Catechisms: Western thought?

[Elizium23]

What is your view of catechisms such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Baltimore Catechism? Do you believe that these accurately reflect the Catholic faith for all her Churches or just for the Latin Church? Blessed John Paul the Great said that the CCC is “universally authoritative”. The CCC does mention the Eastern Churches in passing, for example the section on Confirmation/Chrismation.

Are you disappointed that there are many catechisms which use exclusively Western terminology and not enough which are both thoroughly Catholic and thoroughly Eastern?

The UGCC has published a catechism called “Christ Is Our Easter”. How is this an example of the difference in Eastern terminology and praxis, and does the publication itself prove that Latin Church catechisms are second-best for members of the Eastern Churches?

It would be great if you could cite reliable sources such as news stories or published books to document claims.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The CCC is a universal catechism in that it is meant to be a springboard in the forming of local catechisms. Cardinals Ratzinger and Shonborn wrote an excellent little book, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which they deal with that. As such, I believe the CCC is a wonderful piece of work, and I refer to it often. In most cases it also happily avoids Eastern vs. Western theological terminology and stays very close to the language of the Scriptures. It also does a very good job at pointing out divergences in practice and terminology between East and West when such divergences arise. Incidentally, the section of the CCC on prayer was written by a Melkite priest!

 

[Justice_Mercy]

The CCC is a universal catechism in that it is meant to be a springboard in the forming of local catechisms. Cardinals Ratzinger and Shonborn wrote an excellent little book, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which they deal with that. As such, I believe the CCC is a wonderful piece of work, and I refer to it often. In most cases it also happily avoids Eastern vs. Western theological terminology and stays very close to the language of the Scriptures. It also does a very good job at pointing out divergences in practice and terminology between East and West when such divergences arise. Incidentally, the section of the CCC on prayer was written by a Melkite priest!

I also think that the CCC is helpful for explaining Catholic teaching to non-Catholics. The numbers make it easy for anyone to find what you are talking about in the catechism. The fact that it is dived into 4 main parts is also a great design.

 

[twf]

The CCC is a universal catechism in that it is meant to be a springboard in the forming of local catechisms. Cardinals Ratzinger and Shonborn wrote an excellent little book, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which they deal with that. As such, I believe the CCC is a wonderful piece of work, and I refer to it often. In most cases it also happily avoids Eastern vs. Western theological terminology and stays very close to the language of the Scriptures. It also does a very good job at pointing out divergences in practice and terminology between East and West when such divergences arise. Incidentally, the section of the CCC on prayer was written by a Melkite priest!

I agree with this completely… and I have noticed numerous Eastern influences throughout the Catechism as well as a rich variety of quotes from Eastern Fathers. Why then have I seen it said multiple times on this board, by Eastern Catholics, that the CCC is a Latin text and has no place in the life of the Eastern Churches? Of course it isn’t going to serve the same purpose as a local catechism…

 

[Elizium23]

What about paragraph 1376, ‘transubstantiation’? Do the Eastern Churches accept the terminology of transubstantiation? I was under the impression that you preferred a Greek word for the same belief. What about the philosophical concept of ‘accidents’ - is this terminology widespread in the East as well?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Why then have I seen it said multiple times on this board, by Eastern Catholics, that the CCC is a Latin text and has no place in the life of the Eastern Churches? Of course it isn’t going to serve the same purpose as a local catechism…

Fundamentally the CCC is a Latin text. With the exception of the section on prayer it was written up by Latin bishops and theologians. The great thing about it is that there was (name removed by moderator)ut from the Church at large (including the East) before it was finalized and published. Incidentally, it was also originally written in French and then translated into Latin. The Latin was then made the standard text from which translations were to be made.

Catechisms have more of a peripheral role in the life of Eastern/Byzantine Christianity than they do in the West. Archbishop Joseph Raya told a story from his youth where his mother said that catechisms were for Latins and had no place in their home. She then borrowed the liturgical books from their parish so as to form him according to the Eastern traditions. This illustrates a great point. For Eastern/Byzantine Christians Liturgy is catechesis.

That being said, however, there are certainly Eastern catechisms. The Catechism of St. Peter Moghyla springs immediately to mind.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

That being said, however, there are certainly Eastern catechisms. The Catechism of St. Peter Moghyla springs immediately to mind.

An excellent referral!

I agree that the CCC is instructive to all Catholics. I recently gave copies of the Compendium of the CCC as a “graduation gift” to my 7th grade ECF (Eastern Christian Formation) class. As none of them really have any exposure to the Latin Church, it was appreciated by both pupil and parent alike.

 

[Byz_Guy]

I recently came across some older links on some Eastern Catholic commentaries of this subject.

As what is now called the Catechism of the Catholic Church was being developed, initial drafts were sent out for commentary to Catholic Bishops. The first document below is a commentary by the Eastern Catholic Bishops in America on an early draft of the Catechism, then called the Catechism of the Universal Church. I believe some of the concerns were taken into account in the final edition of the Catechism. The document is no longer online and can only be viewed at the Internet Archive.

web.archive.org/web/20070502034217/http://www.ecdd.org/index.php?pr=Response_to_Catechism

The second document was written by an Eastern Catholic priest after the initial publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992. It also is no longer online and only available through the Internet Archive.

web.archive.org/web/20050318030906/http://hometown.aol.com/michaelrahoza/catechism.html

 

[Cavaradossi]

I recently came across some older links on some Eastern Catholic commentaries of this subject.

As what is now called the Catechism of the Catholic Church was being developed, initial drafts were sent out for commentary to Catholic Bishops. The first document below is a commentary by the Eastern Catholic Bishops in America on an early draft of the Catechism, then called the Catechism of the Universal Church. I believe some of the concerns were taken into account in the final edition of the Catechism. The document is no longer online and can only be viewed at the Internet Archive.

web.archive.org/web/20070502034217/http://www.ecdd.org/index.php?pr=Response_to_Catechism

The second document was written by an Eastern Catholic priest after the initial publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992. It also is no longer online and only available through the Internet Archive.

web.archive.org/web/20050318030906/http://hometown.aol.com/michaelrahoza/catechism.html

That first link is quite fascinating. It is interesting to see how differently the Eastern Catholic bishops viewed certain topics (especially of ecclesiology) from what that particular draft of the catechism expressed.

 

[Byz_Guy]

That first link is quite fascinating. It is interesting to see how differently the Eastern Catholic bishops viewed certain topics (especially of ecclesiology) from what that particular draft of the catechism expressed.

Yes, very interesting. It basically emphasizes a eucharistic ecclesiology as the authentic Eastern approach.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, very interesting. It basically emphasizes a eucharistic ecclesiology as the authentic Eastern approach.

Yes, and I was unaware that the Eastern Catholic clergy held to this sort of ecclesiology. It is a cause for optimism.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yes, and I was unaware that the Eastern Catholic clergy held to this sort of ecclesiology. It is a cause for optimism.

It is good to hear you say that - don’t count us out just yet!

 

[Byz_Guy]

Yes, and I was unaware that the Eastern Catholic clergy held to this sort of ecclesiology. It is a cause for optimism.

Not just clergy, but bishops!

 

[Byz_Guy]

An example:

The Local Church as Universal

Towards the end of the apostolic age, the term Catholic Church was being used to describe the fellowship of believers. A Catholic Church was seen as one which lived in unity with God and the other Churches through sacramental communion, preserving and proclaiming the totality of the Christian life as handed down from the apostles. Catholicity or universality was thus the mark of authenticity: a community which experienced the fulness of what the Church was meant to be.

The heart of an authentic – and, therefore, universal – Church was seen to be realized through the Eucharist. It is here, in answer to Christ’s prayer, that “the Father in Christ and Christ in us cause us to be one in them” (St Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 8:14). The Divine Liturgy was seen as “the celebrated marriage by which the most holy Bridegroom espouses the Church as His Bride. … [for] by this Mystery alone we become ‘flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone’” (Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, 7,1).

Since this deep union in Christ, the goal of Christian life, comes about through the Eucharist, it is the Eucharist which makes present the Church, causing it to be as Christ had willed it: a Body united to and in Him. “If we could see the Church of Christ, we would see nothing other than the body of the Lord, insofar as it is united to Him and shares in His sacred body” (Cabasilas, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 36).

Because they saw the Eucharist as that which constitutes the Church, the early Fathers, especially in the East, considered Christ’s presence within the local community as complete. They saw the Church as primarily sacramental and therefore as locally integral, rather than as a geographically universal entity of which local communities are only parts. “Wherever Jesus Christ is,” writes Ignatius of Antioch, speaking of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the local community, “there is the Catholic (i.e. integral, or universal) Church” (Epistle to the Smymeans).

In the same way, depicting the Church by the figure of a ship, the Clementine Homilies represent Christ as the Pilot of the ship, the bishop as the look-out, the presbyters as the crew, the deacons as the leading oarsmen, the catechists as the stewards. The local Church had Christ for its Head, the local Church was the Body of Christ, who was no less present to it as to any other Church. The local bishop was His vicar, “For Jesus Christ – the Life which cannot be taken from us – is the image of the Father, and the bishops appointed over the whole world are in the image of Jesus Christ” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 3).

 

[Byz_Guy]

Continued:

The Holy Churches of God

While they saw Christ and the Church as fully present in the local Eucharistic community, the early Christians knew that this one reality did not exhaust all the dimensions of Christ’s Body. Beyond the local Church was the fellowship of Churches; beyond that the communion of saints, beyond that the Future Age when all would be one in the Lord Come Again. As the mystical Body of Christ was seen to inhere totally and completely in each individual Eucharistic particle, so too each local Church was the complete Catholic Church. Nevertheless, as the ultimate sign of Eucharistic unity in a local Church was the single Loaf and Cup, so too the communion of local Churches realized the fulness of Christ’s design for His followers. And so the realities of local Catholic/Universal Churches and the communion of Catholic/Universal Churches were complementary, not conflicting, as both are images and foretastes of the kingdom to come.

The unity between the Churches was envisioned on the level of their common faith, rather than centrality of administration. “The Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain or in Gaul, or in the East or in Egypt or Libya” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 10,2). Unlike the Jews, whose principle of unity was exterior (racial and national), the unity of the new people of God was of the Spirit.

As Christians sought to express their faith in the various aspects of life in Christ, certain definite trends began to emerge. Local Churches strong in cultural and historical significance began to crystallize their particular ways of expressing the Gospel. Less prestigious communities looked for inspiration to these Churches – especially to the Apostolic Sees – and imitated their practices. Thus distinct families of Churches began to form around these principal Churches, a pattern which would be recognized at the first ecumenical council.

Despite the establishment of these families, each local Church continued to direct its own life. This was not simply due to limited communications or restricted travel. Throughout this period the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians had established and maintained powerful and highly centralized networks of authority under the same handicaps of time and space. Rather, the early Christians, especially in the East, saw the Church as fully present in each given community of bishop, presbyters, deacons and people. They found the Church’s true nature as body of Christ made present in the Eucharist by which they came together as a local Church.

Even as the local Churches in the East underwent a measure of standardization under the patriarchal system, they retained a strong feel for the integrity of the local Church. Patriarchal government was chiefly synodal, conciliar, relating the Churches to one another fraternally, preserving the completeness of each one. Those further structures (Eg metropolias, patriarchates, ecumenical councils) came into being in the course of history - not to suppress or control the local Church, but to bolster it in the knowledge that it was living in the “sure charism of truth”. The inner unity of the new people of God did not lessen the uniqueness of each community. Thus to this day the Byzantine fellowship of Churches continually prays “for the well-being of the holy Churches of God” (Great Ektene, third petition).

At the same time, all the Churches consistently acknowledged the primacy of the Church and Pope of Rome. The same Eastern Churches which upheld the completeness of the local Church often appealed to the chief hierarch of the First Church when the need arose. But as they recognized his position, he too recognized their integrity and completeness.