After viewing and particpating on these boards for many months, I've come to realize that Rome could very easily put an end to discussions on 7 or 21 councils, which dogmas must be believed,etc, etc. Instead of making direct statements, Eastern Catholics must interpolate between statements made to RCs, Eastern Catholics, and the Orthodox.

The real question is why Rome hasn't cleared it up. Other than the polity of unity with the Orthodox, not wanting anything definitive about Eastern Catholics to gum up the works, I can't imagine why such a state of confusion is allowed to exist.

Any theories?

Bill

Dear Bill,
Maybe your question is an embarassing one that might reflect poorly on Rome. One day someone from the Vatican will have to give an affirmative and direct answer. I wonder what an impact might it have on Roman Catholics, BC, Orthodox Christians and for others? The 8-21 councils cannot be said to be ecumenical but rather as general councils that dealt with the only the Roman Catholic Church and the forces it tried to impact upon. These councils were never accepted nor embraced by non-Roman Catholic Churches. It's not a matter of being present or absent at these councils. They were created single-handedly and authorized alone by the Papacy throughout history. They never had the interest of the Orthodox or BC in heart nor mind. These councils do not hold the full authority as the Seven Ecumenical Councils do. There is much work to be done in restoring Rome to her proper place. It's up to Rome to cooperate as much as we are willing to help her.

Bill,

There are two ways of looking at this.

The first way, usually advocated by Latin Catholics and universalist-leaning Eastern Catholics, is that the position of the Catholic Church is clear enough in that she has never said outright that this or that teaching does not apply to Eastern Catholics. That is, since we are not explicitly excepted, we are included in all of these teachings. Looking at it from that point of view, it seems clear that ECs are "bound" to all of this essentially Latin 2d millenium doctrine. This is supported by the fact that the CCC, for example, doesn't refer to purgatory, the immaculate conception, etc., as "latin doctrines", but simply states them, implying therefore that they are universal. The weaker point of this view, though, is that the Vatican has explicitly used the "docrine" word in referring to the patrimony which ECs are being encouraged to recover -- opening the door to doctrinal differences, in theory, within the Catholic Church.

The second way of looking at is that Rome is well aware of the differences but doesn't want to confront that issue within its own communion, but rather in the context of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. In other words, Rome doesn't want to "clarify" things one way or the other in a manner that could prejudice the dialogue with the Orthodox (i.e., by implying that the Orthodox would be expected to accept this or that Latin doctrine upon entering communion with Rome). This view says that its better to live with some ambiguity rather than needlessly prejudice the dialogue.

I think, if you look at what has been recently said about the ECC by the RCC, one could reasonably conclude that Rome is deliberately leaving this one open for the time being in light of the dialogue and is, in fact, opening a significant door by affirming that doctrinal differences are legitimate. This, of course, begs the question of what is "doctrine" and what is "dogma" -- but the door is open on that one, too, so that the Catholic Church has more ability to discuss with the Orthodox Church. I think the ambiguity is deliberate -- as frustrating as it is -- in light of the ecumenical dialogue.

In Christ,

Brendan