www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Councils

No

No

Yes

I did not mean to imply that legitimate diversity of theological opinion is divisive. I said, "The churches should not INSIST that their own teaching is correct if they simultaneously admit that CONTRARY teaching is legitimate. This is divisive." Holding and presenting an opinion AS an opinion is more than acceptable - it is vital. Holding an opinion and presenting it as a FACT, while simultaneously saying that a CONTRADICTORY opinion may also be true is self-contradictory and divisive. Furthermore, I did not accuse anyone of doing this. I merely stated that we SHOULD NOT do this.

Dear JohnRussell,

Then we are good!

I've never criticized the teachings of the Latin Church.

The Administrator may have.

But me - never!

Alex

How ironic you should say that. I submit that there are many Latin Catholics out there who confuse the Imaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth.
Not more that 4 months ago I had a conversation with my younger brother specifically about this, only to realize that I needed to "re-educate" him

Brad - an Original Sinner.

With my profound apologies to Brad, I've been trying to locate an Original Sin for the past several decades - so far no luck, but if I succeed I may pass on the information - for a large stipend, of course.

Incognitus

Dear Brad,

Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to say that only Catholics believed in the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

And now EVERYONE believes he or she is immaculately conceived . . .

In fact, when Russian Orthodox emigres arrived in France, according to Fr. Lev Gillet (+ memory eternal!), they developed a devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes.

For a number of them, the "Immaculate Conception" referred to that of Christ and not of Mary . . .

Alex

Correct. The teachings regarding the result of original sin are necessarily different in the East and the West because each has its own starting point with its own definition of original sin. One could then ask, �Which definition of original sin is correct?� But such question suggests that the Church has exhausted its understanding of original sin and the many ways it has affected Creation. Of course, the Church has never pronounced its teaching in a way that excludes either the Eastern or Western definition of original sin (nor has it closed the door to some future expression of theology that harmonizes the Eastern and Western definitions - i.e.: a new presentation of Catholic theology that surpasses in quality both the Eastern and Western theologies of original sin).

It might be good to consider section 248 of the Catholic Catechism. While it is speaking to the legitimacy of the Eastern doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit it does gives us a guiding principle: �This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.�

The statement �People are conceived guilty of sin� is not an accurate reflection of the Western theology of original sin. If one looks at the development of the Latin Church�s doctrine on original sin one can see it progressing from an early idea of an inheritance of �guilt of sin� to a more mature idea of an inheritance of �propensity towards sin�. Only Adam and Eve bear the guilt of their sin of disobedience. We, however, inherit the effects (consequences) of their choice to commit sin. The East focuses on the consequence of mortality (because of Adam and Eve there is death and Christ freed us from that death by His death and resurrection). The West focuses on the consequence of the propensity towards sin (a tendency towards committing sin). The resultant doctrines built on these different aspects (definitions) of original sin should be seen as what they are. It should not be assumed that one must be right and that the other must be wrong.

Dear Administrator,

Well, at least YOU know the authentic teaching on Original Sin by the Latin Church.

It seems that every time I ask a Latin for an explanation of this mystery - it becomes a greater mystery for me than before . . .

Happy Birthday, if I don't see you before August 1st!

Alex

I know this is a serious discussion, but I can't help but add this joke from comedian Eddie Izzard. It goes something like this:

Those Catholics, they have this dreadful doctrine of Original Sin!
Catholic #1: Father, bless me for I have sinned.
Priest: All right, my son. What did you do?
Catholic #1: I have lusted after my neighbor's wife.
Priest: Pah! Heard that one before. NEXT!
Catholic #2: Father, bless me for I have sinned.
Priest: My child, what have you done?
Catholic #2: Father, I once poked a badger with a spoon.
Priest: Magnificent! I've never heard that one before. An original sin!


Peace,
Alex NvV

Dear Administrator,

Most enlightening. Thank you.

In the posting which begins this thread, John Russell asked "Are there teachings that Roman Catholics must believe and that Byzantine Catholics are free to disagree with? If so, why?"

Some ideas came to mind, but it's a complicated topic and I'm occupied with such distractions as pursuing the need to work for a living. However, for those who adhere to the Julian Calendar the approaching Sunday commemorates the Holy Fathers of the first Six Ecumenical Councils. So, thinking to find some material, I delved into the Catechism of the Catholic Church - which turns out to be the Catechism of the Latin Church, on this point at least. There is so little information on Ecumenical Councils that it's downright offensive.

Greek Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike place great emphasis on the importance of the Ecumenical Councils. Can it be that the derisory brief reference in the CCC indicates that the compilers of that volume wish that Ecumenical Councils didn't exist and ought not to exist?

Incognitus

Pope Paul VI, in his Creed of the People of God, June 29, 1968, said:

16. We believe that in Adam all have sinned, which means that the original offense committed by him caused human nature, common to all men, to fall to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense, and which is not the state in which it was at first in our first parents, established as they were in holiness and justice, and in which man knew neither evil nor death. It is human nature so fallen, stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin. We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin, is transmitted with human nature, "not by imitation, but by propagation" and that it is thus "proper to everyone"*(Cf Dz.-Sch. 1513).

17. We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the Cross redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the Apostle, "where sin abounded, grace did more abound"*(Cf Rom. 5:20).

18. We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Baptism should be administered even to little children who have not yet been able to be guilty of any personal sin, in order that, though born deprived of supernatural grace, they may be reborn "of water and the Holy Spirit" to the Divine Life in Christ Jesus*(Cf Dz.-Sch. 1514).

Once again, just for the record, Eastern Orthodox Christians are obligated to accept neither the Immaculate Conception (as described by the Western pronouncement) nor the bodily Assumption of our most pure Theotokos (as described in both East and West).

Neither belief is considered to be at the level of dogma.

In Christ during the Fast of the Dormition,
Andrew

Please forgive my ignorance, but I am confused about something that is probably very simple. Are dogma and doctrine two words for the same thing or are they two completely separate things? I have been trying to figure this out but have not known where to go for the answer. I suppose the dictionary would help me out, but I mean more specifically, in the Church how are these two words used?
Thanks for your help,
Michele

From the concise Oxford dictionary

dogma

��� noun an inflexible principle or set of principles laid down by an authority.

��� ORIGIN Greek, �opinion�, from dokein �seem good, think�.

doctrine

/doktrin/

��� noun a set of beliefs or principles held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

��� DERIVATIVES doctrinal /doktrin�l, doktrin�l/ adjective doctrinally adverb.

��� ORIGIN Latin doctrina �teaching, learning�.

Not really sure if that is enough for you - but it's a start

I have always thought (I could be wrong, of course) that a "dogma" is an "article of faith." That is, something the Church teaches as essential and unchangeable (e.g. the divinity & humanity of Christ). If one does not believe the dogmas, that one is not a Christian. A "doctrine," however, is simply a teaching of the Church.

All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.

That is my understanding.