The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zekariya said:
An Example of how the Theological language causes the East and West to define things differently:
The East and West believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. The West explains this truth using substance and accidents. This wording if foreign to the East and is not used. The East never saw a reason to define how the change occurs (we didn’t have a protestant-reformation or anything requiring us to define it using Eastern language). We call the change a mystery. But both East and West believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.

We pray this prayer of St John Chrysostom in the Byzantine Rite before Communion at every Divine Liturgy:

“I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood…”
Click to expand...
Another pearl, from an ECF that all can except !! Folks, we are basically 99% in agreement. Lets focus on that 99%, and not insist upon the 1 % that divides. We can do this…we must not be bull-headed about that 1% any longer.
 
Zekariya said:
I accept all of the Councils myself and I love reading St Thomas Aquinas. However, the Eastern tradition has its own language/expressions of understanding the same truths as the West. Therefore, the IC is understood by some Eastern Catholics using of Eastern phrasiogy.
Click to expand...
Zekariya …

👍
I vote for you to suggest compromises for us …you are the voice of reason, you and Constantine… are the Adults among us !!
 
brb3 said:
Zekariya …

👍
I vote for you to suggest compromises for us …you are the voice of reason, you and Constantine… are the Adults among us !!
Click to expand...
You are very kind. 😃 I am not close to being the best person to explain these things. 🙂
 
Zekariya said:
You are very kind. 😃 I am not close to being the best person to explain these things. 🙂
Click to expand...
Ur batting 1000 so far !! U are strong on ECF’s … thats a big plus, we all like ‘most’ of them. And, they are closer to the Trunk/Vine & Apostles than we.
 
Zekariya said:
An Example of how the Theological language causes the East and West to define things differently:
The East and West believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. The West explains this truth using substance and accidents. This wording if foreign to the East and is not used. The East never saw a reason to define how the change occurs (we didn’t have a protestant-reformation or anything requiring us to define it using Eastern language). We call the change a mystery. But both East and West believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.

We pray this prayer of St John Chrysostom in the Byzantine Rite before Communion at every Divine Liturgy:

“I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood…”
Click to expand...
Your points are well taken, especially earlier pre-fall conversation with Vico. As to the Real Presence I see you found another A+O conversation. .I also go with X on that one, in presence and reality and I “do” believe. 😃
 
What does the Orthodox Church say on the Marian Apparitions @ Lourdes ? Are they believed, are they optional ? Is Bernadette’s account believed plausible?
 
brb3 said:
What does the Orthodox Church say on the Marian Apparitions @ Lourdes ? Are they believed, are they optional ? Is Bernadette’s account believed plausible?
Click to expand...
The Eastern Orthodox Church would probably reject them (though individuals might not).

Did you perhaps mean Eastern Catholic? If so, I am not knowledgeable about the East as a whole on this subject. I assume that those apparitions are not condemned by the Eastern Catholic Church and that it is up to the individual on practicing devotions with regard to those apparitions. Certainly, you will find some individuals that do not accept them because they belong to the West and are not part of the East’s tradition. 🙂
 
Yes they are optional. Private Revelation does not belong to the Deposit of Faith. It is not the Church’s role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, CCC

The Church deemed Lourdes “worthy of belief”. I agree.
 
devoutchristian said:
Ok. Believe the Church’s teachings or You’ve lost the Catholic faith. Is that a sufficient translation?
Click to expand...
They’re not wrong to desire not to have to teach western theology. They’re supposed to preserve the authentic practice of their tradition - and that includes eastern theology and spirituality, not just liturgy.
Zekariya said:
Now translate this Western Theological understanding/wording into Eastern Theological understanding/wording. :rolleyes: The West and East were separated from each other for many years. You can’t push a Western teaching into the East without a proper translation.

Western “substance” is the same as Eastern “essence” in some places and in other places they mean different things. I doubt that the above has been translated for our (the East’s) understanding. 😉
Click to expand...
Well said.
dzheremi said:
Isn’t it fun being in union with such understanding, humble, and loving Latins, you filthy Eastern heretics? 😃
Click to expand...
malphono said:
:rotfl:
Click to expand...
As a Latin Catholic myself, I’m always embarrassed by that sort of behavior from fellow members of my church.
brb3 said:
Wow … thats pretty strong language !! Was he serious, or bluffing ?
Click to expand...
Of course he’s serious. The orthodox faith is no laughing matter.

But as I’ve attempted to emphasize at several points throughout this thread, this matter is not one to fret over. The Immaculate Conception as expressed by Latin theology isn’t a part of eastern Christianity, but nor is it contradicted by it.

It’s beyond telling that most attempts to deny the IC dogma can’t even succeed in contradicting it. We’ve seen that already with eastern Christians’ insisting that the Theotokos was mortal, and has a human nature, etc., as if the Latin teaching contradicts these truths.
devoutchristian said:
Ok. That Mary was preserved free from all stain of ancestral sin.
Click to expand...
That’s not a translation into eastern terminology. “Ancestral sin” (eastern) and “original sin” (western) have different meanings, and their “stain” isn’t a theological concept at all in the East.

I don’t mean to be obnoxious, but we have to admit that eastern and western theology can be worlds apart. Paraphrasing Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception isn’t a translation into the terminology of eastern Christian theology.
devoutchristian said:
By the East, you mean the Orthodox. Faithful Eastern Catholics believe the Church’s teaching on the inheritance of the juridical guilt of original sin.
Click to expand...
Please consult the quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church provided by Vico: original sin “does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”

So “inherited guilt” or “juridical guilt” is purely analogous language. And eastern theology does not use that analogy. So no, faithful Eastern Catholics do not teach or have any concept of “juridical guilt.”
Zekariya said:
I accept all of the Councils myself and I love reading St Thomas Aquinas. However, the Eastern tradition has its own language/expressions of understanding the same truths as the West. Therefore, the IC is understood by some Eastern Catholics using of Eastern phrasiogy.
Click to expand...
Your patience is remarkable, Zekariya. I admire your participation here deeply.
brb3 said:
What does the Orthodox Church say on the Marian Apparitions @ Lourdes ? Are they believed, are they optional ? Is Bernadette’s account believed plausible?
Click to expand...
Even for Latin Catholics, they’re optional. Post-apostolic private revelation cannot be binding upon the faithful.

If there’s a difference, it’s that such apparitions are commemorated liturgically in the Latin Church. I assume they’re not commemorated in eastern Catholic Churches. But for all Catholics, belief in them is optional. 🙂

Does anyone know if the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Oriental Orthodox Church liturgically commemorate any of their eastern apparitions?
 
The Copts do not, as far as I know. If we were to commemorate every such miracle in our Church we wouldn’t really have time to celebrate the actual liturgy!
 
dzheremi said:
The Copts do not, as far as I know. If we were to commemorate every such miracle in our Church we wouldn’t really have time to celebrate the actual liturgy!
Click to expand...
One thing (out of many) that I like about the Coptic Church is that the Synaxarium (Lives of the Saints) of the day is read with the Scripture Readings at the Divine Liturgy. 🙂
 
The miracles in the Coptic Church are well known also. All point back to the deposit of faith.
 
Zekariya said:
…
The East and West believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. The West explains this truth using substance and accidents. This wording if foreign to the East and is not used. The East never saw a reason to define how the change occurs (we didn’t have a protestant-reformation or anything requiring us to define it using Eastern language)…
Click to expand...
This post had received favorable comment for its conciliatory tone. I agree with those comments up to a point. There is still a problem here, and that problem is that some of the ideas expressed are not accurate.

The East did have and did see a reason, after the Protestant reformations, to define its position on the Real Presence. A tract that adopted Calvinist theology of the Eucharist was published under the name of one of the Ecumencial Patriarchs. Among the responses published, was the Confession of Dositheous, which was affirmed at a pan-orthodox council, and further used in discussion with Anglicans.

Here is Decree17 from the Confession:
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, … For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really,so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, …; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, …
Click to expand...
Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.
…
Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.
Click to expand...
Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.
Click to expand...
Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. …
…
Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.
…
Click to expand...
In “The Orthodox Church” Bishop Kallistos indicates that this Confession “must be regarded as a document of primary importance in the history of seventeenth century Orthodox theology.”. According to Meyendorff (in The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today), it is “the most important Orthodox dogmatic text of this period. It authority is undisputed.”
 
How does the following Western MAGNIFICAT prayer language sit with Eastern Catholics ?

" Oh blessed Virgin, ALL PRAISE TO YOU"

“Hail Holy Queen, OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS, AND OUR HOPE”
 
dvdjs said:
This post had received favorable comment for its conciliatory tone. I agree with those comments up to a point. There is still a problem here, and that problem is that some of the ideas expressed are not accurate.

The East did have and did see a reason, after the Protestant reformations, to define its position on the Real Presence. A tract that adopted Calvinist theology of the Eucharist was published under the name of one of the Ecumencial Patriarchs. Among the responses published, was the Confession of Dositheous, which was affirmed at a pan-orthodox council, and further used in discussion with Anglicans.

Here is Decree17 from the Confession:
Click to expand...
Ah, you mean Byzantium. This Council was never recognized as Ecumenical. What about the Oriental Churches. Did the Ecumenical Patriarch speak for them as well? :rolleyes:
 
brb3 said:
How does the following Western MAGNIFICAT prayer language sit with Eastern Catholics ?
Click to expand...
Must be three different prayers:
  1. Magnificat is “My soul magnifies the Lord” (which is Mary’s praise to God, not a praise to Mary)
  2. Salve Regina is “Hail Holy Queen, OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS, AND OUR HOPE”
  3. but where does “Oh, blessed Virgin, all praise to you” come from??
As for Eastern Catholic prayers, what do you say about this truly magnificent akathist? 🙂
catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=249
 
Zekariya said:
Ah, you mean Byzantium. This Council was never recognized as Ecumenical
Click to expand...
Byzantium? No I do not mean Byzantium
But please let;s not go down the rabbit hole of what is “Ecumencial” - surely you don;t hold that Orthodox belief is limited to what has been declared in a council received as Ecumenical. If you think that there is teaching against this Confession, please provide the sources that contest the perspectives that I have quoted.
What about the Oriental Churches. Did the Ecumenical Patriarch speak for them as well? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:Indeed. The discussion was about the Eastern Churches not the Oriental Churches, and that is what I responded to. In any case, the use of the the term in the EOC is is incompatible with the notion that the term is not used in the East, even if that inculdes Oriental OCs. Finally, the EP spoke for himself, not for any church, as his church made plain in its council.
 
joe370 said:
👍

The apparitions of the blessed virgin Mary appeared to millions In The Coptic Orthodox Church in Zeitoun, a district in Cairo, Egypt:

[
Miracle Mary Zeitoun Egypt Apparitions Film Scientist Reveals Close Ups:


]()

Interesting:

youtube.com/watch?v=QI_0nh7Tg10
Click to expand...
ok Joe …

Watched the Zeitoun video on Utube. Hard to say what we’re seeing, we need better photos, which should be available, since this went on for 4 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top