www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Dogmas???

I was wondering as an eastern Catholic what dogmas do need to embrace of the Roman rite? Also, what dogmatic formulas are exceptible to the ones we share?

Thanks broric

Where in Florida are you from? Are you a newbie to the Byzantine Catholic Church?

Yes, I am a new person to the Byzantine Church. I was a protestant for 5 years and converted to the roman rite, and then dicovered the byzantine. Upon, my confirmation in the roman rite I started fully attending a byzantine church and found my true spirtuality.

You should embrace those dogmas you have been taught by the Catholic Church. If at the time of your confirmation you where fully taught the teachings of Catholicism, then you should embrace all of the Roman Church's teachings.

K.

Broric,

I am in Florida also that is why I asked. I also go to a Byzantine Catholic Church.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: aRomanCatholicGuy ]

to ebrace all roman rite teachings would mean purgatory, indulgences, limbo. Some are theological exspressions others dogmas. Eastern catholics do not need to embrace all, thats why I asked

Hello:


In order to remain a Catholic (Roman, Byzantine, or otherwise), you absolutely must affirm all dogmas of the Catholic Church. No exceptions.

There are no Roman dogmas, all dogmas are Catholic (as in Universal).

I think the existence of Purgatory is a dogma, but not any of its melodramatic descriptions you usually find out there.

I am not sure about indulgences, but as long as you accept they are part of the Church's vast spiritual treasure, you're OK.

Limbo is an old and IMHO, crazy idea. I don't think it is even a serious theological opinion any more.

Shalom,
Memo.

One of the reasons the Church discourages transritualism is that we end up with these discussions of "if I stand on this sie of the line I have to believe in this; but if I stand on one foot and jump across the line..."

The Church is one. The faith is explained differently to the peoples of different patrimonys, but the faith is not different. If you were raised in one rite and switched to another, you don't "get" to "stop beleiving" in aspects of the Catholic faith, unless you had a lobatomy in the process.

K.

I find this statement from the Treaty of the Union of Brest (1595) interesting:

"1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—WE ASK THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ANY OTHER CREED but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us ..."

How does this relate to the topic at hand?


To Memo Rodriquez,
Is Purgatory taught in Eastern Christian Formation? How is an 'indulgence' a dogma?


To Kurt,
Does the Church actually discourage 'transritualism'? I'm not aware of any Latin priests refusing Byzantine Catholics transferring to their parish. In fact, most of my Byzantine Catholic family (siblings and cousins) are in Latin parishes now and none ever mentioned being discouraged. Can you clarify in what document from the Church that 'discourages' Catholics from transferring rites? Our Byzantine Catholic Church has been blessed with many former Latin Catholics who have come and contributed much to our existence.

Joe Thur
Deacon-student

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Broric,

A very interesting issue indeed!

Certainly, our Eastern spirituality is markedly different from that of the Particular Latin Church, even though our faith is, as Kurt said, the same.

Our parish priest told us once that although the faith between us is the same, that is where the similarity between us ends and we differ from the Latin Church in EVERY way!

We do not accept the Filioque nor are we required to. Although we use "through the Son" as our liturgy does, the Eastern Church Fathers affirmed that the "Proceeding" of the Spirit from the Father is different from the "Begetting" of the Son and, while we cannot know the difference, it is more than sufficient to distinguish the Son from the Spirit.

Our attitude is one of awe before God's Majesty in the Holy Trinity.

The Eastern Church is a mystical Church and this is why the Trinity is so important to our devotional life. We can only know the Trinity through revelation and we bow down before the Revelation of God.

The West is a bit more rational and this is why the devotional emphasis there on the "One God" or the "One Lord" since we can attain an understanding of God with our minds, unaided by Revelation.

This "passivity in adoration and wonder" is reflected in the tremendous role the Holy Spirit plays in the liturgy and the sacraments/mysteries.

The Words of Institution and the Anamnesis are completed by the Epiclesis in the Canon of the Eucharist.

The Spirit is invoked before each and every prayer, liturgical or sacramental action.

Our aim in the spiritual life is deification in Christ through the Holy Spirit, to become by Grace what God is by nature, as Fr. Deacon Ed has said elsewhere.

Absent from our spirituality is any spiritual "accountancy" or contract making with God.

Indulgences and purgatory, while expressing the East's sense of penance and unceasing prayer for the dead, are a reflection of what the East would see as just such a spiritual "accountancy."

Just as we worship a social conception of God in the Holy Trinity, so too our idea of the Church hierarchy is a collegial one with the Pope's role understood in this light as well.

Just some of my thoughts.

Alex

Joe's citation was right on the mark. Sometimes we don;t even try to understand each other. Other times, we honestly don't. In both cases, we should move on while affirming we have one faith.

To Joe's other point, I will find the document, which is of the universal church (I think I have posted it before). Your examples of individuals and parishes in our extraordinary North American situation I don't think negate the principle.

K.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Reading the post from Alex, the non-Republican Monarchist from the North <g>, gave me a little insight into what I believe is a core element in the discussion. And once again, it's a question of one's ecclesiastical theology.

For many, the idea of "The Church!" is bound up in metaphorical images. Somewhat like the U.S. motto: 'E Pluribus Unum', ['from many, one'], many see the Church as a type of melting pot, much like the U.S. is a nation 'from many nations'. The unfortunate aspect is that in ecclesiology, we end up with a mishmash of all sorts of traditions, interpretations and administrative structures.

Our Canadian brethren, on the other hand have a concept of their nation as a 'mosaic'; each cultural unit surviving but within the greater image of what is "Canada".

In some ways, this is the essence of this topic. Is the "Church" a unified entity, 'from many, one' or is the "Church" a collection of 'churches' ('particular churches' if you will) that taken together constitute the "Catholic communion".

How we answer this question is extremely important, for it will determine how those currently outside the 'official' Catholic church will view their existence were they to join.

It seems to me that the Church, in recognizing 'particular churches' (hey, we've even got our own law books, not to mention liturgikons and languages) seems to be happy with the mosaic model (no, not Moses; the art form). Since the Church in Council not only acquiesced in this model, but gave the particular churches specific marching orders to clean up our acts, then I think it's clear where we are to go.

What gets sticky is when questions that are relevant to one particular church and its theology, are posed to other particular churches where there is no answer and where oftentimes even the question is irrelevant.

So, purgatory vs. toll-houses? Hmm. (And Roman Christians get indulgences a "speedpass" to keep you moving? And Us Easterns are in the "cash only" lane. Oh well, I guess this is why we're sooooo slooooowwww.)

We must ensure that the questions are relevant for the particular piece of the mosaic; and, if they are not, then just let it go.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

Thank you for your kind and (overly) generous tribute!

Thank you also for what I truly believe is your quite effective use of the comparison with Canada's multicultural mosaic (my doctoral dissertation as well).

Much of Canada's monarchical tradition is directly taken from that of the Byzantine Imperial tradition, as you know.

And some of our American friends also believe our clinging to the Monarchy as a "Byzantine" thing in more ways than one . . .

But we forgive you and we don't want to fight with you - for obvious reasons!

Alex

I am confused what the "Roman Church" is?

Does Roman Church = all of Catholicism?

If he wasn't taugth theosis and the distinction between God's essence and energies, he didn't get taught all of Catholicism.

A follow up: can we really be "taught" "all" of "catholicism"?

Further follow up: if this guy is worshipping with a Byzantine community, shouldn't he adapt the fullness of the Byzantine patrimony?

in Christ,

anastasios

Memo,

I would say there are Roman dogmas. The Latins dogmatized purgatory without asking us if we believe that the soul immediately goes to heaven (read: beautific vision) at death (which we don't believe), if we believe that there is such a thing as "guilt" that remains after sin (which we don't necessarily believe but could perhaps be reconciled with our belief in the darkening of the nous), etc. etc.

Do I walk around telling Latins that they can't be Catholic if they don't believe in the Toll Houses? In the darkening of the nous? In the essence vs. energy distinction? No, I don't. So please don't tell me that *I* am not Catholic since I don't believe in "purgatory", "the absolute simplicity of the divine nature", "that Jesus died to satisfy the Father's Justice", that we have "original sin", etc.

All of these things that you are calling a dogma originated in a culture foreign to the Byzantine culture. I don't deny them outright, becuase they have not REALLY ever been discussed between our two parties, and I feel that until such time as they are definitively settled, one could theoretically hold either position. But when someone tells me "You have to believe x to be a Catholic" I get a little upset.

Also, I am no longer willing to be so relativistic to say that all Byzantine and Latin theological POV's can be completely reconciled. I am beginning to think that is not true.

anastasios