Eastern Catholic Vs. Eastern Orthodox

[peach_cube]

Besides Eastern Catholics recognizing the authority of the Pope and being in full communion with Rome, are there any theological differences between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox?

[peach_cube]

The reason being I would like to gain a better understanding of the theological viewpoints of Eastern Catholicism, but what I find are generally information through Eastern Orthodox sources. I do not want to presume that some theology may be an acceptable tradition to Rome when in fact it is not.

So, for example I have found differences between east and west with regards to confession and the concept of mortal and venial sin. I am curious whether I am getting the correct viewpoint of Eastern Catholicism if that information is coming from Eastern Orthodox resources.

[thessalonian]

In order for them to be in full communion with Rome they accept all that Rome teaches. Therefore theologically they would be the same. There may be different nuances in the way they state things but it is essentially the same.

Differences as I understand are liturgical and in practice. They also allow married clergy, not for doctrinal reasons but as a matter of practice.

Edited July 30, 2007 by thessalonian

[Era Might]

I would make a distinction between "theology" and "doctrine." There is no one specific theology in the Church, although all theology is informed and grounded in the same doctrine. There is a wide diversity of theology within the West as well as the East. The celibacy of Priests is a good example, because it is based on two different theologies of the Priesthood. In the East, I believe there is a distinction between Priest and Bishop where the latter is understood in more monastic terms, and so he cannot be married. In the West, we do not make this distinction between Priest and Bishop, although we do make a similar distinction between Priest and Deacon (and so deacons are allowed to marry). It's not really a doctrinal difference, we still believe in the same Sacrament of Holy Orders, but it is expressed and lived differently according to our respective theologies. I think an important difference between Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is that such differences should be understood in a complementary way rather than a contradictory way. Whereas an Orthodox Christian might not (although he might) recognize the validity of the Western view, an Eastern Catholic must accept the validity of the Western view, and not set up a dichotomy where there is a rupture between East and West. This is also true of Western Catholics, who should not impose anything that the Church does not. And of course, if there is a doctrinal judgment from the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, then it is binding on all Catholics of East and West, although it may have different expressions and nuances when synthesized with other aspects of Eastern and Western theology.

[Colleen]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1344585' date='Jul 30 2007, 04:01 PM']The reason being I would like to gain a better understanding of the theological viewpoints of Eastern Catholicism, but what I find are generally information through Eastern Orthodox sources. I do not want to presume that some theology may be an acceptable tradition to Rome when in fact it is not.

So, for example I have found differences between east and west with regards to confession and the concept of mortal and venial sin. I am curious whether I am getting the correct viewpoint of Eastern Catholicism if that information is coming from Eastern Orthodox resources.[/quote]
I'm curious about this, too. And it seems (when I've talked with Orthodox Christians) that the situation and the differences aren't so simple. And for the Orthodox, they find it very troubling, and they can't really see how Eastern Catholics can be a part of the Latin Church. At least, that is what they said, and I don't know how to respond, because I'm really ignorant on such things.

[peach_cube]

I am curious and concerned about the concept of mortal and venial sins being absent in eastern tradition. They view all sin as missing the mark, although I have seen the term serious applied to sin. It is generally stated that the west takes a more legalistic approach to sin trying to paint things in black and white, where the underlying requirements for a particular sin to be mortal can often make it gray depending on the situation.

Whereas, from what I have read and heard from the East sin is painted in a gray light and the focus is on spiritual growth so that it may become black and white.

I understand that one cannot look at eastern theology and allow that to be seen as a contradiction of western theology, however I feel that it may help me to come to a fuller understanding of the doctrines of the Church when I look at both side by side.

I have heard and read of differing approaches to confession, sin, original sin, salvation outside the church, and doctrines of Mary. Again I do not see these as contradictory approaches, but I feel that viewing both together helps one understand the Catholic Churches teachings to a fuller extent and perhaps corrects errors in thinking.

Of course I want to be sure that I am getting the correct information before I make any concrete conclusions.

[peach_cube]

So an excerpt from [url="http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/116783#Post116783"]Byz Cath forums[/url]

I find Apotheoun, whom I trust greatly in matters concerning Eastern Catholicism, that "as an Eastern Catholic I do not accept the formulations of the fourteen Latin Church councils, and I do not believe that I have to accept them, nor will the Eastern Orthodox ever be required to accept them. Clearly, the general councils of the Western Church do not reflect the theological and spiritual tradition of the Byzantine Church, and as a consequence the formulations made by those councils cannot be imposed upon Eastern Christians.

Nevertheless, as I said above, I believe that Latin Catholics are obliged to accept the decisions of their Church's particular synods; and so, unlike my Eastern Orthodox brothers, I refuse to call those Latin councils heretical; instead, I simply see them as expressions of the Latin theological tradition."

So it would seem to me this would support that the Original 7 councils are of significance to an Eastern Catholic tradition, whereas the councils afterward would not be?

[peach_cube]

Not to say that they would have objections to what those councils define, just to clarify.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1345821' date='Jul 31 2007, 09:26 PM']So an excerpt from [url="http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/116783#Post116783"]Byz Cath forums[/url]

I find Apotheoun, whom I trust greatly in matters concerning Eastern Catholicism, that "as an Eastern Catholic I do not accept the formulations of the fourteen Latin Church councils, and I do not believe that I have to accept them, nor will the Eastern Orthodox ever be required to accept them. Clearly, the general councils of the Western Church do not reflect the theological and spiritual tradition of the Byzantine Church, and as a consequence the formulations made by those councils cannot be imposed upon Eastern Christians.

Nevertheless, as I said above, I believe that Latin Catholics are obliged to accept the decisions of their Church's particular synods; and so, unlike my Eastern Orthodox brothers, I refuse to call those Latin councils heretical; instead, I simply see them as expressions of the Latin theological tradition."

So it would seem to me this would support that the Original 7 councils are of significance to an Eastern Catholic tradition, whereas the councils afterward would not be?[/quote]
I think the statement that Apotheoun made was a very scandalous one against the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Eastern Catholics must believe all the dogmas defined by the Holy Catholic Church, not just the ones they like or feel "jive" with their spirituality.

[Era Might]

I disagree with Apotheoun strongly on some of the points he raises in that post. There is no basis in Catholicism to accept only the first seven Ecumenical Councils. There may be differences in expressing what the Church has taught, but all Catholics must accept the teaching of the Church, because her doctrine is above any theological speculation, whether Eastern or Western.

From the Code of Canon Law of Eastern Churches (canons 599 and 604):

[quote]A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching on faith or morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.[/quote]
[quote]Pastors of the Church above all are to take earnest care that amidst the varieties of doctrinal enunciations in the various Churches or cultures the same sense of faith is preserved and promoted, so that the integrity and unity of faith suffer no harm, rather that the catholicity of the Church is put in a better light through legitimate diversity.[/quote]

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1345906' date='Jul 31 2007, 11:30 PM']I disagree with Apotheoun strongly on some of the points he raises in that post. There is no basis in Catholicism to accept only the first seven Ecumenical Councils. There may be differences in expressing what the Church has taught, but all Catholics must accept the teaching of the Church, because her doctrine is above any theological speculation, whether Eastern or Western.

From the Code of Canon Law of Eastern Churches (canons 599 and 604):[/quote]
But is there not a basis in Eastern Tradition to accept only those councils? A tradition that the Eastern Churches are told to keep?

Do you think that the statement "the general councils of the Western Church do not reflect the theological and spiritual tradition of the Byzantine Church" is a false one then?

I've found that other Eastern Catholics on that particular forum share Apotheoun's point of view, and not being an Eastern Catholic myself I cannot discern truth or folly.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1345884' date='Jul 31 2007, 11:14 PM']I think the statement that Apotheoun made was a very scandalous one against the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Eastern Catholics must believe all the dogmas defined by the Holy Catholic Church, not just the ones they like or feel "jive" with their spirituality.[/quote]

For example should an Eastern Catholic believe that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin? Even if that means going against the Eastern Tradition of what original sin entails?

[peach_cube]

Should Eastern Catholics believe in our conception of Purgatory?

[peach_cube]

Excerpts from another on the Byz Cath forums

"It seems very clear to me from the recent statements coming from Rome that we are supposed to become as Eastern as possible. We should strive for a fully Eastern liturgy, spiritual life, and even theological expression. All of the statements that I have seen from the Vatican say this. This having been noted, what should our response be to the Western "Ecumenical" Councils?

Well, we should acknowledge them as bearing truth. In this sense, we should "accept" them. We "accept" the fact that they are expressions of truth. But NO Council ever expresses the fullness of Truth, only shadows of it. And there is always room later for doctrinal development with regards to the truth.

But having "accepted" them as bearing truth, does this mean that we "apply" them to ourselves, or "implement them." With one reservation, absolutely not. To "apply" the prescriptions of these Western Councils to us would be to abandon our own legitimate Eastern theological expression. These Councils use almost exclusively scholastic Latin concepts, which would make no sense in our Eastern theological framework. Plus, the Magisterium (including the Vatican) has insisted that we recover our Eastern theological heritage. So we can't (by order of the Pope himself) apply the doctrinal rulings of these councils to us. But we also cannot go to the opposite extreme of denouncing these doctrinal rulings as heretical. We must accept that they bear the Western expression of Truth, which really doesn't effect us very much.

The only Western Council which really DOES effect us is Vatican II. Vatican II clearly calls for us to return to our Eastern Patrimony. This is what people like the much maligned Stuart K and Brendan are trying to do. Sometimes we go overboard in our zeal to be Eastern, and uncritically embrace all things Eastern Orthodox - making us appear to reject the See of Peter. But we really don't, as we appreciate being in communion with Rome.

So in summary, we should "accept" the Western Councils as being legitimate expressions of truth, but not apply them to ourselves, as they overwhelmingly do not concern us at all."

and

"Byzantine Catholics do recognize and teach that there are only Seven Ecumenical Councils ('comehome' needs only to check the official Byzantine Catholic catechisms to confirm this). "

Just a bit more to show that Todd is not alone in his point of view on this.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1345987' date='Aug 1 2007, 12:20 AM']For example should an Eastern Catholic believe that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin? Even if that means going against the Eastern Tradition of what original sin entails?[/quote]

Yes, though it would not go against Eastern tradition. I would like to quote the First Vatican Council (Denzinger No. 1839):

[quote]And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [b]when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of [u][color="#FF0000"]all Christians[/color][/u] by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held [u][i][color="#0000FF"]by the universal Church[/color][/i][/u][/b], through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.[/quote]

The Immaculate Conception was defined infallibly in the Bull "Innefabilis Deus" (Denzinger No. 1641):

[quote]To the honor of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, to the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, to the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own, [u]We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine, which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary at the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and on this account must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. [/u]Wherefore, if any should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than as it has been defined by Us, which God avert, let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith, and have revolted from the unity of the Church; and what is more, that by their own act they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if, what they think in their heart, they should to signify by word or writing or any other external means.[/quote]

Since for a definition to be infallible it must be one to be held by universal Church, which I'm pretty sure the Eastern Catholics are a part of, and since the Immaculate Conception was defined infallibly, it would seem that the Eastern Catholic must believe in it.