www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Latin vs. Byzantine Theology

I would like to start out by stating that I appreciate a great deal of eastern Catholic tradition and wisdom. For example, I love the fact that the Eastern Churches refer to sanctification as deification because it emphasizes the fact that Sanctifying Grace is truely God's life in us. I also appreciate that the East points out that deification is a process that continues for all eternity because the divine nature is infinite. I also love the eastern Divine Liturgies, icons, Jesus Prayer, etc. Furthermore, I have met many wonderful and devout Ruthenian Catholics. Yet, in spite of all this, I have found a disturbing trend among Eastern Catholics, and this is a trend that has caused me to stop looking into becoming a member of an eastern Church. It appears to me that many EC's are rejecting a great deal of Catholic Dogma. In fact, this is dogma that was promulgated in ECUMENICAL councils. For example, the doctrine of transubstantiation, the immaculate concpetioin, Papal infallibility, the knowability of God's existence by reason, the filioque, etc. I understand that EC's are allowed to use different language to describe these things, and it is not required that the filioque be in in the EC creed, but I really thought that being a Catholic required that at least one assent to the essence of these dogmas. For example, rather than the assumption you say the dormition. But I see outright rejection of the above mentioned dogmas. How can this be? Especially since these are De Fide matters of faith. In fact, ecumenical councils state that a person is Anathema if they reject them. I just don't understand. Can any of the Eastern Catholics in the room help me out? BTW, I will remain charitable as we discuss these issues. These are not accusations. I am just trying to udnerstand.

Dear LatinCat, Christ is Risen!

First, I would like to welcome you to the ByzCath Forum as a new member.

The questions that you pose in your post have been covered in numerous threads at length both in this section and in the Faith & Worship section. I would strongly suggest that you use to the search engine for this forum to search out the various parts of your questions and the threads connected with them. This is located in the upper right corner of the page.

In the Risen Christ,
Father Anthony+
Administrator/Moderator

Dear LatinCat,

When the RC Church defined the Immaculate Conception, we Easterns already affirmed that the Mother of God was conceived as All-Holy.

So, as with other doctrines the Latin Catholics developed over time, it was YOU who were giving assent to what WE have believed for centuries!

And the Filioque was never in the original Creed and was NEVER defined as infallible doctrine.

In fact, RC theologians studying it appear to agree that it should be dropped from the Creed designed to express the universal faith of the entire Church.

Alex

Dear Latincat,

Byzantine Rite Catholics are supposed to assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church-- this includes papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, etc. We're Orthodox in praxis, but Catholic in doctrine. So there's no reason why you should fear that being an Eastern Rite Catholic would require you to give up these beliefs. You would still be required to assent to them, in fact.

This is something I'm personally struggling with right now, in fact... lately I've been doing a lot of reading and research on Orthodoxy, and I'm starting to have problems with some of the Catholic doctrines you mention. Considering this, I'm starting to wonder if I can remain in communion with Rome even as a Byzantine riter...

May the Force be with you (since you ARE from Tatooine, according to your profile),

Karen

Sounds like any move to the Byzantine would be premature, as you dont know enough about us to take on board all that we are. You make some wide generalisations about what Catholic Byzantines and our current state. This backs up my belief that you have much to learn before leaving your own Rite. The best thing is reading books on the Byzantine Churches Like the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos and attending the Divine Liturgy.

ICXC
NIKA

Dear Karen,

Each year, on May 3rd, I go around asking people I know "what date is it tomorrow?"

When they say, "May the Fourth," - I respond by saying, "Then May the Fourth be with you!"



Alex

*GROAN*... :rolleyes:

Are you Eastern Orthodox or are you Eastern Catholic? That might better help me to understand your point of view. If you are Eastern Catholic, there is no need to hold a us versus you mentality because we are then both members of the same body of Christ. Even if you are not Catholic, the west believed in the Immaculate Conception and that Mary was concieved all holy always, so I think that perhaps you can refine your statement about how it took us centuries to develop what you already knew. As for the filioque not being in the original creed, neither was the statement of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. That was added after the council of Nicaea at the council of Constantinople. Furthermore, the word homo-ouisis (is that how you spell that) was not in the true original creed, i.e. the Apostle's creed, either. In fact, the earliest creed simply stated that "Jesus Christ is Lord". So to argue that the filioque was not in the orginal creed does not provide evidence against filioque.
Finally, the filioque was defined as infallible doctrine. This occured at the second Council of Lyons. As the council states, "We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one. "
Yet none of this really addresses my questions that I hope that those of you who are experts on Eastern Catholic theology can help me with.

If that is true that they must assent to these things, then I must say that that makes me feel alot better. As for your concerns, have you ever read "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: the Early Church was Catholic" by Kenith Whitehead? I think that it provides a great Catholic perspective on the early Church.

I find this a bit offensive. I am not making broad generalizations about the Eastern Catholic Churches. I said that I appreciate these Churches, I know many wonderfully devout eastern Catholics, I just happened to notice alot of Eastern Catholics who say that they need not accept certain dogma's of the Catholic Church. I don't understand how this can be ok. I was just hoping that some of you could share some of your understanding of things Eastern with me and help me to understand the situation as it is now.

Dear LatinCat,

Yep, we're supposed to assent to these things... but I hasten to add that our approach to these doctrines-- our theology-- is different.

And I do have that book, thanks.

God bless,

Karen

Dear LatinCat you said:

I say:

No one should hold an 'us versus you' mentality. Not an Orthodox, nor a Catholic. That mentality is purely political, and therfore not of the Holy Spirit.

You said:

I say:

Actually at the time that the Immaculate Conception was made dogma, the Patriarch had no problem with the dogma, but rather with the arrogance in having something proclaimed a dogma without an Ecumenical Council. This is understandable when one considers that the Orthodox Churches perceive themselves as the 'Church', and that one 'branch' is proclaiming dogma's without the acceptance of the whole 'Church'

As for the Filioque, leave it to the experts because we have to realize that our minds form concepts through the words we use...and Greek and Latin are two different languages. Your problem is that you consider the Council of Lyons an Ecumenical Council, and it was not...the whole Church was not present.

But as Father Anthony said, there are threads pertaining to this...and believe me, they are experts.

Zenovia

I believe it can be fairly, accurately and honestly stated that one can notice a lot of Latin Rite Catholics who say that they need not accept certain dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church as well.

The fact that someone says something is so doesn't make it so.

If you judge all of Eastern Catholicism by the personal opinions of individual members of the laity then you are doing both the Eastern Catholic Churches and yourself a huge disservice.

Regards,

Carole

Very good observation Carole.

ICXC
NIKA

Hmmm. Are you saying the West has some difficult, disagreeable, arrogant people - just like the East? Who would have thought...? It seems to me you can always find quirky, difficult people in either camp who will bitch and moan about any particular teaching or doctrine they don't happen to like. Add to this the fact that some, both eastern and western, are not sure what they are or what they actually believe, and things become even more complicated. The Church would be so simple if we could just get rid of the @&#*^ people.