|
Doctrine
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.
 Top
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.
Top
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.
Please note: Eastern theology
teaches that theosis is an infinite process, and
does not cease when a person enters into heaven. The
term "final theosis" is not intended to imply
otherwise.
Top 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.
Top
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.
Top
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.
Top
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.
Top
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.
Top
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).
|
"Thus
says the LORD of hosts: Behold, I will save my people from the East
country and from the West country; and I will bring them to dwell in the
midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be my people and I will be their God,
in faithfulness and in righteousness." -Zech 8:7-8