RC Church becoming more Eastern?

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

Just some thoughts …
One might assume so, but then what is needed?
In the light of Saint Paul, who says…

… are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
…

Excellent quotes.

Needed for salvation to receive what we lack at birth, namely the: gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.

 

[Seamus_L]

More than a few Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Hesychios]

More than a few Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception.

What you are saying then, is that more than a few Eastern Catholics have a Latin Catholic understanding of Original Sin, and they believe Saint Mary is totally exempt from the Latin version of Original Sin yet no one else is.

And I agree with you, they do.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think this thread is exposing the confusing nature of trying to be both Orthodox and Catholic at the same time…

I have never understood the idea of Eastern Catholicism, with all due respect to EC’s. The Catholic Church teaches the filioque as doctine and yet exempts a wing of her Church from saying it because they disagree with it yet they can’t disagree with it spiritually in their hearts but they don’t have to say it?

Or like Hesychios said, the EO’s don’t believe in the idea of Catholic Original Sin, the idea that the original guilt for what our first parents did sticks to us. Therefore, Mary isn’t exempt from that original sin because it never existed to begin with? But since the Catholic Church does see Original Sin in an Augustinian fashion, then why would you allow EC’s to be exempt again from this view and yet require them to see Mary as Immaculate and preserved from something that never existed in the Eastern mind?

I’m utterly confused by the concept. In my feeble mind, you either have the beliefs of the East, as Hesychios does, or the ideas of the West, but combining them and giving latitude to de fide doctrines is something I cannot comprehend?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think this thread is exposing the confusing nature of trying to be both Orthodox and Catholic at the same time…

I have never understood the idea of Eastern Catholicism, with all due respect to EC’s. The Catholic Church teaches the filioque as doctine and yet exempts a wing of her Church from saying it because they disagree with it yet they can’t disagree with it spiritually in their hearts but they don’t have to say it?

Or like Hesychios said, the EO’s don’t believe in the idea of Catholic Original Sin, the idea that the original guilt for what our first parents did sticks to us. Therefore, Mary isn’t exempt from that original sin because it never existed to begin with? But since the Catholic Church does see Original Sin in an Augustinian fashion, then why would you allow EC’s to be exempt again from this view and yet require them to see Mary as Immaculate and preserved from something that never existed in the Eastern mind?

I’m utterly confused by the concept. In my feeble mind, you either have the beliefs of the East, as Hesychios does, or the ideas of the West, but combining them and giving latitude to de fide doctrines is something I cannot comprehend?

A part of the confusion may come from the fact that you’re making the exact mistake most Roman Catholics make, that is equating the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a union/communion of particular sui iuris Churches, each Church having its own liturgical, theological, canonical, and spiritual traditions that are to be held in equal esteem, as well as its own history. The Roman Catholic Church is only one of these particular churches that make up the Catholic Communion of Churches (albeit the largest of the particular Churches).

The issue of the Immaculate Conception is more pertinent to the Roman Church than to any of the other Churches within the Catholic (Communion of) Church(es) because it is within the Roman Church that debates were waged for centuries over whether Mary ever sinned, or even inherited the fallen state that mankind as a whole as inherited from Adam. These debates, of course, were held within a Roman theological/scholastic framework, and used the theological vocabulary of the Roman Church (note: this vocabulary is not that of the entire Catholic Church). Likewise the solution to these debates came about within the same framework in which the debates arose to begin with. This framework is simply foreign to the Eastern and Oriental traditions. That being said, however, it does not mean that we disagree with the solution; i.e. the essence of what is being said, the dogma. We may, however, disagree or have issues with the way in which the solution was reached, or how it is expressed, or whatever. The key, however, is that in essence we believe the same thing. Although Catholics of the Byzantine tradition may not speak of the Immaculate Conception, we do call the Theotokos the “all holy, all pure, most highly blessed, and glorious Lady,” and in some cases we do refer to her as immaculate (although I believe we mean immaculate in reference to actual sin and not in reference to Original Sin). The point is that we believe the Mother of God was never touched by sin.

Similarly Eastern Catholic may not speak of “transubstantiation,” but we do believe in the mystery that ordinary bread and wine are somehow transformed into the Body and Blood of our Savior. Just because we do not use the same theological framework and vocabulary does not mean that we do not hold the same essential beliefs.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No, respectfully, I know the difference between “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic.” But it’s a fact that all members of the Catholic Church worldwide are expected to hold de fide these issues we’ve discussed. The theology behind the filioque is to be believed likewise the other issues…So when an EC is told they don’t have to say the filioque at Divine Liturgy, they are required to believe it. I find that odd, that’s all. If I believe it, I have no problem saying it? Or when it comes to the I.C. of Mary, that’s de fide, must be believed…yet with true Orthodox thinking, we don’t retain the guilt for Adam and Eve’s foolish sin. We bear the consequences of a fallen nature. So why would one believe Mary is exempt from something that doesn’t, in one’s mind, exist to begin with? I think the model for EC you point out is a group of people that believe the same things RC’s believe but RC’s are willing to say it out loud and EC’s are not, they just embed it in liturgy and are quiet about it…?

A part of the confusion may come from the fact that you’re making the exact mistake most Roman Catholics make, that is equating the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a union/communion of particular sui iuris Churches, each Church having its own liturgical, theological, canonical, and spiritual traditions that are to be held in equal esteem, as well as its own history. The Roman Catholic Church is only one of these particular churches that make up the Catholic Communion of Churches (albeit the largest of the particular Churches).

The issue of the Immaculate Conception is more pertinent to the Roman Church than to any of the other Churches within the Catholic (Communion of) Church(es) because it is within the Roman Church that debates were waged for centuries over whether Mary ever sinned, or even inherited the fallen state that mankind as a whole as inherited from Adam. These debates, of course, were held within a Roman theological/scholastic framework, and used the theological vocabulary of the Roman Church (note: this vocabulary is not that of the entire Catholic Church). Likewise the solution to these debates came about within the same framework in which the debates arose to begin with. This framework is simply foreign to the Eastern and Oriental traditions. That being said, however, it does not mean that we disagree with the solution; i.e. the essence of what is being said, the dogma. We may, however, disagree or have issues with the way in which the solution was reached, or how it is expressed, or whatever. The key, however, is that in essence we believe the same thing. Although Catholics of the Byzantine tradition may not speak of the Immaculate Conception, we do call the Theotokos the “all holy, all pure, most highly blessed, and glorious Lady,” and in some cases we do refer to her as immaculate (although I believe we mean immaculate in reference to actual sin and not in reference to Original Sin). The point is that we believe the Mother of God was never touched by sin.

Similarly Eastern Catholic may not speak of “transubstantiation,” but we do believe in the mystery that ordinary bread and wine are somehow transformed into the Body and Blood of our Savior. Just because we do not use the same theological framework and vocabulary does not mean that we do not hold the same essential beliefs.

 

[TrueLight]

The issue of the Immaculate Conception is more pertinent to the Roman Church than to any of the other Churches within the Catholic (Communion of) Church(es) because it is within the Roman Church that debates were waged for centuries over whether Mary ever sinned, or even inherited the fallen state that mankind as a whole as inherited from Adam. These debates, of course, were held within a Roman theological/scholastic framework, and used the theological vocabulary of the Roman Church (note: this vocabulary is not that of the entire Catholic Church). Likewise the solution to these debates came about within the same framework in which the debates arose to begin with. This framework is simply foreign to the Eastern and Oriental traditions. That being said, however, it does not mean that we disagree with the solution; i.e. the essence of what is being said, the dogma. We may, however, disagree or have issues with the way in which the solution was reached, or how it is expressed, or whatever. The key, however, is that in essence we believe the same thing. Although Catholics of the Byzantine tradition may not speak of the Immaculate Conception, we do call the Theotokos the “all holy, all pure, most highly blessed, and glorious Lady,” and in some cases we do refer to her as immaculate (although I believe we mean immaculate in reference to actual sin and not in reference to Original Sin). The point is that we believe the Mother of God was never touched by sin.

As someone who is new to Catholicism, I am very confused by this as well. Wasn’t the Immaculate Conception dogmatically defined? Am I not expected to believe in this doctrine, no matter which church I am in?

So does this mean if there are certain doctrines I don’t quite see eye to eye on, but I find that Eastern theology aligns more closely with those beliefs, I should just join the Eastern Catholic Church?

It just seems to me “in communion” is sort of superficial. Just my humble opinion. I know there is a lot I don’t understand yet.

 

[Vico]

…So when an EC is told they don’t have to say the filioque at Divine Liturgy, they are required to believe it. I find that odd, that’s all. If I believe it, I have no problem saying it?

Or when it comes to the I.C. of Mary, that’s de fide, must be believed…yet with true Orthodox thinking, we don’t retain the guilt for Adam and Eve’s foolish sin. We bear the consequences of a fallen nature. So why would one believe Mary is exempt from something that doesn’t, in one’s mind, exist to begin with?..

Union of Breast 1596 Poland:

1. Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

5.We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.
Roman law reatus means liable to or indicted or a sentence. Culpa means actual act of wrongdoing. Reatus means state that accrues as a consequence of a culpa.

Justinian terms taken by the Church are used this way:
Reatus poena is punishment for sin (removed by penance)
Reatus culpa is guilt-debt of culpability (removed by absolution)
Original sin inherited is reatus poena but without reatus culpa; we inherit the sentence not the culpability.

Reatus poena is culpa contracta: contracted fault. Ineffiable Deus used the phrase “originalis culpa labe”, which is “original fault stain” for the stain of original sin, which is the culpa contracta.

Latin culpa, guilt in the moral sense, i.e. blameworthiness or ill desert, ailpa.
Latin reatus, guilt in the legal sense, i.e. liability or obligation to punishment.

 

[Bluegoat]

No, respectfully, I know the difference between “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic.” But it’s a fact that all members of the Catholic Church worldwide are expected to hold de fide these issues we’ve discussed. The theology behind the filioque is to be believed likewise the other issues…So when an EC is told they don’t have to say the filioque at Divine Liturgy, they are required to believe it. I find that odd, that’s all. If I believe it, I have no problem saying it? Or when it comes to the I.C. of Mary, that’s de fide, must be believed…yet with true Orthodox thinking, we don’t retain the guilt for Adam and Eve’s foolish sin. We bear the consequences of a fallen nature. So why would one believe Mary is exempt from something that doesn’t, in one’s mind, exist to begin with? I think the model for EC you point out is a group of people that believe the same things RC’s believe but RC’s are willing to say it out loud and EC’s are not, they just embed it in liturgy and are quiet about it…?

I think I understand how this is supposed to work - the question to me is whether it does.

In the case of the filioque, of course even the West at one time didn’t use it. In fact, it is the Western argument that saying it is only saying explicitly what was implied before. But the Church was not incorrect when it said the Creed before the filioque was added, and in the Eastern Churches, goes the argument, there was never any need to add it. So there are two different traditions of how to say it, but both mean the same thing theologically.

I’d say this differs clearly from the Orthodox though who won’t say it because tey don’t agree theologically with the filioque.

The case of the Immaculate Conception is different. In this case what they are saying is that the Eastern and Western ways of talking about our fallen nature are both imperfect, human expressions of the reality. There is a way in which all theology is metaphor and tries to describe realities that are above human understanding - we can even see this in Scripture where the same idea can be described using different images. So just like there can be different ways of talking about the Atonement and all can be true and even have Scriptural support, although none really penetrate the mystery, in the description of our fallen nature there can be several ways to describe it.

I actually don’t think Orthodoxy proper would disagree with that, and would probably think that realization is something that the Western Catholic Church had been missing, understanding her own formulations as too “real” and so building doctrines on them that are unjustified.

The difficulty in my mind is that it seems to me to be a clear change from medieval and later Catholicism, where they did things like maintain that those who denies transubstantiation were beyond the pale. (Now, most of the time transubstantiation is said to be “just one way” of thinking about the Real Presence!) Or built complicated theories about indulgences, or the Immaculate Conception.

The Eastern Catholic position however would be that the Immaculate Conception is simply a Western Way to talk about an idea that is also present in the Eastern Church, as are Indulgences, or whatever you like.

It seems to me that theoretically this is just fine. Historically I think it is clear that the Roman Church has not always understood this idea. And whether the Roman positions and the Eastern ones are actually in practice two ways of talking about the same thing is another question altogether.

And to bring this back to the OP, this idea that theological formulations are really incomplete human expressions of Divine things seems a way in which the Eastern Church has really influenced modern Catholicism.

 

[Hesychios]

it just seems to me “in communion” is sort of superficial. .

bingo

 

[mardukm]

As someone who is new to Catholicism, I am very confused by this as well. Wasn’t the Immaculate Conception dogmatically defined? Am I not expected to believe in this doctrine, no matter which church I am in?

So does this mean if there are certain doctrines I don’t quite see eye to eye on, but I find that Eastern theology aligns more closely with those beliefs, I should just join the Eastern Catholic Church?

It just seems to me “in communion” is sort of superficial. Just my humble opinion. I know there is a lot I don’t understand yet.

A lot of it has to do with legalism. The legalism is in the idea that only one theological Tradition, with accompanying theological language, is the ONLY ONE that is true. the Latin Catholic Church used to have this problem, and Latinizations abounded when the Eastern and Oriental Churches first came into communion with Rome. That is no longer the way it is in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church understands that there is a Faith that is even more basic than theological expression. We must look for commonality in this Faith, instead of insisting on homogeneity in theological expression. It is what St. Paul exhorts us to do, as evident in my signature line below.

Eastern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, seems to have an undercurrent of legalism that opposes this kind of rapprochement. That is why many EO today do not accept the OO as Orthodox on the matter of Christology - because they think that only way to understand orthodox Christology is to use the terminological premises of the Chalcedonians. It is the same way in their relationship to the Latins on a lot of theological matters. Many of them cannot get beyond the theological terminology to understand the basic Faith that unites us all.

That is the same way with the Creed. It might interest you to know that during the Third Ecumenical Council, many of the Council Fathers chided Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria for not sticking to the theological expressions used by the Nicene Creed in his remonstrances against Nestorius. Pope St. Cyril correctly shot back that our Faith is not contained in the Creed alone, but in all the sources that Sacred Tradition provides.

To think that a line in the Creed can separate the common Faith of the Catholic Church is mere legalism.

As far as the Immaculate Conception is concerned, the real problem is that many Latins themselves do not understand what the Immaculate Conception teaches. Many Latins think that the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s PHYSICAL conception. With that misunderstanding, many Latins (and many non-Catholics, for that matter) think this means that Mary was preserved from the physical consequences of Original Sin. If that is the case, it would indeed run counter to the Eastern Tradition. However, the doctrine and dogma of the IC actually only refers to Mary’s SPIRITUAL state. It simply means that Mary, at all points in her existence, was never once separated spiritually from God by an act of God’s Grace.

Take special note that the Dogma of the IC DOES NOT STATE that Mary was preserved from Original Sin. Rather, it states that Mary was preserved from the STAIN of Original Sin. In Latin theology, the “stain of Original Sin” refers to the spiritual consequences of Original Sin, not the physical consequences (physical death, old age, disease, emotional instability, etc.). Understanding that, one can see that the IC in no way contradicts the Eastern Tradition, despite the claims of non-Catholics.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

No, respectfully, I know the difference between “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic.” But it’s a fact that all members of the Catholic Church worldwide are expected to hold de fide these issues we’ve discussed.

Amen. Keep in mind what you have stated here - De fide. We adhere to the same FAITH (that is what “fide” means). We may not always adhere to the same theological terminology, but we all adhere to the same FAITH.

Or when it comes to the I.C. of Mary, that’s de fide, must be believed…yet with true Orthodox thinking, we don’t retain the guilt for Adam and Eve’s foolish sin. We bear the consequences of a fallen nature. So why would one believe Mary is exempt from something that doesn’t, in one’s mind, exist to begin with?

What does Adam and Eve’s guilt have to do with the Immaculate Conception? Seems to me you are simply imposing a straw man on the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. Your confusion would stem from that straw man assumption, not what the IC actually teaches.

The theology behind the filioque is to be believed likewise the other issues…So when an EC is told they don’t have to say the filioque at Divine Liturgy, they are required to believe it. I find that odd, that’s all. If I believe it, I have no problem saying it?

I think the model for EC you point out is a group of people that believe the same things RC’s believe but RC’s are willing to say it out loud and EC’s are not, they just embed it in liturgy and are quiet about it…?

The word “proceeds” in the Greek has a different meaning to the Easterns and Orientals than it does to the Westerns. Adding “And the Son” would be heretical if one recites “proceeds” according to the Eastern and Oriental understanding of “proceeds.” But It would be perfectly orthodox if one recites “proceeds” according to the Western understanding of “proceeds.”

What is difficult about that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And to bring this back to the OP, this idea that theological formulations are really incomplete human expressions of Divine things seems a way in which the Eastern Church has really influenced modern Catholicism.

Whatever “Easternness” you think this comes from, it can’t be from modern Eastern Orthodoxy, which today seems more inclined to theological legalism.

The acceptance of different theological formulations for the same Faith would seem to be more characteristic of historic Oriental Christianity, rather than Eastern or Western.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Harpazo]

I’m utterly confused by the concept. In my feeble mind, you either have the beliefs of the East, as Hesychios does, or the ideas of the West, but combining them and giving latitude to de fide doctrines is something I cannot comprehend?

Someone hit the nail on the head.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Whatever “Easternness” you think this comes from, it can’t be from modern Eastern Orthodoxy, which today seems more inclined to theological legalism.

The acceptance of different theological formulations for the same Faith would seem to be more characteristic of historic Oriental Christianity, rather than Eastern or Western.

Blessings,
Marduk

Theological legalism? Ouch. Care to expand?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by truelight View Post
it just seems to me “in communion” is sort of superficial. .

bingo

On the contrary, this is the source and summit. It is the ultimate depth of our religious faith.
It is everything else that is superficial.

 

[mardukm]

On the contrary, this is the source and summit. It is the ultimate depth of our religious faith.
It is everything else that is superficial.

Agreed. When one can see beyond the theological expressions, and be united in the FAITH that undergirds those varied expressions — that is TRUE communion, not the superficial uniatism that attempts to impose one single theological expression on everyone.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

I have noticed in my experience in Orthodoxy that there is a hostility toward western theology and expression which is really unfortunate. It’s possible to criticize particular doctrines or theological methods without rejecting half the Church in the process! In this respect I think that Catholics are much better than we are since they seem to genuinely acknowledge and respect eastern traditions in a way that we don’t western ones. This has always chafed me as a convert to Orthodoxy from Lutheranism, which is a heavily western, Augustinian belief system.

 

[dcointin]

I’d like to add another thought to this subject as well:

In Eastern Orthodoxy we seem to view Oriental Orthodoxy as identical to us with only with a difference in Christological terminology. As Malphono and Mardukm have often argued, this is not the case, and to say so cheapens the truly diverse heritage of the catholic Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I went to my first Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy today…quite a trip