Catholic: pious belief vs. dogma (priest, Earth, gospel, mystic)

[Scott1]

Peace be with you all!

Here we can continue the look into the difference (or lack thereof) between the Orthodox term "pious belief" and the Roman Catholic "dogma".

For some reason, I do believe this should be very interesting... and another area that brings us together, once we have learned more about the other's theology.

Ok James, what exactly is a "pious belief"?

Is an Orthodox member "allowed" to not believe, or more directly, believe that something offered as a pious belief is downright false?

We'll go from here.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Peace be with you all!

Here we can continue the look into the difference (or lack thereof) between the Orthodox term "pious belief" and the Roman Catholic "dogma".

For some reason, I do believe this should be very interesting... and another area that brings us together, once we have learned more about the other's theology.

Ok James, what exactly is a "pious belief"?

Is an Orthodox member "allowed" to not believe, or more directly, believe that something offered as a pious belief is downright false?

We'll go from here.

Scott,

I'll do my best to answer this as clearly as possible as I, too, think it will be interesting and, at the very least, clear up some of the inevitable difficulties we have when communicating our theology to each other.

When I use the term 'pious belief' I am trying to describe in the best terms I can think of, beliefs that are consistent with but not absolutely required by the Orthodox faith. These are often generally held, and many are probably universal or nearly so, or they can be what we refer to as a theologoumenon, which is a personally held belief of one or a few individuals. An example of the latter might be something like St. John Chrysostom's belief that the Theotokos sinned at the wedding at Canaa. It is generally believed by Orthodox that the Theotokos was without sin, but Chrysostom's view has never been condemned and is not necessarily unreasonable. It contradicts no dogma (though it may well contradict RC dogma).

Most of what I refer to as pious beliefs, however, are more generally held than this. Good examples of these are our Mariological beliefs, which are all almost universally held but which have never been dogmatised. The Orthodox Church has absolutely no Marian dogmas. In order to discuss this further, I feel I will have to explain what we mean by dogma.

For us a dogma is a belief that must be adhered to in order to be Orthodox, a belief the denial of which will affect our salvation. I believe, but am not sure, that this is the same understanding as Roman Catholics have. Such dogmas would obviously include things like the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection amongst others.

We do not believe that our beliefs about the Theotokos will affect our salvation and so such beliefs are not dogma, no matter how universally held. Nobody will tell you that you must believe that Mary was ever-virgin, or that she was assumed bodily into heaven after death, or that she was sinless throughout life, though most Orthodox do accept them. Some, however, in my experience, do question, for instance, the assumption (note that no Orthodox believe in a pre-death assumption, just to clarify what I'm talking about). This is perfectly acceptable and they are still Orthodox, though they are a distinct minority. I think (but having never come across anyone trying to do this, this is little more than a seemingly reasonable speculation - I'd have to ask my priest to be sure) that we would make a distinction here between not personally accepting, or doubting, such a belief and actively preaching it as falsehood. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs when it comes to areas not dogmatised. Attempting to preach ones theologoumena as the Truth, however, would be like trying to dogmatise the minority view and would be skating remarkably close to heresy, if not actually crossing that line.

I'd be intersted to know how our position squares (or doesn't) with the RC view now, and don't really feel that I can contribute more until others have had a chance to reply.

James

[michel]

I wasn't prepared to 'enter here' because the topic underdebate is one far over and above my capabilities and intellect; however, I was interested enough to look up definitions;

www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/ text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0078a.txt
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute ...

1.*pious belief:* A belief that is recognized by the church as being in harmony with Catholic teaching.

2.From:- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm


The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein) signifies, in the writings of the ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seems true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular school of philosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a public decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai.

Dogma: In Sacred Scripture it is used, at one time, in the sense of a decree or edict of the civil authority, as in Luke, ii, 1: "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree [edictum, dogma] from Caesar Augustus" (cf. Acts, xvii, 7; Esther, iii, 3); at another time, in the sense of an ordinance of the Mosaic Law as in Eph., ii 15: "Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees" (dogmasin), and again, it is applied to the ordinances or decrees of the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem: "And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees [dogmata] for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem" (Acts, xvi, 4).

I hope you don't mind my posting these, because I believe you are using the words in a different context, and I would interested to understand what you mean by them.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

It contradicts no dogma (though it may well contradict RC dogma).

It does, but like the Orthodox, individuals.... even some recognized as Doctors of the Church, don't always have 100% orthodox views (Augustine and Ambrose come to mind... even some of Aquinas).

For us a dogma is a belief that must be adhered to in order to be Orthodox, a belief the denial of which will affect our salvation. I believe, but am not sure, that this is the same understanding as Roman Catholics have. Such dogmas would obviously include things like the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection amongst others.

Same for us...

We do not believe that our beliefs about the Theotokos will affect our salvation and so such beliefs are not dogma, no matter how universally held.

I would tend to agree.... nothing in particular about Mary in and of itself will affect a persons salvation... for instance, I don't think a Protestant would be "at risk" because of a lack of belief in the Assumption.... but for a Catholic, we hold to these dogmas because of our faithfulness to the Church.

By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.

Based upon Scripture ("All generations will call me blessed") and Tradition, the Roman Catholic Church views devotion to the Blessed Virgin as intrinsic to Christian worship.

This is part of God's revealed truth to the Church, and as such, something that with religious assent, must be a part of our religious lives.

Hope this helps move the discussion along...

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Scott1

It does, but like the Orthodox, individuals.... even some recognized as Doctors of the Church, don't always have 100% orthodox views (Augustine and Ambrose come to mind... even some of Aquinas).

True. In our case if those individuals knowingly contradicted dogma they would not be Orthodox at all (I'm not sure if you mean that it is OK for RCs to be less than 100% orthodox on dogma only if they are unaware of their error - I presume you do). This means that someone like Arius who knowingly went against dogma could not be Orthodox, whilst someone like Augustine who unknowingly erred and asked for but did not receive correction, could. On this point I don't think we differ.

Same for us...

I thought so and am glad to see I was correct.

I would tend to agree.... nothing in particular about Mary in and of itself will affect a persons salvation... for instance, I don't think a Protestant would be "at risk" because of a lack of belief in the Assumption.... but for a Catholic, we hold to these dogmas because of our faithfulness to the Church.

By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.

I agree with you here also, except that I wouldn't call such doctrines dogmas. In the case of the Marian doctrines almost everyone does adhere to them, even if they question one aspect or another of mariology. We do this because we trust the Church not to teach error. A person who did not venerate the Theotokos at all would certainly not be Orthodox but we allow a certain amount of freedom on aspects of her life that are not essential to our salvation and, hence, we do not dogmatise them.

Based upon Scripture ("All generations will call me blessed") and Tradition, the Roman Catholic Church views devotion to the Blessed Virgin as intrinsic to Christian worship.

This is part of God's revealed truth to the Church, and as such, something that with religious assent, must be a part of our religious lives.

And here, again, we are in complete agreement.

It seems to me that all of this highlights one of the differences in approach between Orthodox and RC theology that seems to cause problems when we discuss our differences. Often there are no differences, but we approach theology in different ways, leading to misunderstandings. From our point of view RC theology seems overly legalistic and rationalistic (the former not meant in the pejorative way a protestant might use it) in that there appears to be a tendency in Roman Catholicism to document, codify and dogmatise as much as is humanly possible. We simply don't work that way. Our theology is, in my view, more organic and mystically rather than rationally inclined, focusing on the cataphatic rather than apophatic approach, for instance. We rely on the mind of the Church rather than Her writings, in effect, which I guess makes our theology appear wishy washy and undefined to many RCs. It isn't, but it's an understandable mistake to make.

I don't believe that some RC dogmas should be dogmas (and you appear to agree to some extent, at least by an Orthodox definition of dogma), which could cause problems were we to reunify but, understanding (I think) your position a little better and the general RC approach's differences to ours, I can understand why the RCC has made them dogmas, though it seems to me that it's almost like saying, 'we don't trust that the laiety trust our teachings so we'll dogmatise them and make sure they do'. This may sound a little harsh (hopefully not) but it is how I genuinely feel. Having said all that, however, I'm happy that, a few obvious dogmas aside, we are actually very close to agreement on this and that this is just clouded by the theological and linguistic differences that divide us.

Hope this helps move the discussion along...

I think so, though I'll know better when I see how you, or any other RCs here, reply.

James

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

On this point I don't think we differ.

Yes.... but on a broader scope, while I trust the Church to be free from error, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about who is orthodox or not.... even with the formal anathemas I tend to attack the false teaching and leave judgement of the person up to God.

A person who did not venerate the Theotokos at all would certainly not be Orthodox but we allow a certain amount of freedom on aspects of her life that are not essential to our salvation and, hence, we do not dogmatise them.

Well, here's the rub.... for someone who did not venerate the Theotokos and would "certainly not be Orthodox" this is the very definition of dogma to us... unless what you are saying is that to "not be Orthodox" has nothing to do with an essential part of human salvation.

We rely on the mind of the Church rather than Her writings, in effect, which I guess makes our theology appear wishy washy and undefined to many RCs. It isn't, but it's an understandable mistake to make.

Very well said.... it was the reason for my now infamous (infallible teachers, infallible leaders, blah blah) comment. (Sorry about that, by the way.).... and I now view the Orthodox theology as so very similar to my own, that I am once again hopeful that God will lead us back to full communion.

God bless you James,
Scott

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Yes.... but on a broader scope, while I trust the Church to be free from error, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about who is orthodox or not.... even with the formal anathemas I tend to attack the false teaching and leave judgement of the person up to God.

I quite agree with you here. I would dispute strongly St. Gregory of Nyssa's universalism, for instance, but I have no doubt he was a saint. I'm sure there are plenty of other people whose beliefs or teachings I would find heterodox to some degree or another and yet would never question their Christian faith. It's just that in the context of the current discussion you sort of forced me to think about it so I gave the best reply I could.

Well, here's the rub.... for someone who did not venerate the Theotokos and would "certainly not be Orthodox" this is the very definition of dogma to us... unless what you are saying is that to "not be Orthodox" has nothing to do with an essential part of human salvation.

I feel you have slightly misunderstood me here. The general place of the Theotokos, her veneration (and indeed her very title), are dogma. They are after all the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and, where these teachings impact upon Christology, as they do, they clearly have a dogmatic character in that holding erroneous beliefs could affect our salvation to the degree that it could affect our understanding of who Christ is, hence the place of the Theotokos in those early Christological debates. What I was referring to, though, was not this aspect of mariology but rather those, often relatively unimportant details that the RCC has dogmatised post-Schism such as the assumption. For example, denying Mary the title Theotokos denies that she actually carried God in her womb thereby implying Arianism (or some other heresy such as adoptionalism). On the other hand, saying she did or may have sinned, or that she wasn't bodily assumed into heaven or that she did not remain ever virgin (none of which positions I agree with, to be clear) would not imply any such heresy. It may imply a certain level of doubt or mistrust but not outright heresy. We are all imperfect and it is the Church's role to help cure us of such doubts and mistrust, not condemn us for them. I hope that helps clarify what I meant.

Very well said.... it was the reason for my now infamous (infallible teachers, infallible leaders, blah blah) comment. (Sorry about that, by the way.).... and I now view the Orthodox theology as so very similar to my own, that I am once again hopeful that God will lead us back to full communion.

The apology was not necessary as I'd already forgotten about it, but it is accepted nonetheless. I, too, am coming to see that our theology is similar. Having discussed it with you and others I can see that we are basically looking at the same thing from opposite sides much of the time. I don't particularly care for the more rationalistic approach of Roman Catholicism (it's not one I can feel particularly comfortable with) but so long as the substance is the same - it isn't quite yet but, God willing, it may become so - then each to their own. There's plenty of room for both approaches in our faith. I'll just never be as comfortable with Augustine or Aquinas as I am with John Cassian or Gregory Palamas.

God bless you James

And you, Scott.

James

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The general place of the Theotokos, her veneration (and indeed her very title), are dogma. They are after all the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and, where these teachings impact upon Christology, as they do, they clearly have a dogmatic character in that holding erroneous beliefs could affect our salvation to the degree that it could affect our understanding of who Christ is, hence the place of the Theotokos in those early Christological debates.

Agreed.

What I was referring to, though, was not this aspect of mariology but rather those, often relatively unimportant details that the RCC has dogmatised post-Schism such as the assumption.

Well... I would disagree that the Assumption is "relatively unimportant"... not just because it is a teaching of the Church, but for the theological aspect... which I'll explain in the next part....

For example, denying Mary the title Theotokos denies that she actually carried God in her womb thereby implying Arianism (or some other heresy such as adoptionalism).

Correct.... but I think we both would agree that a dogmatic definiton of the Church council that declared dogma WITHOUT reference to Mary would have been just as valid.

The "relatively unimportant details that the RCC has dogmatised post-Schism" are 100% Christocentric (the key aspect of Mariology) just like the Virginity of Mary.

In regard to the Assumption, it is both from Christ and for Christ.
"...(I)n the middle of a century that witnessed the biggest assault on the human person and on the family that the world has ever seen, the Church again held up Mary as an icon of who we really are and who we are meant to become by promulgating the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. Just as the Immaculate Conception held Mary up as the icon of the divine dignity of our origins, so the Church, in teaching "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" was now holding her up as the icon of the divine dignity of our destiny." The Mother of the Son by Mark Shea

On the other hand, saying she did or may have sinned, or that she wasn't bodily assumed into heaven or that she did not remain ever virgin (none of which positions I agree with, to be clear) would not imply any such heresy. It may imply a certain level of doubt or mistrust but not outright heresy. We are all imperfect and it is the Church's role to help cure us of such doubts and mistrust, not condemn us for them. I hope that helps clarify what I meant.

As I hope my comments on the Assumption showed, these "post-Schism" dogmas all have a valid Christocentic, orthodox reality that they reinforce.... and that is a key aspect to look at. Not just for the Marian/Christological differences, but in how the Petrine office views leadership of the Church. Instead of waiting for a heresy that, for instance, denied the resurection of the body, the Church has dogmatized the Assumption as a hedge against this. As you well know, anything not defined will soon be attacked by heresy.... history has shown that very clearly, so why wait?

Stop by my forum (link below) later on to say hello.

[James the Persian]

Scott,

Already visited the forum. I think it's safe to say that where you dogmatise things such as the assumption in the off chance that it might prevent a later heresy, we don't work that way. This is just a difference in approach. I can see what you mean, but disagree with it. Never mind. To take the assumption, though, I can't see what heresy it could prevent that is not likewise prevented by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and nor can I see how it is directly Christological. I can't think of another RC Marian dogma that I can understand as essentially Christological either, though I accept fully that you see them that way. Of course, none of these are actually differences in belief. If you took the typical RC and Orthodox believer and asked each of them what they believed about the Theotokos they would be in 100% agreement other than the issue of the Immaculate Conception. I am obviously excluding the fringe elements such as the 'protestants with icons' brigade in my Church and the 'Mary as co-redemptrix' brigade in yours. Neither of these groups are orthodox or representative of the teachings of our churches. Where we do differ is on whether or not we need to codify such beliefs into dogma. You say yes, to ward off heresy. We say, no because nigh on everyone believes anyway and we'll deal with any heresy as we come to them. This seems to me nothing more than a philosophical difference.

James

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Where we do differ is on whether or not we need to codify such beliefs into dogma. You say yes, to ward off heresy. We say, no because nigh on everyone believes anyway and we'll deal with any heresy as we come to them. This seems to me nothing more than a philosophical difference.

Well, let me be clear.... to "ward off heresy" is one of the effects of the teachings, it was not the reason for the definition.

The "purpose" of defining the Assumption as domga was that it was revealed as truth to the Church by the Holy Spirit..... the Spirit that is with and in the Bishops, to teach them and guide them "into all the truth" (Jn 14:17, 26; 16:13).

By her very mission, "the Church . . . travels the same journey as all humanity and shares the same earthly lot with the world: she is to be a leaven and, as it were, the soul of human society in its renewal by Christ and transformation into the family of God." Missionary endeavor requires patience. It begins with the proclamation of the Gospel to peoples and groups who do not yet believe in Christ, continues with the establishment of Christian communities that are "a sign of God's presence in the world," and leads to the foundation of local churches. It must involve a process of inculturation if the Gospel is to take flesh in each people's culture. There will be times of defeat. "With regard to individuals, groups, and peoples it is only by degrees that [the Church] touches and penetrates them and so receives them into a fullness which is Catholic."

We believe that essential to this "journey" is an ever deepening search for the revealed truth of God.... part of this revealed truth has been disclosed in the Marian dogmas.

Thanks for the chat, my friend... look forward to more.
Scott