www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Return to Purgatory--Part I

Brothers and Sisters,
I think that part of the issue that has been discussed here is an issue of systematic theology. There is a distinction made between 'apophatic' and 'kataphatic' theology. The distinction comes from ways of describing God and His interventions in human life. In one approach, one can make positive statements about God and spiritual reality: "God is omnipresent", "God is just", etc. In the Eastern approach, one does not make 'positive' statements, but rather 'negative' ones. "God isn't unjust" , "God isn't unloving". While the superficial understanding of this variation of approach to systematic theology doesn't seem like much, in reality, it DOES define ways of dealing with spiritual reality. While Western Christians are very comfortable with saying what "God will do", Eastern Christians are more likely to exclude what "God won't do" or "What God is not". Thus, in terms of 'sin' or an understanding of "who" is in communion or 'good standing' with God, we Easterners are more likelely to focus on the things that alienate a person from God than on the 'necessary elements' that unite a person with the Creator.

In terms of 'purgatory' or other Western systematic theology concepts, we Eastern Christians have a tendency to not 'define' what is reality, but rather a tendency to say what is unacceptable in terms of our understanding of Christ's Gospel. So, as we gather together the items that we believe as Christians, we may not come up with a coherent quilt of theological beliefs, but rather a collection of beliefs that represent our best efforts at understanding theological reality.

This has been my major theological problem with Perpetua's insistence that anyone in communion with Rome be 'obligated' to accept the 'positivist' approach to systematic theology without acknowledging that the kataphatic, 'negative statement' is also a legitimate theological approach to the realitites of the spiritual world.

To obligate us Easterners to the 'positive' statement approach is to do violence to the way that we approach God and spiritual reality. We are, in many ways, more aligned with the approach of our spiritual forebears, the Jews, in that we are uncomfortable with saying "God HAS TO....", rather than saying, "It is unlike God to DO XXXXX..." We don't have God by the short hairs. We withdraw, in awe, before the presence of the Godhead, prefering not to "demand XYZ" of God, but rather to acknowledge that because of His promises, we expect God to BE just, loving, paternal, etc. and that whatever happens is a result of His Divinity.

So, we don't 'demand' that God create a purgatory, or even a heaven or hell. We only believe that God, AS GOD, will do what is best for us, His creation. And our response to questions about spiritual reality, is to throw ouselves upon His mercy, and to PRAY. Both for ourselves, the living, as well as for those who have died. (I guess that's why our public prayer, liturgical services last so long-- we want to make our collective prayers heard!!)

Just as our dealings with our fellow human beings is complicated (to say the least!!) and had led to the develpment of all the social sciences including psychology, sociology, law, etc., so our dealings with God are also complicated. And we use theology to help us understand this relationship. And just as psychology and the other social sciences can be accomplished as 'dogmatic' or 'non-dogmatic/interpretative', so too can our theologies be dogmatic ('positive statements = Western) or (non-dogmatic/interpretative = Eastern).

So, as I see it, I don't think that there can be rapprochement between Eastern and Western theologies until and unless each community is willing to acknowledge the theolgical differences of the other and is, perhaps most importantly, willing to admit that the alternative approach is legitimate, valid, and OK.

So when I demand that Perpetua (and others) allow us Greek Christians to be who we are, I am not demanding that there be only one approach to God, but only that we Eastern Christians be left alone to pray and seek God according to our own lights-- without being forced to accept the 'positivist' systematic approach of the Western churches. And the Church as a universal community has told us to be who we are and to do what we need to do.

So, with all due respect, and fraternal charity, the Wetern Christians should back off and let us be who we are--as a legitimate community of baptized Christians, who are trying our best to find God--according to our best efforts. And we will be in communion with you Western Christians, as well as with all of our Eastern brothers and sisters, seeking to do God's will.

And as the Great Lent comes to us, and as we abstain from meat and dairy products, and celebrate the Presanctified Liturgy, and give alms to the poor, and offer our private and public prayers, we will remember all of our fellow Christians; and we will beg God's mercy upon all of His children.

May God have mercy upon us all.

Perhaps the discussion has reached a point where I may interject a personal question/comment.

The bottom line for Easter Rite Catholics is that they really have no choice but to accept the idea of Purgatory because it was defined by a canonically accepted "Ecumenical council" of the Roman Church. Everything goes through the Pope, does it not? Byzantine Catholics can do their best to explain the concept WITHIN the context of these definitions, they cannot contradict the basic tenets of Purgatory. Thus like it or not, any concept of the Eastern Churches which does not agree with Roman Catholic councils must be abandoned. Eastern Catholicism is thus tethered, and perhaps limited, by the Western approach.

Is this a good summary of the situation as it presently exists?

Another good topic of conversation would be why Purgatory needs to be dogmatically defined as being necessary for salvation in the first place.

Actually, Bill, I think you might have missed the whole point of the discussion. For Byzantines to accept the Latin teachings as the Latins state them would be to acknowledge that the Latin approach to theology is superior to the Byzantine. As Moose and others pointed out earlier the Church (esp. in the Vatican II Council) has made it quite clear that the Eastern and Western theological systems are equal. One is not superior to the other. The fact that even the Decree on the Eastern Churches was written in a 'language' that was foreign to the Byzantine mind indicates that the Latin theologians in Rome still haven't caught on. But it was a step in the correct direction. For Romans to ask Byzantines to reword Latin understandings in a Byzantine mindset would do a great injustice to both theological systems. Some things just don't translate and need to be understood in their original language / context.

The Byzantines here have repeatedly stated that they respect Latin theology and accept it as good Latin theology. But the Romans here have demanded that the Byzantines adopt the Roman formula of theology and accept the mysteries as the Romans have worded them - thus doing injustice to the Byzantines. Perpetua, perhaps without understanding, is asking for this injustice.

You are correct in saying that "Eastern Catholicism is thus tethered, and perhaps limited, by the Western approach." But this is in violation of the teachings of the Church. We are equal brothers and sisters in Christ and we are called to witness Orthodoxy within the Catholic Church. We are not some bastard stepchildren - unless we choose to be.

Dave wrote:

>>>>It seems to me they are being distributed by a Catholic book distributor in the Mid-West but I can't find the catalog right now.<<<<

Theological Book Service
7373 S. Lovers Lane Rd.
Franklin, WI. 53132-9976
Phone: 414 529-6400 800 558-0580
Fax: 414 529-6419 800 369-4448
E-mail: tbs@execpc.com

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

Bill Mo wrote:

>>>>Thus like it or not, any concept of the Eastern Churches which does not agree with Roman Catholic councils must be abandoned.<<<<
---------------------------------------------
Wrong. Then why do we have two separate Codes of Canon Law. According to the Vatican, what MUST be abandoned is any Latinization that has crept into the Eastern Churches.

Joe Prokopchak
St. Nicholas Byzantine Catholic Church
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh.

Bill Mo wrote:
>>>>Thus like it or not, any concept of the Eastern Churches which does not agree with Roman Catholic councils must be abandoned.<<<<
---------------------------------------------

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of
Canons of the Eastern Churches

Issued January 6, 1996 by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches

The Vatican

Libreria Editrice Vaticana - 1996

Table of Contents

>snip<

4. Conciliar and post-conciliar principles and norms for the Eastern Churches

All the Christian Churches are founded on the one message of Christ
and necessarily share a common heritage. Therefore, quite a number of
principles of the conciliar Constitution on the sacred liturgy
universally provide valid elements for the liturgies of all the
Churches and should be applied even in the celebrations of Churches
that do not follow the Roman rite.[9] The practical norms of the
Constitution and those of the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983
must be understood as affecting only the Latin Church.[10] The
principles and norms of liturgical nature which directly concern the
Eastern Churches are found instead in various conciliar documents,
such as in >Lumen Gentium< (n. 23), >Unitatis Redintegratio< (nn. 14-
17) and even more importantly in >Orientalium Ecclesiarum<. These
exalt the inalienable value of the specific, and thus diversified,
traditions of the Eastern Churches. After the Second Vatican Council,
the most important collection of norms for the Eastern Churches is
constituted by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

>snip<

7. The heritage of the Eastern Churches
The conciliar documents, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches
and the repeated authoritative declarations of the Magisterium affirm
the inalienable value of the particular heritage of the Eastern
Churches. >Lumen Gentium< n. 23 declares that these, by divine
Providence, whilst safeguarding the unity of the faith and the unique
divine structure of the universal Church, enjoy their own theological
and spiritual heritage, their own discipline, and their own
liturgical usage. >Orientalium Ecclesiarum< n. 1 specifies that in
these shines the Tradition derived from the Apostles through the
Fathers, which constitutes part of the divinely revealed, undivided
heritage of the Universal Church.

Within the unity of the Catholic faith, each one of these heritages
expresses the variety of its manifestations.[12] The fullness of the
Mystery of God reveals itself progressively according to the
historical and cultural circumstances of peoples and expresses itself
in each of the Eastern Churches' manner of living the faith.[13]

>snip<

10. The duty to protect the Eastern heritage
Desiring that these treasures flourish and contribute ever more
efficiently to the evangelization of the world, >Orientalium
Ecclesiarum< affirms, as do successive documents, that the members of
Eastern Churches have the right and the duty to preserve them, to
know them, and to live them.[14] Such affirmation contains a clear
condemnation of any attempt to distance the Eastern faithful from
their Churches, whether in an explicit and irreversible manner, with
its juridical consequences, inducing them to pass from one Church
>sui iuris< to another,[15] or whether in a less explicit manner,
favoring the acquisition of forms of thought, spirituality, and
devotions that are not coherent with their own ecclesial heritage,
and thus contrary to the indications so often emphasized by Roman
Pontiffs and expressed, with particular force, already in the
Apostolic Letter >Orientalium Dignitas< of Leo XIII.
The danger of losing the Eastern identity manifests itself
particularly in a time like the present, characterized by great
migrations from the East toward lands believed to be more hospitable,
which are prevalently of Latin tradition. These host countries are
enriched by the heritage of the Eastern faithful who establish
themselves there, and the preservation of such heritage is to be
sustained and encouraged not only by the Eastern pastors but also by
the Latin ones of the immigration territories, because it wonderfully
expresses the multicolored richness of the Church of Christ.

>snip<

I can post a lot more, but I hope you are getting the idea.

Joe Prokopchak
Byzantine Catholic/Ruthenian

[This message has been edited by Joe Prokopchak (edited 01-15-99).]

>>>>or whether in a less explicit manner,
favoring the acquisition of forms of thought, spirituality, and
devotions that are not coherent with their own ecclesial heritage,
and thus contrary to the indications so often emphasized by Roman
Pontiffs and expressed, with particular force, already in the
Apostolic Letter >Orientalium Dignitas< of Leo XIII.<<<<

Do I need to highlight the above text? Maybe make it bold type? How about all CAPS? Or maybe tell everyone that these words come from an " Official Vatican Document ".

Joe Prokopchak
Byzantine Catholic/Ruthenian

Regarding Bill Mo's post: No, we are not tethered to the Roman Church, nor are the Eastern Churches subservient to its theology. We are Churches unto ourselves, but perhaps the 19th century and early 20th century Irish bishops' based ecclesiastical life in the United States has engendered in American Catholics the notion that 'unity demands uniformity'. And that anything that does not correspond to this Anglo-Irish ecclesiology must be rooted out and destroyed. They did it to the Germans, putting monasteries with breweries under interdict, they did it to the Italians, the French, the Portuguese and the Poles too by instituting diocesan regulations that quashed their individualism. And they tattle-taled to Rome on these Slavs with their married priests who were 'scandalzing the faithful'. Scandalized because the Latins had been taught by their clergy that priests can't marry. Oooops! They taught the people an untruth-- and then screwed us over to cover up their errors. All for the sake of uniformity. And we lost THOUSANDS of our people to orthodox jurisdictions. And we're still living with the effects today.

And no, the Pope isn't the final word. It's simplistic theology, a la the Baltimore Catechism. By demanding that people study a particular document (i.e., the catechism), ecclesiastical authorities can train people in lock-step uniformity. But the down side of this approach is that people don't have to 'struggle' with issues, whether moral, theological or even liturgical. It's all spelled out in the catechism. But the reality is, the Church isn't the simplistic rote answers contained in catechetical documents. And so, despite the catechism's declarative sentences about the Pope being the visible head of the Church, and Christ's vicar, the reality is much more complicated and involves a whole ecclesiology that has developed over 2 millenia. And the simple sentences about the reality of purgatory and limbo (as well as Gehenna, Hades, the New Jerusalem, the "Kingdom", etc.) are al the results of one or other system of theology, mostly based--but not exclusively--on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (as well as Bonaventure, Bellarmine and others).

So, if we Easterners prefer Sts. Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory the Illuminator, etc., that's our tradition and our business.

In summary, we Eastern Christians have our own ways. Some of us are in sacramental communion with the Bishop of Rome, and the Patriarch of the West. But we are in communion as individual, canonical Churches. Not as sub-Churches, or 'rites of the Catholic church' (this term is highly offensive!!) or as some type of vassal organizations.

And while it may distress a number of Latin Rite Christians to discover at this stage of their lives thatthey have been deceived into believing that theirs is the only "legitimate" and "canonical" Church, -- the reality is that this is just NOT true. Just because there is no discussion of us in the Baltimore Catechism, doesn't mean that we don't exist. And just because the simple Q+A of the catechism and other educational texts taught a particular theology, doesn't mean that that's it. There's a lot more out there about the nature of the Church and theology. And as an adult, I think we each have an obligation to educate ourselves. And that's not my idea, I'm just passing on a message from your Council documents directed to Latin Catholics. (Thanks to Joe for the citations; we know where we can start our study.)

In answer to Bill Mo's question...

Perhaps Purgatory is the wrong subject to illustrate his point. Are Byzantine Catholics required to assent to Vatican I on the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome? This is potentially a much larger problem in Orthodox/Catholic dialogue than any other. I know for me, personally, it was this question which led me to the Orthodox Church despite my great love for the Ruthenian Church and people. I had been an ardent supporter of Archbishop Elias Zoghby's proposal for "dual communion," sometimes called the "Melkite initiative." It sought to find a way where Eastern Catholics could state they were in union with the Bishop of Rome to the limits acknowledged by the Fathers of the East before the Schism. This proposal was rejected by the Antiochian Orthodox Synod and also by Rome (letter from Cardinals Cassidy, Silvestrini and Ratzinger written at the request of John Paul II). Rome said any formulation of faith on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome must contain what is taught in Vatican I and II.

I hate to sound pessimistic...but there is NO way that Orthodox will accept Vatican I (or what Vatican II says on that also).

I know many Eastern Catholics interpret the subject of Purgatory from an Eastern perspective and some Roman Catholics (like Perpetua apparently) feel they're denying an essential dogma.

Is there an Orthodox way to interpret Vatican I?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

As this conversation begins to move away from purgatory toward what I think are the more important issues that have been underlying the discussion, I wanted to make some things clear about what I have been trying to say. It appears to me that from the comments that people continue to make that I have not made it sufficiently clear thus far. And so, with apologies to Fr. Kyrill, I will make an attempt to "nail down" what I have been trying to say AND what I have not been trying to say. They are:

1. Purgatory (by any name) is a dogma of the Universal Church.
2. The definition of this dogma at the Ecumenical Council of Trent is to "be adhered to, taught, and preached everywhere", as are all dogmas of the Church.
3. No Catholic may legitimately deny a defined dogma of the Church.
4. Definitions of dogmas at councils do not say all there is to be said about a particular doctrine.
5. There may be different legitimate expressions of this dogma in different traditions of liturgy and theology.
6. Almost the entire DOGMATIC teaching of the Church on purgatory is summed up in the passages I quoted at the top of this thread.
7. The dogmatic teaching on purgatory should not be confused with various artists' or writers' conceptions of it. (The Council Fathers at Trent did not append Dante's Purgatorio or a Grunewald painting to their decree.) This well stated by the footnote that DTBrown quoted from the eastern catechism.

Is any of this offensive to a Byzantine Catholic?

Thank you Joe Prokopchak for the recommendation of Theological Book Service.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am not a professional writter so plaese bear with me.

It seams to me that there are some terms being misused. Could anyone please define( Ecumenical Council, Dogma, Doctrine, Dogmatic teaching, Universal Church)? I seams to me that we have not had an Ecumenical Council since the first 7. I also did not know that Dogma and Doctrine were used interchangably. Last but not least I thought that the Universal Church was composed of several Churches.

Totaly confused.

By the way does anybody know just how the Lefevers(sorry about the spelling) fit into the sceam of the Universal Church?

Thanks,

Sophia



[This message has been edited by Sophia (edited 01-16-99).]

Sophia wrote:

>>>I also did not know that Dogma and Doctrine were used interchangably.<<<
--------------------------------------------
Dear Handmaid of the Lord, Sophia

Sometimes you will see these two words mistakenly used interchangably. There is a big difference between a dogma and a doctrine. All dogmas are also doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church classifies Church teaching into several different categories of importance. A dogma is on the highest order of Church teaching. All the other doctrines are classified into several different orders of importance. I tried to explain this earlier in this forum, but I saw that I was only beating my head up against a wall so I refrained from anymore explanation.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you again Perpetua for the concise synopsis of the Roman Catholic position on Purgatory. In my desire to be brief in my post I'm afraid I compromised clarity, my apologies.

<<You said, "Others pointed out that Eastern Patristic writers were often quoted in support of much later Roman Catholic theology." I was not sure what you meant by this. Could you explain?>>

These are a synopsis of conversations with other members of Eastern Churches in Union with Rome who are involved in Catechetical ministries in our respective Churches. We share resources through the ECDD (Eastern Catholic Diocesian Directors). The conversations occured after receiving draft copies of the Catechism of the Catholic Church prior to publication.

The separate publication of our own point of view was selected as the response to the Catechism of the Catholic Church by our Bishops as it had been used in the past when the the National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued their documents on the Sacrments of Christian Initiation. Father David Petrus authored the compainion document from the Eastern Catholic point of view which outlines our very significant differences with the Roman approach.

<<Next, where can I find the eastern catechism you mentioned?>>

All publications of the ECDD are published under the name of God with Us publications and available from:

Theological Book Service
7373 S. Lovers Lane Rd.
Franklin, WI. 53132-9976
Phone: 414 529-6400 800 558-0580
Fax: 414 529-6419 800 369-4448
E-mail: tbs@execpc.com

Most of these publications are geared for general adult education. A more scholarly treatment of the differences between east and west can be found in Jaroslav Pelikan's "The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700)" University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-65373-0. This is part two of a five part series on the history of the Christian Church. The parrallel volume #3 "The Growth of Medieval Theology" details the same for the west with a separate volume on the Reformation (#4).

<<You mentioned that purgatory is a topic that frequently comes up in your adult education classes. How do you present this topic to them>>

This topic comes up with Byzantine Catholics because until the mid-seventies when we developed our own catechism for use in english we taught the Baltimore Catechism of the Roman Church. In addition, most of our clergy received their education in Roman seminaries for much of the period of our union with Rome (350+ years). As an adult educator I must explain to people why we are teaching something different than they learned as children.

I teach from "Light for Life The Mystery Celebrated" with far less eloquence than Father Kyril's post and your excellent synopsis of the Western point of view. Hence, my desire to use both your material for this topic.

As far as my attempt at analogy goes, I apologize again for not being clearer. All analogies break down at some point since they are not the real object. You are correct in outlining where mine fails.

The point I was trying to make by analogy was that both the East and the West agree that there is some state in the after life that makes prayers for the dead efficacious, this is the Mona Lisa. We differ in how we describe and respond to this understanding. This differs greatly from how most Protestants see things.

My main point being the reality of this state has not been seen or experienced by anyone in this life and all our attempts to understand it will be incomplete in some way.

A favorite hymn in our church goes like this:

So great is God in Power and Glory, no mortal tongue can ever proclaim. So great His throne and power sublime, no mortal mind can ever contain. The one true God, we worship with love, brighter than sun more splendid than stars above.

We acknowledge that human language AND the human mind fail us in contemplating these mysteries.

Thank you for your followup points. They do focus the discussion well.

1. Purgatory (by any name) is a dogma of the Universal Church.

Purgatory by it's very name carries the definitions and baggage of Roman Catholic theology and does not "fit" well in the Eastern spirituality.

2. The definition of this dogma at the Ecumenical Council of Trent is to "be adhered to, taught, and preached everywhere", as are all dogmas of the Church.

The East did not attend, nor accept this council. This was an articulation by and for the Western Church that does not bind the East. In the same way that the Council of Jerusalem in the 1600's would not bind or affect the West should reunion with the Orthodox occur.

3. No Catholic may legitimately deny a defined dogma of the Church.

Here is where the Eastern Catholics will assert our rights under the union agreements and subsequent papal instructions to maintain our own Theology, Ritual and Discipline.

4. Definitions of dogmas at councils do not say all there is to be said about a particular doctrine.

Agreed, as mentioned above, no human can ever express all there is to be said about a particular doctrine.

5. There may be different legitimate expressions of this dogma in different traditions of liturgy and theology.

Here is where the whole discussion comes to rest. We agree on the basic premise that the afterlife has some purification dimension, the east sees what that is differently than Roman Catholics and we object to being forced to call this state purgatory.

6. Almost the entire DOGMATIC teaching of the Church on purgatory is summed up in the passages I quoted at the top of this thread.

Again, I commend you on your excellent summary on the topic of purgatory. I must confess that my education is more to patristics, church history and scripture so I am not able to comment on the Dogmatic versus Doctrine question.

7. The dogmatic teaching on purgatory should not be confused with various artists' or writers' conceptions of it. (The Council Fathers at Trent did not append Dante's Purgatorio or a Grunewald painting to their decree.) This well stated by the footnote that DTBrown quoted from the eastern catechism.

Agreed, Rome teaches from authority in documents, not artists. The East however teaches primarily in Icons and prayer. We point to art because in our own churches Icons are "Theology in pictures" and the rich prayer life of our church expresses our understanding of the truth.

Is any of this offensive to a Byzantine Catholic?

I am not offended. I admire what I have learned about the Roman Catholic faith over the years and have known several people that found a faith filled rich and rewarding path to God in the Roman Church.

I hope that you and other Roman Catholics can say the same about us from Byzantine Catholic churches. I will understand if you can not.

Thank you again for your well researched and written posts. May God go with you!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thanks to Steve for the easy to understand, concise and right teaching on the understanding of the General Councils of the West, our outlook on them and how they bind or do not bind Byzantine Catholics. It is time for us to claim our rightful heritage and to boldly (but charitably) proclaim it. God love you for the work you do for our Churches. Perpetua, can we not agree to disagree on how these Councils are received by the Byzantines? You probably feel we cannot. We seem to speak different langauges. Hopefully, we can agree that we are called to pray for the dead, that these prayers help those who have gone before us, and that these departed ones are in communion with us through Christ and His Church. Perpetua, many years in health and happiness.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Pardon my denseness, but despite the quotes from various Papal encyclicals, a simple yes or no answer to the following question will suffice.

Are Byzantine Catholics expected to believe the definitions/pronouncements of the 20 odd "ecumenical" councils of the Roman Catholic Church?

I understand full well from the above discussion that it is the desire of the Catholic Church that the Eastern Rite Catholics fully recover their heritage and approach to theology, spirituality, etc.

My point was that if the answer to the above question is indeed yes then Eastern Catholics must somehow explain, as best they can from an Orthodox or Eastern perspective, the conventions derived by an overwhelmingly Latin theological body. Not to say that it is necessarily good or bad, but simply a fact of life for the Eastern Catholic.

Simply by the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has convened many more councils, the Eastern Catholic is more likely to run into a dogmatic "fence" than an Orthodox theologian.

However if the answer is no and Eastern Catholics are under no obligation to accept the dogmatic proclamations of councils convened without their input then we have an entirely different situation.

A good example might be the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox theologian might say that it (as dogma) is not a necessity given the eastern view of the fall of man and original sin, while not denying that it may be true. (A good number of Orthodox do believe in the IC, but the majority do not.) By the fact that it has been declared dogma, is the Eastern Catholic placed in a position where he must accept a conclusion which was driven more by western notions of the fall and original sin and place it in his own eastern context?

Thank you for your responses. I didn't mean for anyone to take it as an insult.

Please forgive me.

Bill