|
|
Dormition of Mary:
How do the doctrine of the Assumption
and the doctrine of the Dormition differ? And, if they differ, how can two
Churches united in faith belief differing doctrines?
There really is no
difference between the "Dormition" and the "Assumption." If there is a
difference, it is entirely in emphasis. The Latin feast of the Assumption
tends to emphasize Mary's bodily assumption into heaven. The Eastern feast
of the Dormition, as depicted in iconography, emphasizes Mary falling
asleep, and her body later being taken to heaven. But from a doctrinal
standpoint, there is no conflict.
ÙTop
of page
Contraception:
Which of the Eastern Churches share the Roman Church's position on
contraception?
The Eastern Catholic
Churches follow the ancient Christian tradition that forbids all artificial
birth control. We only use natural methods of birth control, which are
referred to as Natural Family Planning. Even then, we only delay pregnancy
when there is good reason.
Concerning the Eastern Orthodox, their position various from Church to
Church. Traditionally, Eastern Orthodoxy has always been opposed to
contraception. In recent decades, some of the Orthodox bishops have begun to
tolerate it. However, some Eastern Orthodox Churches are still opposed to
contraception, as Catholics are. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox lack a
unified Magisterium makes it very difficult for them to speak out forcefully
on moral issues as a unified body. Hence, you will find Orthodox bishops who
disagree with one another on issues such as contraception.
ÙTop
of page
Purgatory:
Could you please explain the differences among Latin theology concerning the
Dogma of Purgatory and that of the various Eastern Churches?
As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word "Purgatory."
This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The
word "Purgatory" is specific to the Latin tradition, and carries some
specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable.
In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a
specific place, where people essentially sat around and suffered. Some
theologians went so far as to imply that a literal fire burns those who
suffer in Purgatory. It was also popular to tally periods of time that
people spent in purgatory for various offences. It is worth noting that
contemporary Roman Catholic theology has (thankfully) moved beyond this
approach, to a more Patristic understanding of Purgatory.
In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma
concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for
those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are
in this state.
The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin
Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate
Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf.
We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points.
But again, we do not use the word "Purgatory" for two reasons. First, it is
a Latin word first used in the Medieval West, and we use Greek words to
describe our theology. Second, the word "Purgatory" still carries specific
Medieval baggage that we aren't comfortable with.
It is noteworthy that my own Byzantine Catholic Church has never been
required to use the word Purgatory. Our act of reunion with Rome, "The
Treaty of Brest," which was formally accepted by Pope Clement VIII, does not
require us to accept the Western understanding of Purgatory.
Article V of the Treaty of Brest states "We shall not debate about
purgatory..." implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the
specifics of what the West calls "Purgatory."
In the East, we tend to have a much more positive view of the transition
from death to Heaven. Rather than "Purgatory," we prefer to call it "the
Final Theosis." This refers to the process of deification, in which the
remnants of our humans nature are transformed, and we come to share in the
divine life of the Trinity. Rather than seeing this as a place to "sit and
suffer," the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Final Theosis as
being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also
powerful glimpses of joy.
Interestingly, Mother Angelica has repeatedly expressed a very positive
understanding of "Purgatory" being a joyful state, rather than a place of
suffering. In some ways her description lines up well with the Eastern
understanding of the Final Theosis.
Although we do not use the same words, Eastern Orthodox/Catholics and Latin
Catholics do essentially believe the same thing on this important point.
ÙTop
of page
Original Sin #1:
I have heard that the Greek
biblical texts of Rom. 5:12 do not contain the phrase "in whom all have
sinned" relating to Adam's sin. Consequently, I gather that the Eastern
churches' doctrine of original sin developed differently than that of the
Western churches. Is this correct?
The Greek biblical text of Romans 5:12 does contain the phrase "eph'ho
pantes hemarton." The Western Church has traditionally translated this as
"in whom all have sinned.
In contrast, the Eastern Fathers understood the word "eph'ho" to modify the
preceding word "thanatos," which means "death." Therefore the Eastern Church
translates the phrase in question as "because of which (death) all have
sinned." Both are legitimate translations of the text. However, this
difference in translation changes the meaning of the entire verse.
Thus, the Western Church has traditionally translated the entirety of Romans
5:12 as such:
"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and
so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned," (Douay-Rheims
Version).
The Eastern Fathers translated the second part of Romans 5:12 as follows:
"...and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned."
In part because of this difference the Eastern Christian teaching on
original sin developed differently. In our tradition, the primary effect of
original sin is not a "stain," passed on from generation to generation.
Rather, it is death. Because "death passed upon all men," all of us now sin.
It is death itself that causes us to sin.
ÙTop of page
Original Sin #2: Do you view death itself
as the "stain" or original sin, and if so, how does death cause us to sin?
Yes, perhaps one could say that in a certain sense death itself is the
"stain" of original sin. Because of the certainty of physical death, we try
to evade the inevitable. This leads us to try and cheat death, which results
in sin. We store more food than we need (gluttony), we horde wealth and
resources (avarice), we use our reproductive potential wantonly (lechery),
etc... In the quest to cheat death we distort natural God-given gifts. Thus,
death causes us to sin.
ÙTop of page
Original Sin #3:
Can you explain the
difference in the way the East views Original Sin?
I'll try to briefly summarize the issue, but I can't do it justice in so
little space.
In the East: The primary consequence of Original Sin is death. The reality
of death causes people to desire that which can distract them from the
reality of their impending death. Hence, people turn to sex, money, and
power as a way to forget about death. In this way, death leads to sin.
In the West: The primary consequence of Original Sin is a "stain" of guilt.
People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as
possible.
Both the East and the West agree that original sin causes an ABSENCE of the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism, the Holy Spirit can again
dwell within man.
It should be noted that the Catholic Church has adopted a much more Eastern
understanding in recent years. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church
is very Eastern in its approach to original sin.
ÙTop of page
Immaculate Conception #1: How do Eastern
Catholics understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Does it differ
from the Western understanding?
Concerning the Eastern Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception,
I will offer a very brief summary of the issue. First, the theological seeds
of the Immaculate Conception originated in the East, and were later spread
to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have
celebrated "St. Anne's Conception of the Theotokos," on December 9. Only
later was this feast transplanted to the West, where it is celebrated on
December 8.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches we have maintained much of the theological
heritage of the Eastern Church Fathers. We try to be very Patristic in our
theology, and generally model our theological approach after the great
Eastern Fathers. In the West theology has developed somewhat differently.
Beginning in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a whole new style of
theology developed, known as Scholasticism. Scholasticism utilized a great
deal of philosophical terminology from the writings of Aristotle. It
essentially created a whole new way to approach theological questions, and
answered them with very specific philosophical terminology. Scholasticism
was the dominant theological system in the Western Church until the
beginning of the 20th century.
In 1854 Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception. Being a good Western theologian, he used a great deal of
scholastic terminology in the definition. Here it is, with the specifically
scholastic terms emphasized by me:
"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the
Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular
grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the MERITS of Jesus
Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from every STAIN of
original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be
firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."
There are two terms used in the definition that are completely foreign to
Eastern Christian theology: "merits" and "stain." Both of these terms are of
very late origin, and came to mean very specific things in the scholastic
system. But to us Eastern Christians, who still use only the theological
expressions of the Church Fathers, these terms are completely alien. So is
this a problem, or isn't it?
I don't believe that this a problem at all. If something is written in a
language that you can't understand, you simply TRANSLATE it! With some very
basic knowledge of scholastic theological terminology, what Pope Pius IX is
saying becomes very obvious: From the very first moment of her existence,
Mary was miraculously preserved from all sin. We Easterns would go even a
step further: she wasn't just preserved from sin, but was graced with the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Also, the definition speaks of Mary being "free from every stain of original
sin." In the East we have always spoken of Mary's perfect holiness. The
language "free from every stain of original sin" is really a somewhat
negative formulation in comparison. In fact, this definition speaks of Mary
as being "absent of something (the stain of sin)," while we would prefer to
speak of her as being "full of something (the Holy Spirit)." In this regard
I think that the Eastern approach makes a marvelous contribution to the
understanding of this dogma. So does Pope John Paul II:
"In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted
from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West,
must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary's holiness
more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition." (Pope John Paul II,
General Audience June 12, 1996)
So, the Holy Father agrees that the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate
Conception actually helps to elucidate the meaning behind the definition.
ÙTop of page
Immaculate
Conception #2: I have a friend who is Serbian Orthodox and she
said that the Orthodox Church believes Mary did have original sin, but she
still never committed a sin. What do Eastern Catholics believe?
The dispute with the Orthodox over Mary's immaculate conception is mostly
about semantics. Traditionally Eastern and Western Christianity have arrived
at very different definitions of "original sin," which means that we
approach Mary's immaculate state from different perspectives. Both Orthodox
and Catholic Christians readily admit that Mary never sinned, as you know
from speaking with your friend. According to the Western definition original
sin is a sinful nature, and anyone who has it is powerless to stop sinning.
Because Mary was sinless, she must not have had original sin.
In contrast, the Eastern Fathers defined original sin first and foremost as
the onset of mortality and death. Because (according to the Eastern Fathers)
Mary died before her body was assumed into heaven, she must have had
original sin... otherwise she would have not aged, and would have been
immortal. Thus many Eastern Orthodox theologians have concluded that Mary
must have had original sin - but remained sinless by God's grace.
As you can see, this entire dispute goes back to how one chooses to define
"original sin." Because the Eastern Catholic Churches follow the guidance of
the Pope of Rome, we believe that Mary was freed from original sin at the
very first moment of her existence.
ÙTop of page
Theological Differences: Is it true that the
Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to have different theological
expressions? If so what does it involve?
This certainly is true. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not only "allowed"
but are actively encouraged to cultivate their own distinctive theological
expressions.
Eastern Catholics, while fully Catholic and in communion with the Pope,
differ in more ways than just liturgy. We also possess a unique spiritual
tradition, as well as a unique theological approach. While we agree with the
Latin Church on fundamental matters of doctrine, we approach doctrine in a
very different way - from the Eastern perspective. While the Western Church
has traditionally formulated doctrine in terms of scholastic Latin theology,
we rely almost exclusively on the theology of the Eastern Church Fathers.
This difference, rather than rupturing the unity of the Church, further
expresses the true UNIVERSALITY of Christ's Church.
This is authoritatively taught by the Second Vatican Council:
"All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according
to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various
forms of spiritual life and discipline, in-their different liturgical rites,
and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth," (UNITATIS
REDINTEGRATIO, no. 4).
"What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the
Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological
expression of doctrine. In the study of revelation East and West have
followed different methods, and have developed differently their
understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then,
if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of
some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it
to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions
are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than
conflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern
Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have
their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given
expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from
the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and
spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right
ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of
Christian truth," (ibid., no. 17).
ÙTop of page
|
