www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Theology is Not Heretical

Dear Friends,

I think such a thread as this is timely.

Perhaps we could talk about this within the following proposed framework:

What is required of all Catholics to believe about the Trinity, Mariology, Eschatology, and the Papacy?

To what extent is legitimate theological diversity allowed here to REMAIN CATHOLIC?

At what point can it be said that someone is NO LONGER a Catholic in good standing because of what he or she believes about the above points of doctrine?

How can we variously affirm the above points of doctrine from within a "Latin perspective" and then from with a "Byzantine perspective?"

Alex

While it is certainly NOT a complete answer, some good seeds for thought are found here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Or the easier to read version:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFTHEO.HTM

As well as in Pope Benedict's book on The Nature and Mission of Theology.

http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=118&SKU=NMT-P&ReturnURL=search.aspx%3f%3fSID%3d1%26SearchCriteria%3dratzinger

Your "question behind the question" has been one that has been asked by many modern theologians, as well as by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: what are the boundaries that constitute the essential adherence to Catholic faith? What is the nature of dissent? And is it merely just a question of a minimalistic assent to what is "defined", or is a deeper, more filial response required of either the professional theologian or the average Catholic?

I believe that this can be applied in an Eastern as well as a Western ecclesial context.

God bless,

Gordo

Dear Gordo,

How would you yourself answer this? How would you guide an EC who wanted to be as "Eastern as all get out" and was finding some tension between the two "loyalties?" (As I have and do and I know others here do as well. Some have long ceased worrying about it though.

Alex

I think we're in a special position here on byzcath. We are familiar with each others' Churches and can dialog about similarities and differences.

I know extremists on both sides of the issue. I know Latins, like Theologos, who will rant and rave about the "schismatic Orthodox". I know Orthodox who will laugh out loud if you suggest that Catholic priests have valid Orders. I happened to read something on this site today: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ which I've always thought to be a pretty hate-mongering site.

I think a lot of Orthodox "Romophobia" and hate comes from Protestant converts much more than from cradle Orthodox (at least in my experience and from what I've seen on the internet). While Latin negativity can be convert or cradle, but often is related to whether they are more "traditional" or not.

Anyway, I think we're in a unique position here to discuss what unites and divides Catholic and Orthodox. We can use this fruitful discussion to help fraternally correct our more extremist brothers (and sisters).

Alex,

I want to think about your question and then respond, if I may. It is, as you WELL know, not an easy question to answer!

Gordo

Eastern theology heretical...no way.

Most here know that I have adapted a Eastern mind set over these many years, and though some think it was due to various liturgical problems within the Latin Rite in truth it was more of a spiritual awakening and need, indeed I have found comfort within the writings etc regarding the East of blessed + Pope John Paul II, who traveled and evangelized in the footsteps of St. Paul.

http://rumkatkilise.org/byzpope.htm

I am not complete if I don't have both...

james

Dear Gordo,

Take your time, sir!

I think your answers will get a lot of "stuff" out into the open for a number of posters - including me.

Cheers,

Alex

Dear Friends,

Let me put it this way:

1) Mary - universal Christian position is that She was conceived in Holiness and was taken up into heaven, both body and soul

RC tradition dogmatizes on this saying that "She was conceived free of the stain of Original Sin"

The Eastern liturgical (and therefore faith) tradition affirms that She was conceived in Holiness (had no stain of Original Sin to be protected from) and was taken up to heaven body and soul.

Is the above not saying the same thing and arriving at the same conclusions?

Alex

I just went through a huge discussion with some pretty reliably Orthodox clergy where it was brought firmly to my attention that Mary was conceived in sin like the rest of us, that she had a fallen nature so that when the Christ takes his fallen nature from her, he can then divinize that fallen nature and redeem it.

It was explained quite clearly to me that the Theotokos was not at all conceived in holiness.

This of course is not at all uncommon in Orthodox thinking. In fact in the U.S. I would say that it is the dominant teaching against the initial holiness of The Virgin.

Mary

Mary, I am glad that you brought this up. This is no one Orthodox view on the matter. It is not even dogma that Mary remained entirely sinless her whole life. Some of the fathers, such as St. John Chrysostom, held that she committed at least some minor sins.

I do think that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception makes a difference, because it presupposes a view of original sin that is not shared by the Orthodox. My personal view is that the doctrine stems from two sources:

1). A misreading of various titles in the Orthodox Liturgy given to the blessed Theotokos, Mary.

2). Duns Scotus' speculations about how redemption can be applied to the blessed Theotokos.

Among the Orthodox there are a number of views. Many would hold that she was purified of sin in the womb of St. Anne (which was also the position of St. Thomas Aquinas). Others would hold that she was purified of sin at the annunciation. Many hold that she was always sinless throughout her whole life. Some hold that she was cleansed and purified so that she became utterly sinless, but not that she had never committed any sins at all.

I have no firm opinion on the matter, except that I think the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is theologically improbable. Does this make me a heretic?

Joe

Here is a response from his all holiness Patriarch Bartholomew.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/03/08/patriach-bartholomew-on-the-immaculate-conception/

To me it seems clear that he is saying that the Virgin Mary was not always sinless from the moment of her conception, but was given the grace of complete sanctification as a reward for her obedience to the Angel's word at the annunciation. In other words, Mary became the New Eve at the Annunciation when she uttered, "let it be done to me according to your will."

Our Liturgies and our funeral say that "there is no man who lives and does not sin, Thou alone are without sin." From this, I tentatively conclude that the blessed Virgin Mary, in some sense, was a sinner who needed redemption, even if they were only a few sins and relatively minor. But, her steadfast fidelity and obedience merited her the complete sanctification that purified her of every stain of sin and made her a holy temple for the Incarnate Lord.

Joe

So the disagreement with the Byzantine and RC position (can be) one of timing - pre/post birth in regard to the Theotokos?

That is a tall order, sir !

At the risk of sounding banal, I would venture this: What the Lord's Prayer says and what the Creed says and what the Liturgy says are the minimum beliefs for being a good Catholic. That's the starting point. The rest will come with grace and time and an open spirit.

I suppose, in other words, I'm not looking at this intellectually but, rather, pastorally. If someone gets the basics of those controversial topics --the Trinity, the Theotokos, the Papacy, the Judgement and Eternity-- and if someone is genuinely trying to keep the commandments, etc., that's enough of a minimum to get a person enrolled or keep them in good standing. The Holy Spirit and Christ can take care of the rest.

Otherwise, I (and anyone else here) could write small books on what is the minimum belief on those topics.

Just my two cents' worth.

-- John

The Immaculate Conception is a good example, and Joe's and Alex' cites of various theologoumena are good illustrations.

Indeed, we could simply look at the Liturgy. At one point in the Liturgy, it says that only God is sinless; at another point, it says that Mary is most holy and all pure. Are those necessarily contradictory statements? I don't think so: Mary is made holy and pure by grace, not by nature. Are they synonyms? No: Mary is just a creature.

How to explain that the creature Mary was made pure and holy by grace for her special role as the vehicle for the Incarnation ? Beats me. Various attempts at explanation have been made over the centuries. Yet this matter seems to be a mystery that just boggles the human mind.

Personally, as one who looks East, I suspect that the West unwisely made certain theologoumena (like the Immaculate Conception) into dogmas when reverent silence before an incomprehensible mystery is more appropriate. For some, that opinion of mine would count as heresy. For others, hopefully, it counts as humility.

But what counts for being a good Catholic? I suspect saying in public "I follow the bishop of Rome even when I'm not sure about everything" and leaving it at that in public.

I'm curious about others' views.

-- John

John,

That was beautifully put. I regard the Immaculate conception as a theologoumenon because it is an idea that simply isn't necessary. It is one possible way of explaining how the blessed Theotokos is All Holy, but there is no clear evidence for it in Scripture or Tradition, other than its being a speculative opinion. That being said, it is a legitimate speculation and a legitimate view that one can hold. But, one need not think that it is the best explanation.

Joe