06-09-2019, 05:09 PM
(06-09-2019, 02:32 AM)Athens Wrote: [ -> ]Yablabo, thanks for the reply. 1. I can appreciate the fact that these dogmas are defined ex cathedra (although I may return to that topic later), but my question is why did it have to be defined ex cathedra (thus made into dogma) when the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary has nothing to do with our salvation. What we believe about there being one God or Jesus being the Godman or Mary being called Theotokos (since it confirms the Incarnation) or even icons all have to do with what we believe about God and so is essential to our salvation. But the Immaculate Conception is just about Mary herself, so I fail to see why it should be considered dogma. I still am not quite sure why the Pope is considered the successor of Peter. In Orthodoxy all the bishops are considered the successors of Peter (even though they too consider the Pope to be Peter's successor "in a special sense," to quote Met. Kallistos Ware). 2. I heard one Eastern Catholic priest say that Eastern Catholic Christians, when confronted with Papal doctrines "can't say that it's wrong or heretical." But they can say things like "that's not part of our patrimony" or we use different theological language to get at the same truth. What I get from that is a bit of a neutral attitude toward Papal dogmas. Is this permissible? 3.That was a novelty that came to the forefront at around 1054? May I ask for some sources, because the Orthodox say exactly the opposite. Thanks.
1) It was not "made into" a dogma. The Immaculate Conception was divinely revealed, i.e., woven into the seamless garment of the deposit of faith. When the Roman Pontiff made his solemn judgment on the Immaculate Conception, he was not drawing from the ethers, but rather showing that scripture and tradition contained this revelation, and that apostolic teaching had echoed it through the ages.
If you are interested in delving into papal primacy and the papal charism in defining doctrines concerning faith and morals, the First Vatican Council gives the best exposition into the apostolic history and doctrine.
2) No, it's not permissible to remain neutral to the concepts defined ex cathedra by the Roman Pontiff. This is part of what our separated brethren in the eastern communion miss out on:
We can have different expressions and terminology due to the differences in language, like calling the mother of the divine Redeemer our Blessed Mother in the West or Theotokos in the East. What we can't have is contrary concepts of the truth. Even if we use different semantics, the underlying concepts must be catholic. The safest way is to use the same words, but often this is not possible due to the philosophical lacking of different human languages.
For example, if the Latins profess that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, and if the Greeks profess that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, they must mean the same concept, or one is not catholic.
What is truly orthodox does not diverge from what is catholic. This shows the problem with calling our separated brethren in the East by the name "Eastern Orthodox." Our separated brethren in the East sadly do not hold fast to the foundations of dogma, but instead have built an alternate institution based upon Byzantine courtly etiquette, holding firmly in their disciplines, preserving the holy orders, but developing a divergent and deformed body of doctrine from a headless college of bishops. The correct name for this communion would be Eastern Orthoprax. Orthopraxia in place of orthodoxia.
Ultimately we must all assent to the same concepts in order to call our communion universal/catholic, and we must have the rule of the true faith to call ourselves orthodox.
3) Basically, there is a professor (Thomas Madden) from St. Louis University who did in depth studies on the origins of Christianity (both Eastern and Western) and wrote several good courses. I would recommend checking out his courses here:
https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=thomas+madden&ref=a_search_t1_header_search
He is not authoritative, but he will give you a mostly unbiased history of the Christian religion. From there, you can look up the specific information you hear to confirm or refute it. I suggest starting out with "Upon this Rock", "From Jesus to Christianity", and "Empire of Gold". I listened to all his courses while working in a machine shop, so they're pretty easy to follow along.
From what I've found, sadly, most of our separated brethren in the East will not look at the historical record, but rather grasp onto what their bishops and priests tell them, even when it contradicts what they can see with their eyes.
All the best to you.