www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Latin dogmas

I'm an Eastern Catholic and I personally also believe in the dogmas defined by the Latin rite, for instance the Immaculate Conception

I understand the Eastern Churches don't have it in their feasts, etc, and we are encouraged to keep all our traditions, but because we are in union with Rome, am I correct that we can agree with all the Latin dogmas? (otherwise, I have trouble understanding how we're not Orthodox and in union with Rome..).

I was under the impression that this is the Eastern Catholic position?

Any thoughts?

LittleFlower,

It's quite simple actually.

A Catholic, either Eastern or Latin, is obligated to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church as taught by the magisterium.
In the case of the Immaculate Conception, it is an infallibly defined dogma that all Catholics, both Eastern and Latin, must accept as dviinely revealed truth.
This means, then, for example, that an Eastern Catholic cannot accept the belief among some Orthodox Christians that the Theotokos was purified of sin at the Annunciation.
I should point out that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is included in Christ, Our Pascha, the catechism of the Ukrainan Catholic Church.
So, they are not "Latin dogmas", they are "dogmas" that apply to all.

I like very much how Sayedna John Elya, Eparch Emeritus of Newton puts it:

Source. [melkite.org]

Hope this helps.

There is no "Eastern Catholic position." There are number of Eastern Catholic positions depending upon the particular Church. i.e. the position of the Holy Synod of the Melkite Church is probably quite different than, let us say, the Malabar or Ruthenian Churches.

As for quoting something recently written by Sayedna JOHN [Elya] after his retirement is a terrible disservice. His writing does not reflect the general understanding of the Melkite Church and Holy Synod. Sayedna is ill, and even beyond that, he has never been in the mainstream of Melkite bishops. He was one of only two bishops (both appointed by Rome, contrary to the Melkite canons) who refused to sign the Zogby Initiative. His quoted writing is obviously his own personal views.

As for the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is a Latin theological construct probably necessary in mainstream Latin theology based upon Blessed Augustine. However, in the Greek Eas,t Augustinian theology has always been problematic. In the Greek theological construct it is unnecessary since the concept and effects of the original sin of Adam is seen somewhat differently. Melkites, for example, don't disbelieve in the Immaculate Conception, but rather our understanding of original sin makes it an unnecessary formulation. The same can also probably be said of the "filioque" controversy - formulated in Spain as an argument against heresy and only reluctantly accepted by the Roman patriarchate.

Father,

Respectfully, you are wrong. A "terrible service" is done when facts are not checked.

Click on the link from the Diocese of Newton website and check the date of when the quote was posted: https://melkite.org/tag/encyclicals

April 22, 2003.

When did His Grace retire? June 22, 2004.

As does griego, I take umbrage at your personal view of the retired Bishop of Newton. In any case, it is more pertinent to address what he had to say rather than what you may think of his ecclesiology. He speaks of the unity of truth as opposed to an Eastern Truth or a Western Truth, and the harmonization of these traditions into a Catholic faith. While the term Immaculate Conception and its final definition by Pope Pius XII is obviously couched in western and Latin theological categories, it was arrived at after
carefully consulting bishops, theologians, and patristic writings of both east and west; expressing the simple Catholic truth that Mary was, from the moment of her conception, and always will be, "Panagia", All Holy and most worthy of our humble and deep veneration. I suggest you read carefully the whole solemn declaration of the pope. It is most enlightening, and defies the usual characterizations.

Comment deleted.
Sorry, Utroque.
I misread the first line of your post to mean you were taking umbrage with me, but you were addressing it to Protopappas76.
I'm sorry.
Apologies.

I'm sorry that my first sentence was not clearer. My umbrage was, indeed, at Protopappas' characterization of the good Eparch.

The Catholic faith is the Catholic faith, regardless if we are Eastern Catholics or Western Catholics. We all believe and accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, in unity with the Holy Father and our Patriarchs and all other orthodox Catholic bishops. We may use different theological languages to express the Catholic faith but it is the same. To deny a dogma of the Catholic Church is to cease being Catholic.

Ah, so who's denying a doctrine?

I do not disbelieve the doctrine of tbe immaculate conception. I am merely pointing out that it is irrelevant to the Greek tradition of Eastern theology. I would agree that it is a justifiable response within the framework of Augustinian and scholastic theology.

For Eastern theology, a dogma that Mary was conceived without sin is like having "2+2=4" be a dogma.

It's obviously true, but hardly needs a dogma to be so . . .

hawk

Amen, Amen, and Amen.

Actually, Rev. Father, you are more than correct and you put it very succinctly and to the point. As Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) said, there were Orthodox theologians in history that both understood and accepted the Western view of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception which exempted the Most Holy Virgin Mary from it.

Alex