www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Regarding differences between the EO and EC churches

This is my first post here so please accept my apologies in advance if the answers that I am seeking are available in another thread that I did not see.

I am Orthodox and I am very curious as to how much the Eastern Catholic theology differs from the the Orthodox on several issues. I do not have a problem with the idea of the Pope being first among equals, and I can even imagine accepting the possibility of Papal supremacy.

The filioque, and the IC are not major doctrinal problems for me. Where I have the greatest reservations are concerning the "Treasury of Merits" and indulgences, and the Western Atonement theories of Anselm and Augustine. To what extent, if any, do the Eastern Catholic Churches subscribe to these?

I appreciate any assistance regarding these issues. For me, they are the main stumbling block to ever uniting with the Roman Church.

I do understand the Latin Church's teaching on these issues, I guess I am asking if Eastern Catholics have to accept them?

I am interested in learning more about the EC, but I could not accept the "Treasury," indulgences, and the Western view of the atonement, at least as I understand the Roman teaching regarding them.

Do the EC's retain any distinctive Orthodox theological beliefs, or are the identical theologically to the Latin's, and just happen to celebrate the Divine Liturgy and the outward forms of Eastern Christianity?

Thank you.

Dear brother Peter,

I am Oriental (i.e., I translated to Catholicism from Oriental Orthodoxy), not Eastern (i.e., Byzantine) or Latin, so you can take anything I say with a grain of salt.

The Oriental Tradition accepts the dogma of the Atonement - to put it very simply, the substitutionary Sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world, that Christ took on the punishment that would otherwise be ours. I believe this is the only thing dogmatized by the Catholic Church. There are different theories of Atonement (as you correctly note), but these theories themselves are not dogma. If one takes the most objectionable of these theories (that the Sacrifice of Christ was a ransom to the devil), one can reject that and remain a faithful Catholic.

As far as the Treasury of Merits. I believe this is dogma in Catholicism. In simplest terms, the dogma teaches that Christians have the ability to ontologically, not just juridically (which is the Protestant Calvinist/Lutheran position) become more Christ-like. This "Christ-likeness" is what is known as "Merit." It is practically equivalent to "Grace." The Treasury of Merit can thus be otherwise called the Treasury of Grace. According to Scripture, the more you have, the more will be given to you. The two other important aspects about the doctrine of the Treasury of Grace/Merit is that (1)it's efficacy is fully because of the power of the Sacrifice of Christ; (2) we, as sharers in this Grace, can share that Grace with others through our prayers.

That's how I understand the Treasury of Merit. Is there anything objectionable to that from your perspective as an Eastern Orthodox?

Blessings,
Marduk

The Pope has the authority to dogmatically define the teaching of the Magisterium. This is not an authority to create new dogmas, but an authority to define what the magisterium already teaches. When he does so, the definition is infallible because the teaching authority of the magisterium is infallible. There have been two official dogmatic definitions of Popes, 'Ineffabilis Deus', which defined the immaculate conception of Mary, and 'Munificentissimus Deus', which defined the assumption of Mary.

The Pope also has the authority to ensure that canon law is enforced throughout the whole church, not just in his own see. So for example, Pope Nicholas I reinstated Patriarch Saint Photios of Constantinople after Caesar Bardas deposed him without ecclesiastical trial.

To my knowledge, the unique authority of the Pope to issue dogmatic definitions, and the unique authority of the Pope to see canon law enforced are the sum of differences between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic. I do not believe the Eastern Orthodox use the Filioque in their creed, unleavened bread in their mass, etc.

Actually, Nicholas I was the Pope who ordered Photios deposed and Ignatius reinstated (867), a decision ratified in the Anti-Photian Council of 869-70. But that decision was itself overturned by the Photian Council of 879-880, which ordered Photios restored and the decrees of the earlier council burned in a copper bowl. Pope John VIII ratified the acts of the later synod (thereby overturning the decision of his predecessor, Pope Nicholas I), and this synod was recognized as binding and ecumenical by subsequent Popes down to the 12th century--when it was conveniently flushed down the memory hole.

Thus, the peculiar situation of the Synod of 869-870 being recognized in the West as the "Eighth Ecumenical Council", while the Synod of 879-880, which overturned the earlier synod and was recognized by Pope John VIII, is ignored.

This would be of little consequence, save for the Latin Church's insistence that it, and it alone can determine which councils are ecumenical and which are not; it also gives us the edifying spectacle of the Latin Church ignoring the ratification of a council by a validly elected and sitting Pope, which in effect says that Pope John VIII was in error when he ratified the acts of the Council of 879-880.

Add to that the modus vivendi contained in the latter council (which could certainly provide a model for the restoration of communion between East and West today), and the councils take on a lot more significance than one would think, considering that the whole Photian controversy had nothing to do with theology and everything to do with Bulgaria.

I found the book below helpful:

The Photian Schism [books.google.com]

Dvornik remains the authoritative source, but his book is extremely hard to find in hard copy. I am surprised it has not been reissued by Fordham after all these years.

As an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic I can tell you that while in theory I believe in indulgences I am mighty indifferent to them in practice. They are elusive and are bound up together with legalism and that off-putting "lock-step" rigidity I associate with the Latin Church.

I got my hardcover copy, which came from South Africa, through ABEbooks a few years ago.

Christ is born!

Pete,
Welcome to the forum; you will find a diversity of knowledge and opinion here, but we are all brothers in spirit so the variances may SEEM large, but are a mix of trifle and some more serious matters. Sorting out the differences is the hard part.

I am Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian). You will see some relatively minor differences here among the Eastern Catholic Churches as you will among the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Unlike the Latin Catholic Church we have various Patrimonies and so the differences are acknowledged and respected.

In my opinion our Byzantine Catholic Church is closer to the composite (for lack of a better term) American Orthodox Church than to the Roman, both in ritual and personal spiritual formation. However, as our "patriarch" is the Bishop of Rome we follow the dogmatic pronouncements of Rome, albeit somewhat modified by the Oriental bias but without being in conflict.

My statement above is not "official" but is in my opinion a fairly prudent statement. (Sorry if I sound like an accountant.

Fr Deacon Paul
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh

Fr. Deacon Paul

As an accounting professor your explanation was entirely understandable to me. Although the absence of any references to debits and credits certainly does strain your credibility as an accountant and makes the subject far comprehensible to the non-accountant.

Jim

I.e., we give lip service to them, but ignore them to the extent that they really don't impinge whatsoever on what we actually do or say in our spiritual lives. I think Orwell called it "doublethink".

I am not sure about how to use or not use the word punishment here. I think about it once in a while and am looking for a more direct Catholic answer, but I have heard it said that the notion of atonement is not exactly that of Jesus taking on a punishment from God, so much as an act of love and obedience that made satisfaction to redeem us. There is the idea that He faced death and over came it so that we could share in His victory over death by participating in His saving actions through faith and Baptism. In that sense He tasted and conquered what would have been an impossible thing for us to over come that we deserved. But I am not sure we go so far as to say that God literally forsook or punished Jesus (Jesus is always with God and always pleasing to God). Maybe more so that he paid a penalty or debt that was owed. He offered righteous blood on behalf of sinners. So, I am still confused, I am not sure if we view it as a punishment, or him facing wrath from God, so much as paying our penalty lovingly and willingly and giving us the means to escape it. So, basically, I am still struggling to completely understand atonement and the word punishment from a Catholic perspective.

Maybe in a sense Jesus took on a punishment that was for us, but in another sense, I do not think we would say that the passion/cross is an act of God punishing or pouring wrath out on Jesus.

I welcome any correction or affirmation, and hope I do not make the intended topic get lost.

There is no such thing as the "Catholic answer" regarding this mystery; there are many "Catholic answers" according to the theology of each particular Catholic Church.

Perhaps I am trying to avoid the possible misunderstandings that are out there. Such as come from misunderstanding certain Bible verses. Like 1 Cor 5:21 that says God made Him who knew no sin to become sin for us.
Now some people misunderstand this and think this means that Jesus actually became guilty or accepted our sins within himself in a sense, or was made seen as guilty for us...but I don't think this could not be one of the Catholic understandings. Jesus always was/is perfectly holy and never guilty of or considered a sinner even on the cross regardless of what exactly this verse implies (it is a tough verse to explain exactly, I could use some help saying exactly what it does mean)

Same thing with the calling out of 'why have you forsaken me.' Some might think that Jesus experienced separation from God (our punishment for sin) in order to save us. That He went through a period of time where He experienced separation from the Father...I also think that could not be a Catholic understanding of why Jesus called out this verse from the Psalms from the cross. Even in that agony and brokenness He ever still experienced and maintained His unity with the Father.

I like that you are saying that there may be unique ways to each Church to explain the same truth, but I think we would agree that while the same truth can be explained differently (though in unity), there also may need to be unity in disagreeing with theories that are less than acceptable. The idea of punishment was he one I was curious about how far it could or could not go.

I like the idea of the cross being an offering of perfect atoning sacrifice. This is what we offer at every Mass/Divine Liturgy in order to increase in Holiness and proclaim and experience the reality and means of the forgiveness of sins and the fact that we are not separated from God because of the Precious Blood that can redeem us.

The Liturgy says that Christ laid down his life as a ransom for many. Elsewhere it says that He liberated us from death and corruption. Nowhere in the Liturgy does it say Christ's death was to atone for anything, or to propitiate the Father's wrath or demands for justice. The whole notion of vicarious atonement is quite late and specifically a development of the medieval West.