Transalpine Redemptorists pose question: Why so hard to convert the Orthodox

[wsxyz]

I didn’t say that the Eastern Catholic view of original sin can’t be reconciled with Church teaching. I asked what the Eastern Catholic view of original sin is - and whether it is compatible with the dogmatic statement of Trent.

The “One dogma” I was referring to was one covered earlier in this thread – the dogma of Papal Supremacy, defined at I Vatican. That is one dogma that the “Orthodox” reject and thereby reject the Catholic faith.

 

[JackQ]

First of all, the term “converting” is an old Roman Catholic supremacist phrase that has, if anything, alienated the Orthodox from Rome more than anything else.

In what areas of faith are they “heretical” with respect to Roman Catholicism - apart from the pope, they differ with Latin theology in a number of respects. But these are all points of doctrine that are: 1) misunderstood by certain Roman Catholics to mean that the Orthodox actually believe something that they do not; 2) Are Roman Catholic traditions that spring from within the Latin theological context only.

As for the ugly word “schism,” that has been resolved with the rescinding of the acts of excommunication between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras (or haven’t you heard?).

Orthodoxy sincerely believes that Rome is in heresy - another ugly term.

Both sides believe the other separated from it.

But hearing the word “schism” from Roman Catholics is truly a sad thing. Roman Catholic theologians who are involved with the Orthodox have quite differing perspectives.

I am sorry that we’re using vinegar instead of honey.

Alex

In most of the discussion I have had with the Orthodox on this issue, it is they who wish to distinguish themselves from us. As you point out, they think we’re heretics. Every attempt I have ever made to point out to an Orthodox Christian that we are not so far apart on most issues, the answer has invariably been that we are indeed far apart.

As best as I can tell, they see themselves as being members of a different religion. It seems a little condescending to me to not take them at their word.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’m just asking a question. Is the “Orthodox” understanding of original sin compatible with the dogmatic statement of Trent?

Is the dogmatic statement of Trent compatible with contemporary RC teaching on Original Sin?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One is sufficient to prove the point.

While this is not addressed to me, and I am no expert in “Orthodox” doctrine, what I have read online seems contradict the following:

but I would pleased to read your explanation showing that “Orthodox” doctrine on original sin is fully compatible with this dogmatic statement.

This is entirely compatible with the Orthodox teaching on Original Sin.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In most of the discussion I have had with the Orthodox on this issue, it is they who wish to distinguish themselves from us. As you point out, they think we’re heretics. Every attempt I have ever made to point out to an Orthodox Christian that we are not so far apart on most issues, the answer has invariably been that we are indeed far apart.

As best as I can tell, they see themselves as being members of a different religion. It seems a little condescending to me to not take them at their word.

You would be right then, and I would agree with you 100%.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I didn’t say that the Eastern Catholic view of original sin can’t be reconciled with Church teaching. I asked what the Eastern Catholic view of original sin is - and whether it is compatible with the dogmatic statement of Trent.

The “One dogma” I was referring to was one covered earlier in this thread – the dogma of Papal Supremacy, defined at I Vatican. That is one dogma that the “Orthodox” reject and thereby reject the Catholic faith.

The Orthodox and the Catholics are separated from one another - there is no way to honey-coat that.

The true beauty of the Catholic Church is precisely its “development of doctrine.” Bl. John Henry Newman in letters to his Protestant acquantainces defended Vatican I’s dogmatic definition of the Papacy, but also said that future Catholic Councils could develop it further.

Vatican I was all about laying down the law for European Catholics who developed a certain distaste for the Papacy as an “ultramontane” institution. That was the context.

So Vatican I isn’t the final word on the Papacy, the Petrine Ministry. The Orthodox agree on the role of the Petrine Minister and venerate more Popes as saints than even the West (prior to 1054 AD of course).

For the most part, Orthodox objections to the Papacy are not to the Papacy itself, but to certain matters of faith which served to divide the Churches after the first millennium (and the papacy itself was not one of those issues at the time).

The Orthodox believe that the Petrine Office went to the Patriarch of New Rome - but still it is “Rome.”

There are traditionalist Roman Catholics who adhere to the Papacy, but then disagree what certain contemporary Popes have taught and question Vatican II. I think the Orthodox approach is more honest.

But there is nothing that is insuperable and a future Union Council could resolve the remaining issues with the Pope of Rome as the centre of church unity once again.

There is no need for words like “converting” since I think we all suffer in a state of ecclesial estrangement and we all need to repent through prayer and fasting for a time of general reconciliation of East and West. As Bl. Pope John XXIII said, “There were faults on both sides.”

Both sides need to “convert” in spirit to have One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, once again.

Alex

 

[Bluegoat]

In most of the discussion I have had with the Orthodox on this issue, it is they who wish to distinguish themselves from us. As you point out, they think we’re heretics. Every attempt I have ever made to point out to an Orthodox Christian that we are not so far apart on most issues, the answer has invariably been that we are indeed far apart.

As best as I can tell, they see themselves as being members of a different religion. It seems a little condescending to me to not take them at their word.

Hmm. Do you think it is condescending when Protestants say they are not so different and Catholics say they are, and are not part of the Church, and that their ideas are heretical?

This is the same kind of thing. People feel badly about this when someone says it. But most Catholics feel it is important to be truthful, from their perspective, about this.

 

[wsxyz]

The true beauty of the Catholic Church is precisely its “development of doctrine.” Bl. John Henry Newman in letters to his Protestant acquantainces defended Vatican I’s dogmatic definition of the Papacy, but also said that future Catholic Councils could develop it further.

Vatican I was all about laying down the law for European Catholics who developed a certain distaste for the Papacy as an “ultramontane” institution. That was the context.

So Vatican I isn’t the final word on the Papacy, the Petrine Ministry. The Orthodox agree on the role of the Petrine Minister and venerate more Popes as saints than even the West (prior to 1054 AD of course).

Doctrine can be developed, but that does not mean that dogmas can be overturned. No development of the doctrine of the Papacy can ever say that the Pope does not actually have “absolute full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church, over the whole Church, over all and each of the Churches”.

It is not possible to claim that we could at some time understand these words in any sense other than the sense intended by the council and thus maintain the dogma. That is guaranteed by another dogmatic statement from I Vatican:

“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

The reason why it is absolutely correct to say that the “Orthodox” must convert is that the Catholic Church is the one Body of Christ. The various “Orthodox” churches are separated from the Body of Christ and in order to overcome this separation, must accept each and all of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, in the same sense in which the Catholic Church has always understood them, and be joined to the Catholic Church.

 

[dcointin]

Doctrine can be developed, but that does not mean that dogmas can be overturned. No development of the doctrine of the Papacy can ever say that the Pope does not actually have “absolute full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church, over the whole Church, over all and each of the Churches”.

It is not possible to claim that we could at some time understand these words in any sense other than the sense intended by the council and thus maintain the dogma. That is guaranteed by another dogmatic statement from I Vatican:

“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

The reason why it is absolutely correct to say that the “Orthodox” must convert is that the Catholic Church is the one Body of Christ. The various “Orthodox” churches are separated from the Body of Christ and in order to overcome this separation, must accept each and all of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, in the same sense in which the Catholic Church has always understood them, and be joined to the Catholic Church.

But the Catholic Church is not pursuing the conversion of the Orthodox, but instead engaging in ecumenical dialogue to bring about an eventual reunion of the churches.