Roman Curia allows Bishop Fellay FSSPX, to bring into full communion an Orthodox priest.

[JReducation]

Isn’t the immaculate conception considered dogma? And I know you have tried to explain it to me Br. Jr, along with others, but how can it be mortally sinful to not believe in the Immaculate Conception as stated in the Latin church but not be mortally sinful for an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic?

What if the Eastern way of thinking about it makes more sense for even a Latin Catholic?

Am I free to say, well, I more follow the Eastern way of thinking about purgatory.

This acceptance of different theology is hard for me to comprehend.

And I know some will say it’s not a different theology but a different understanding that leads to the same conclusion (2+2 and 3+1 both = 4). Okay, then why is the Immaculate Conception dogma for the Latin Church?

I struggle with this as well.

Okay so then Eastern Catholics have a different theology in some things correct?

Well then why is the Eastern Theology not considered sinful for you, but sinful for me.

So I am flat out asking, can I choose to believe that God kept Mary from sin, but not that she was conceived without sin?

Because the universal Church, all 23 Catholic Churches believe that Mary never experienced Original Sin. How they word it may be different, but the bare bones of it is exactly what the Holy Father proclaimed as the faith of the Church. Mary was not subject to Original sin in any way shape or form.

The East and West may explain why this is so using different language that all adds up to the same thing at the end, that the Mother of God was free from Original Sin before she was conceived.

For a Catholic to deny this is heresy. For an Orthodox to deny this it’s still heresy, but he’s not a heretic. The term heretic can only be applied to those for whom the law was written, the Catholics. This is a clear case of a people that subscribes to a heresy, without actually committing a sin. They were born into this faith. They didn’t wake up this morning and decide to throw the Immaculate Conception away. If truth be told, the Orthodox and many of the Eastern Churches were not part of this whole development. This begins during the first century, but the dialogue continues well past the Middle Ages. By that time, many Eastern theologians were no longer welcome at the table nor did they want to be there. It was ugliness on both sides.

I’m a mix and match kind of person.

It’s not a problem for me, but I’m saying if something is dogma, then why does the Church make an exception for a particular group? It’s either sin or it’s not.

And with that, I’m bowing out. This thread is way off course.

If something is a dogma, there is no pick and choose. You can pick and choose how you explain it as long as you end up at the same point. The East starts off with a different understanding of Original Sin, but never denies Original Sin, nor preaches that Mary was every an heir to the sin of Adam.

Purgatory is more a matter of semantics. The explanation that reconciles both sides was best provided by Pope Benedict when he said that Purgatory was a state of being, not an actual place. I hope that someday he will write on this subject.

Yes the Melkites and a few other Eastern Churches prefer to call themselves Orthodox. The Holy See has no problem with them calling themselves that. The Holy See does not use the term as an umbrella term. It really does not say anything about the relationship between the Churches.

To get back to the original post, the big question was or is, whether an Orthodox priest can enter the Catholic Church through the SSPX. The answer is that the profession of faith can be made under any circumstance. As to his canonical place in the Catholic Church, Bishop Fellay cannot offer him one. But the Catholic Church does welcome him as a Catholic priest.

My experience of priests that come over from the Orthodox is that they usually reconcile with one of their Catholic counterparts, not with the Latin Church. They accept the Petrine Primacy, but retain their rite and their ecclesial identity.

The big question is, if this is true, what happens now? I have no idea. However, I’m I have no time to squeeze this into my schedule. I’ll let those who have the time look it up and find out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’re right, there is only one definition, universal and equally valid for Roman and Eastern Catholics:
Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
There is no “opt-out” clause for people who would like to “go native” with the Orthodox!

Its not that we believe Mary to carry sin at any point in her life. The problem here for Eastern Christians is we do not have a concept of Original Sin the way it is defined in the West.

Most every Sunday our usual Irmos (hymn to the Theotokos) has a line that we profess the Theotokos to be pure, immaculate (or unblemished) and ever-virgin. Is there anything there that contradicts the dogma? The real problem only between the East and West understanding is that we do not have a concept of original sin. As far as we’re concerned, the Theotokos was concieved the same way you and I were. Albeit that she is filled with grace from the beginning which preserved her from sin. But we don’t believe in an Original Sin that is passed on and washed away by baptism. The understanding of The Fall is just completely different.

 

[JReducation]

Its not that we believe Mary to carry sin at any point in her life. The problem here for Eastern Christians is we do not have a concept of Original Sin the way it is defined in the West.

Most every Sunday our usual Irmos (hymn to the Theotokos) has a line that we profess the Theotokos to be pure, immaculate (or unblemished) and ever-virgin. Is there anything there that contradicts the dogma? The real problem only between the East and West understanding is that we do not have a concept of original sin. As far as we’re concerned, the Theotokos was concieved the same way you and I were. Albeit that she is filled with grace from the beginning which preserved her from sin. But we don’t believe in an Original Sin that is passed on and washed away by baptism. The understanding of The Fall is just completely different.

This is getting us way off. But the understanding of Original Sin of the Eastern theologians is not quite that simple either. They do believe in the fall and they do believe in the transmission of sin. They do believe that Baptism washes away all sin. The Eastern theologians explain this in a different way that is not in conflict with the West. However, its’to long and too complicated to discuss it here.

I’d be happy to discuss it in private, but only with another theologian. Otherwise, we’ll get caught up in semantic and the confusion just gets worse.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF