limited to what is dogma) in contrast to how Orthodox accept the whole as authoritative tradition that should be accepted.

Beyond these 3 dogmas, there is no long standing faith tradition of believers to define as dogma. That is all.

And for this, just to be sure, dogma is not just limited to Papal infallibility, and other catholic authoritative teaching may also be dogma (and not just doctrine). Example, the teachings of the ecumenical councils which define the two natures of Christ, two wills, etc. Unless this is what you mean, but I find your wording ambiguous.

 

[KathleenGee]

You know what…I spoke with our priest from Bolivia who assured me what I conveyed to others here on Catholic Answers is correct, and not some redefining moment by an Americanist theologian.

There is no other revelation of Christ after the Council of Nicea…nothing new about Who He is.

There are only 3 dogmas. Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s assumption into heaven.

Dogmas take a long time to define.

About Mary’s assumption…did she actually experience death or did she go to sleep? We do not know, but that she was gloriously assumed into heaven.

 

[Kmon23]

You know what…I spoke with our priest from Bolivia who assured me what I conveyed to others here on Catholic Answers is correct, and not some redefining moment by an Americanist theologian.

There is no other revelation of Christ after the Council of Nicea…nothing new about Who He is.

There are only 3 dogmas. Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s assumption into heaven.

Dogmas take a long time to define.

About Mary’s assumption…did she actually experience death or did she go to sleep? We do not know, but that she was gloriously assumed into heaven.

And I can assure you that my Catholic Prof. would say that all revelations of Christ ended with the death of the last apostle, and that the Council of Nicaea is just one of many councils that articulate the teaching concerning Christ.
And there aren’t only three papal dogmas. Those are the three everyone unanimously agrees on. But there are others that also seem to satisfy the requirements for Papal Infallibility, hence why there is no definitive/exhaustive list of dogma defined by Papal Infallibility.

And for Mary’s assumption, her death is part of the tradition. Since Orthodox don’t define dogma in such a systematic way, we just accept the tradition as handed down from the apostles and bishops. Her death is also heavily implied in Catholicism as per language used by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus. However it itself was not defined as part of the dogma. Just because itself was not defined as part of the dogma, it’s somewhat problematic that in theory a Catholic can reject the idea that she did not die and be in perfect standing as a Catholic. Not to say that we are all perfect and have no issues of our own, and we may struggle with certain parts of the faith, as faith is ultimately a gift of grace, but it’s another thing to say that it’s completely okay to reject a certain part of tradition as a result of this systematic view of doctrine. But then again, the Assumption/Dormition is a very minor issue in the scheme of things, so I’ll leave it at that (and I’ve been articulating in a much harsher way than I actually intended it to be).

 

[KathleenGee]

Interesting isn’t it, our different scholars’…

From my studies through a different source…my own archdiocese…and the courses particularly directed at poorly catechized lay professionals teaching errors in their own parishes, we were taught final revelation of Christ was at the Council of Nicea.

As to the others you provide…I do not have the education…I will write them down and ask what perspective or context are they in regards to the fullness of revelation of Christ.

About the Marian dogmas…I think the differences are like tempest in a teapot and I personally have communion with the Orthodox with their position on Mary’s assumption. We both know her extraordinary grace…I mean this is the kind of area I personally define as cultural differences but the impact the same…this is where I am coming from.

Will write down those you gave me and will come back when I get the Catholic position on these.

 

[Augustine]

From my studies through a different source…my own archdiocese…and the courses particularly directed at poorly catechized lay professionals teaching errors in their own parishes, we were taught final revelation of Christ was at the Council of Nicea.

Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John.

Not to mention that after Nicea there were two other great councils debating the understanding of the nature of the Incarnation, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

So, even granting leeway at what you meant by revelation, ignoring these two other thunderous councils which split the Church each time, is a grave fault in such courses.

Your archdiocese seems to be perpetuating the poorly catechized laymen…

Pax Christi

 

[KathleenGee]

But not finalized until the Council of Nicea due to Arianism…Christ needed further definition as the same substance as the Father and Holy Spirit.

If the Church did not make a definitive statement, and St. Athanaeus was exiled 4 times for speaking out against Arianism, Christianity would have fallen into multiple gods and then a return to paganism.

The others added to our understanding of Christ, if one can then call further as developmental theology, do not pertain significantly to the nature of Christ, as we profess today in the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed articulates our profession of faith. There is nothing needed beyond it.

 

[Kmon23]

But not finalized until the Council of Nicea due to Arianism…Christ needed further definition as the same substance as the Father and Holy Spirit.

If the Church did not make a definitive statement, and St. Athanaeus was exiled 4 times for speaking out against Arianism, Christianity would have fallen into multiple gods and then a return to paganism.

The others added to our understanding of Christ, if one can then call further as developmental theology, do not pertain significantly to the nature of Christ, as we profess today in the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed articulates our profession of faith. There is nothing needed beyond it.

That is what I am saying, that the Nicene Creed articulates our profession of faith of what we already believe. However by that definition, it does not agree with the statement that it was finalized as Nicaea since the later ecumenical councils are further articulations of the faith regarding other things of Christ.

The faith was already handed to all the saints. However heresies may arise, and to counter such heresies, it may become necessary to articulate what the faith is by delineating the faith as to exclude heretical beliefs from the faith. But this is not the definition of a new article of faith but an articulation of what is already believed by the faithful in response to heresy.

So the faith wasn’t “finalized” at Nicaea as the faith was already finalized when the faith was handed from the Apostles. The councils are only in response to heresy, which would imply the faith concerning Christ would not be “finalized” if there was no heresy. Councils have nothing to do with finalizing the faith but to counter heresy. That’s all.

I have the assumption we both believe the same thing regarding the “faith” and the councils, but you are taking a specific perspective of this which results in faulty language to describe this, since councils aren’t inherently a necessity in the faith but is just to accommodate the mistakes and failures we as humanity make, so should never be described as “finalizing” the faith.

 

[Augustine]

But not finalized until the Council of Nicea due to Arianism…Christ needed further definition as the same substance as the Father and Holy Spirit… The Nicene Creed articulates our profession of faith. There is nothing needed beyond it.

Hmmm, no. Revelation did end with the death of St. John, and it was final.

The Church’s understanding about the nature of Christ, not Himself and Salvation, took a while. Yet, no, Nicea did not suffice. Ephesus and Chalcedon were still necessary to hammer out imprecisions form Nicea about the mystery of the Incarnation.

Then again, all these three councils could have been summarized by just one verse from the Gospel: “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43).

Pax Christi

 

[KathleenGee]

My.

Our instructor was put in by the bishop to correct errors of lay professionals in parishes, the bishop who eventually took the place of Cardinal Ratzinger…and we do know for sure what happened to the Cardinal.

The only perfection we can do as Church is to profess the Nicene Creed. It is all there.

 

[RyanBlack]

My.

Our instructor was put in by the bishop to correct errors of lay professionals in parishes, the bishop who eventually took the place of Cardinal Ratzinger…and we do know for sure what happened to the Cardinal.

The only perfection we can do as Church is to profess the Nicene Creed. It is all there.

Well, no, it’s not all there in the Nicene Creed. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Council of Ephesus to define the hypostatic union, for the Council of Chalcedon to condemn Eutychianism, and for the Second Council of Constantinople to condemn monothelitism

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Ryan.

I have to step back here…yes, the apostles are the witnesses to Christ. But as I was taught, it is the Church who had to define Christ in the Nicene creed because of fear if Christianity lapsing back into polytheism and then paganism.

I think now the context then was that the Church itself, and not the Bible, could make the final definition of Christ --to the Protestants’ Sola Scriptura as basis.

So what is coming to me is then how do those you share are in a different context? Are they reflected in the Nicene Creed?

Then the issue is ‘what context’.