Yikes. Resist and wait them out? How is that healthy?
I’m perfectly fine with it. I’m aware of what it says and it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said in this thread. In fact the author of that reply of Rome to the Zoghby initiative was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) who was at the council and and influential voice there.
Despite all the times I have said this, I will say it again. I have never claimed that you are romans
I have never claimed this either. You are churches.
I have never said you are Latins nor have I said you should deny your heritage. Simply put, up until this point of your reply… you’re preaching to the choir.
As he should
Yes Latins believe as easterners and easterners believe as Latins because we are all Catholics. There is only one Catholic Faith not many. It has many expressions but it is fundamentally one.
You clearly haven’t been reading my posts.
Yup you haven’t been reading them. I said I don’t care how you wish to express something. As long as what is believed in the east is the same in the west. What is believed in the west is the same in the east concerning dogmatics.
As an example the east and west don’t formulate the Holy Trinity dogma the same way. Heck we don’t even have the same starting points! You start with the monarchy of the Father while we start with consubstantiality of the persons. Yet when all is said and done, we believe the same thing. One God, Three persons…despite different theological expressions and traditions. Thus the same faith. Same goes with the real presence. You might not express it like us but we both believe in it and are saying the same thing. This principle applies for every dogma (Immaculate conception, Filioque, Purgatory, Papal Universal jurisdiction and infallibility etc). As we believe in one Faith, one Baptism, one Church, one Christ, One God
The Athanasian creed says it better :
“This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
No methods of dealing with heretics are healthy to be honest. All have some controversy (schism) or another (scandal).
Perhaps you ought to be asking yourself why Easterners (both Catholic & Orthodox) are perceiving what you write so very differently than what you say you intend.
Perhaps. Perhaps you should also consider not trying to read into my writings what simply isn’t there.
Yet we must believe in the Immaculate Conception as defined by the Church of Rome? We must believe in Purgatory as defined by the Church of Rome? I don’t think it is what you are trying to say but the way you word it seems to be that way.
For example, the Byzantine Church, like the Weat, has always believed that the Virgin Mary was, from her conception, filled with every grace of the Holy Spirit and that Mary is achrantos (spotless or immaculate). The East has just chose not to define what this means. Because we have a different understanding of “original sin”, the West’s teaching on the IC is foreign to us. However, this is just a matter of theologia secunda. At the theologia prima, we still have the same understanding. If this is what you have been getting at, I apologize. However, if you are saying we have to believe in the IC as the West sees it, we do not, and Rome is ok with that, have to.
I said you must believe it. Not that you define it or formulate it the same way.
I said you must believe in purgatory. I didn’t say you must define it or formulate it the same way. Ever. In fact I gave an example of how this can be, earlier in the thread.
It really isn’t so different. I have even see EO admit this. We are practically saying the same thing. More importantly the Council of Carthage which taught on orginal sin ,as Latins formulate it, was accepted by the eatsern fathers at the ecumenical council of Ephesus which shows we have always fundamentally understood it the same way though expressed it differently.
It really isn’t . Like I said even the EO a few centuries ago used to have a whole order dedicated to the Immaculate conception of the Mother of God and it was quite popular in the Russian church. An EO priest actually wrote a whole article about it.
It is. You believe she was pure and sinless in all ways. That is simply what the Immaculate conception is saying thus you believe in it like we do though you formulate it differently,
Again I never said you have to speak of accidents, principles, concuspicience etc. as long as fundamentally we hold the same faith. That Our Lady was pure in all ways (As Adam and Eve before the fall) and had neither orginal or ancestral sin (the eastern version) or as you simply say “was sinless and Immaculate always”
When I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this, to me anyway, it looks like the Eastern idea. I don’t see where it says anything about inherited guilt (although it has been a while since I read it).
I agree in the sense that East and West believes in purification after death but what we reject is the need to make expiation for sin after death, purgatory.
With regard to the matter of the necessity purification of the soul, and the efficacy of prayer for the dead, the Eastern Churches have chosen NOT to speak dogmatically at the level of theologia secunda, but are content to accept the theologia prima found in our liturgical texts for the funeral and memorial rites. Hence, we believe that (a) the souls of the departed require purification before entering into the Kingdom of God; and (b) that prayers for the dead are efficacious to that effect. Nothing more is, or should be required, because this is the universal Tradition of the undivided Church.
Yes, bishop Kallistos Ware has written about this in his book, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity.
Although we may have made each other’s blood boil at times, I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
As a teaching of the latin church, it is directly addressing an Augustinian teaching on Original Sin which is not itself dogma. For the East (EC and EO), this dogmatic pronouncement is akin to making “2+2=4” a dogma: it is clearly true on its own without the pronouncement, and leaves us scratching our heads.
The question is firstly from an utterly western perspective.
The Eastern answer to the question is, “yes.”
Given how spiritually unhealthy this thread has become, I’m check ng out.
Do you mean that we have to accept that Rome has a different position, or that we have to Break with 2000 years of unbroken practice in the east?
Uh-oh, now you’ve done it! Expecting members of this forum to accept 20th and 21s century papal teaching, rather than their own interpretations of Trent and Earlier???
As Latin Catholic I would argue over doctrinal/dogmatic denial. If anyone asked me if I believed any Eastern Catholic belief was true I would affirm- perhaps I would say ‘‘in my tradition we express it differently but yes its true’’.
To combat dogmatic relativism Id suggest Eastern Catholics answer such questions same.
We express it differently but truth remains same. First and foremost we are Catholics- Latin or Eastern comes after that. Also, I think that I believe in every Eastern dogma, but interpret it Latin way, shouldn’t same be true for Eastern Catholics? Belief in purgatory to be true should exist within Eastern Catholics, but they should also hold that “yeah it’s true but we interpret it this way”.
As document you posted above says that Church holds in high esteem Eastern Churches and their heritage, I believe opposite should also be true. In Early Church Latin West and Greek East would many times adopt each other’s explanations and definitions- some would be more common in East, some in West, but generally nobody would bat an eye if Greek used Latin explanation and vice versa. Same would be with adopting some cool parts of heritage of other side. Original Sin’s definition was not common in East, but I believe it wouldn’t be disputed nor dismissed if Greek Bishop used it. I think that holding too much (I really mean TOO much) would not enrich us but divide us.
I’m also inclined to believe, from your quotations and explanations I’ve been given by you, as from other sources that Eastern Churches should define Universal Jurisdiction of Pope in sense “if needed, Pope can judge it right to intervene but should hold in high regard Patriarchal privileges of Eastern Patriarchs while doing so”. Would you agree?
Oh also, why would Western Ecumenical Councils not be binding for Eastern Catholics? Weren’t 7 earliest Ecumenical Councils (eastern) binding for Latin Church too? I don’t mean forcing interpretation on Eastern Churches, I mean accepting they are binding and inspired by Holy Spirit, therefore true. Tradition is also form of revelation- whether it happens in East or in West. Revelation reveals truth to Universal Church.
Exactly. That’s what makes us Catholic, that we believe the West can express their theology in their own way and vice versa.
I think a great start is the Chieti Document.
I’m not an expert on the early councils or who attended them but I’m pretty sure the Pope of Rome sent delightes to sit in for him. As a matter of fact, I believe that it is Saint Pope Paul VI who had called councils after the first 7 “general western councils” or something to that effect.
The early councils were eventually accepted by East and West–and submitted to and ratified by the Bishop of Rome, in whole or part.
The later western councils were declared ecumenical by themselves, as opposed to the acceptance in the east and west.
And as a side issue, “Ecumenical” means that they were convened by the byzantine emperor, just as the ecumenical cook prepared his meals, the ecumenical barber cut his hair, and so forth.
The East requires “acceptance” by the universal church to accept councils as ecumenical; the West required papal approval–until the Pope started convening and controlling councils, which declared themselves binding on all.
I may be wrong but the first time you actually see a list of “ecumenical” councils was what was compiled by Robert Bellarmine for counter-reformation polemical purposes.
Are therefore those councils not binding at all for Eastern Catholics? Generally, we hold view that Ecumenical Councils / General Councils were inspired by Holy Spirit. Did Holy Spirit just want to help Latins resolve their doctrine? Pope, as Vicar of Christ, should have capacity to make something binding for all if necessary. Vatican 2 is in itself binding for all Eastern Catholics, is it not?
I genuinely think that Church history would show that Papal approval was needed for council to be considered Ecumenical. There were many robber councils accepted by certain Patriarchs, never by Rome (exception being 8th but to this day Latin Church holds it as true). I don’t know whether word Ecumenical was used at the time, but generally binding would be appropriate. This is why Patriarch of Constantinople begged Pope “as son begs his father” to approve of canon of Chalcedon which made him “Ecumenical Patriarch” and second in rank. This canon was not approved by Antioch and Alexandria either, but later on Eastern Orthodoxy started to accept this canon (fall of Alexandria to muslims, Antioch being kinda under Emperor too etc). Generally speaking, would Eastern Catholics accept this canon on the grounds that “New Rome” holds all prerogatives of “Old Rome”, or would they accept it as “Constantinople is ranked second” or not at all?
Oh and about 8th Ecumenical Council, would Eastern Catholics believe it was justified to remove Patriarch Ignatius from his position for denying Eucharist to open sinner?
I believe that Chieti Document speaks about first centuries of the Church, and also it is Orthodox-Catholic dialogue: I’m not pulling “but but its not dogmatic” card there, just saying that I mean to see Eastern CATHOLIC view, not Eastern Orthodox. Would what I wrote above be acceptable to Eastern Catholics? To make no limits on Pope but remind him of dignity of Eastern Churches as autonomous, and trust Holy Spirit leads Popes as he had until now.
On the side note, I enjoy conversations with you as I seem to learn more about decentralized model of Eastern Catholic Churches. I am now genuinely interested to how far decentralization goes, please don’t take my questions as trick questions, I genuinely want to understand.
The Eastern Catholic, in my opinion, should be that of the Eastern Orthodox on this matter. The Pope of Rome has a primacy over his fellow bishops but is it only one of honour and not supreme jurisdiction. Appeals can be made to the Pope if intervention is needed. This is basically what the Chieti Document says about the Bishop of Rome at the universal level during the first millennium.
I know that it comes from a dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, but it is what will be used for future talks when discussing the second millennium.
I always enjoy these conversations
Would the Pope be allowed to act if there was serious danger of heresy/schism/any other spiritual danger in particular Eastern Church, or would it be reserved for when he is asked to? Also, who would be able to ask Pope if he were to intervene? Reserving the right only to Patriarch would be ahistorical, granting it to everyone would probably be essentially same as having Universal Jurisdiction.
and would therefore Pope’s decisions be considered final, as St. Augustine’s phrase “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” implies? (Rome has spoken, case is over)
This is more than honor, it is jurisdiction. An appeal can’t be made if the person appealed to has no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire U.S. for example.
Now whether or not this jurisdiction is a regular matter or rather one of extreme circumstance is another question. If the judgement of the appelate court is binding, however, then that court has jurisdiction.
As for an Eastern Catholic believing identically what the Eastern Orthodox believe, this is possible in matters of Faith but obviously not in matters of jurisdiction and canonical authority.
When it comes to issues with the Pope of Rome, Orthodox theologians involved in the ecumenical dialogue are far more concerned about this issue of universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction; most would require a written clarification of just how, when and why the Pope could intervene in the affairs of Sister Churches.