Why Eastern Catholics Do Not Accept Western Theology

Ending the controversies on dogma once and for all!

Many have been curious as to why many Eastern Catholics do not accept the Filioque, Purgatory, Transubtantion, etc. Every time an Eastern Catholic mentions that he or she does not believe in—let's say—Purgatory, Roman Catholics flare up and start crying out “Heresy!” or labeling that person “Heretic!” which is actually quite hilarious providing that the Holy See allowed the Eastern Catholics to maintain their original beliefs.

Allow me to explain why Eastern Catholics hold the things I’ve mentioned, using proof text from the Treaty of Brest, which dates back to 1595, even way before the hailed Modernist council (according to the ultra-traditionalists), Vatican II.

My commentaries are the ones not in block-quote form, and my words of emphasis are in bold.

The Filioque:

1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

This clearly means, following the statement “we should not be compelled to any other creed”, that the Eastern Catholics do not have to accept the Filioque. However, as stated, both the Romans and the Greeks have to accept that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son, since procession—strictly speaking—does not describe origination, unlike in the Greek version of the creed. But it's [the concept of the Spirit's procession] distinct from the Filioque per se in a sense that it's fundamental.

Transubstantiation:

3.—That the Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ should be retained entirely as we have been accustomed until now, under the species of bread and wine; that this should remain among us eternally the same and unchangeable.

Nowhere does it state that the Easterners ought to believe in Transubstantiation, but merely in what happens during consecration, that the bread and wine turns into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which of course, they have always believed in. It is that simple.

Purgatory:

5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.

This is very clear. The Church did not and does not compel the Easterners to believe in Purgatory. However, as stated, they should entrust themselves to the teaching of the Church—where a state of cleansing occurs after a person, who is deemed worthy of entering heaven, dies. Another very simple fundamental concept which Latins in denial find hard to accept.

Did you catch all that? It was actually the Roman Catholics way back when who permitted the Eastern Catholics to adhere to their original theology. This was way before Vatican II. As a matter of fact, the Union of Brest happened a few decades after the Council of Trent, the much celebrated council by most Latin supremacists, and the council which formally declared the dogma of Purgatory.

(And no, this is not a conspiracy by Modernists and free-masons.)

I believe the Treaty of Brest is very self-explanatory. Anyone could have understood what is written on it without my commentaries and my emphasis.

And now, I shall wait for the negative and violent comments from the Latins who might call me a heretic—an insult laughable and unsuitable at best, considering what the Holy See maintained regarding Eastern Catholic theology. I’m ready for them, so come on—hit me with your best shot.

And in case you're wondering, I am ranting.

By Jared Dale Combista

Full Text of the Treaty of Brest