Must Eastern Catholics Accept Ic?

[Eliakim]

Eastern Catholics are allowed to keep their traditions and customs, but are they required to submit to dogmas that the Magisterium pronounces, such as ex-cathedra pronouncements like Immaculate Conception?  Also no more divorce? 

 

E

Edited June 4, 2014 by Eliakim

[arfink]

I suppose I could ask some of my Eastern Catholic friends about this some more, but from previous conversations, my understanding is that they often do not have a problem accepting things like the Immaculate Conception (otherwise I suspect they'd stay very far away from the West, like others of the Orthodox persuasion do), and I've also been told that the East's supposedly lax view of divorce is largely exaggerated. :P But I can ask.

[Selah]

Some do, some don't. Maronites believe in the immaculate conception, while Melkites do not, because their view on sin is different.

 

Also, "allowed" isn't the right word. To quote an Eastern Catholic friend, "Rome does not have the authority to "allow" or "not allow" things. Primacy is not a power to be used against people or local Churches." 

[Eliakim]

Thanks Arf, let me know what you find out. 

 

Selah, the IC dogma was pronounced with anathemas attached.  Are you absolutely sure the Melkite's don't subscribe to the IC?  I believe it is necessary to accept the Magisterium's dogmatic pronouncements to be in communion with it. 

 

E

 

[Selah]

Thanks Arf, let me know what you find out. 

 

Selah, the IC dogma was pronounced with anathemas attached.  Are you absolutely sure the Melkite's don't subscribe to the IC?  I believe it is necessary to accept the Magisterium's dogmatic pronouncements to be in communion with it. 

 

E

 

I'm positive. The Melkite jurisdiction is Byzantine, so it follows the practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church. 

 

Now, do the Melkites believe Mary never sinned? Yes, they believe she was sinless from birth to death. But again, their views on sin deter them from calling it the Immaculate Conception. As they do not accept the teaching of Original Sin, but rather, Ancestral Sin.

 

If you want, I can provide some links for you.

[Nihil Obstat]

Apo would have been the one to ask about this stuff in the past. I believe what he used to say was that as a Melkite Catholic he was in communion with Rome, and believed all that Orthodoxy teaches. There were many, many debates with regards to whether or not that position was tenable. 

[Selah]

Apo would have been the one to ask about this stuff in the past. I believe what he used to say was that as a Melkite Catholic he was in communion with Rome, and believed all that Orthodoxy teaches. There were many, many debates with regards to whether or not that position was tenable. 

 

Yes, the Melkites are Orthodox in communion with Rome. 

[arfink]

Apo would have been the one to ask about this stuff in the past. I believe what he used to say was that as a Melkite Catholic he was in communion with Rome, and believed all that Orthodoxy teaches. There were many, many debates with regards to whether or not that position was tenable. 

 

Many is almost an understatement. :P

[Anastasia13]

On those debates, if Rome permits it and still is in communion, why doubt it?

[Selah]

Yes, but "permit" isn't even the right word. It's not like Rome was all, "Oh fine, Melkites, you can keep your precious traditions if you really want to." 

 

Catholic Answers is always a fun place to discuss this. "But the Melkites MUST accept ____!!!!!!"  And they're all like, "lol no". (Some even refer to the Eastern Churches as heretics. How does that even work? Rome is not the end all be all of Catholicism. Gah).

Edited June 4, 2014 by Selah

[mortify ii]

Yes.

[Credo in Deum]

How I've always understood it is the Eastern Rite Catholics and the Western Rite Catholics agree on the fundamentals, but the theology between the two is completely different.   Would this be a correct view to have of the situation, Selah?

[Selah]

How I've always understood it is the Eastern Rite Catholics and the Western Rite Catholics agree on the fundamentals, but the theology between the two is completely different.   Would this be a correct view to have of the situation, Selah?

 

Somewhat. It just depends on what you mean by "fundamentals." 

[Eliakim]

Selah,

Is it possible some Eastern Catholics are in denial or just don't realize they are supposed to assent to these dogmas? 

 

I cannot see how any canon lawyer could rule such Eastern Catholics are not in violation (and therefore material heretics) since dogmas are not optional.  Popes cannot give dispensations for dogma. 

 

E

[Selah]

Selah,

Is it possible some Eastern Catholics are in denial or just don't realize they are supposed to assent to these dogmas? 

 

I cannot see how any canon lawyer could rule such Eastern Catholics are not in violation (and therefore material heretics) since dogmas are not optional.  Popes cannot give dispensations for dogma. 

 

E

 

No. 

 

Again, I can offer some links to you, if you would like to learn more about the Melkite Catholic Church. Remember, Rome is not the end all be all, and their doctrines and catechisms, as well as their Patriarchs, differ from Rome. Their Bishops are in communion with the Pope of Rome, but they are not under the Pope. Example, the Maronites are under the Maronite Syriac Patriarh of Antioch and all the East, while he is in communion with the Pope.

 

Also interesting to note:

 

1. Some Eastern Catholics reject the filioque

2. Melkites hold to Palamism

3. Melkites do not believe in Purgatory

4. Some Maronites do not believe in Purgatory of use the filioque, but others choose to (it is, sadly, the most Latinized of the Eastern Churches, but they are returning to their roots)

5. Some Melkites choose to practice the prayer rule of Hesychasm

6. Melkites reject the infalibility and universal supremecy of the Pope, but accept Petrine Primacy.

 

 

The only thing I can gather is, the reason the East and West is still split, is pure politics, because Melkites are able to keep their traditions and still maintain communion with Rome. 

 

Further, the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics, but they are schismatics. If they were heretics, no such union of Byzantines and Latins would be possible. They are schismatics because they are not in union with Rome. But they are not heretics.