O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
When it comes to Mysteries, Latin Church mainly defined things because when someone thought there was contradiction in the Faith, Church didn’t say “well it’s a mystery” but actually worked towards providing satisfactory answer.
You see, historically West had much more time for academics and studying theory than East which was persecuted and under Muslims. East was more about practice, West about theory. Fun part is that when West was persecuted and East was flourishing through Eastern Roman Empire, it was opposite. East defined stuff while West didn’t.
Apparently parents who use reason with their kids and don’t just say “because I said so” tend to raise kids better at math. So for some sceptical types such as me, defining things is pretty helpful.
But if defined properly within context of God’s mercy, I don’t think it necessarily leads to people being unaware of God’s mercy. Key is however that God rules with both justice and mercy, so blindly following either is going to leave the other unaccounted for. Latin Church may define bare minimum for fasting but always provides definition where if there are good reasons to break it, it is alright.
With how Western Church operates along multiple cultures through same law and theology, definitions are necessary because each culture could be interpreting things their way and that may even lead to wrong assumptions. East doesn’t have this problem yet because while Eastern Churches are truly global in nature, they are not yet so widespread that they need to accommodate every culture. In fact, people who come to Eastern Churches do not want them to accomodate to their culture, they just want to be Eastern Catholics. So East in way it operates does not take culture of each parish or diocese into account but West does try to make itself multi-cultural. It’s a difference in this approach that breeds strict/unclear definitions.
And that doesn’t mean either side is wrong, just different.
You see, historically West had much more time for academics and studying theory than East which was persecuted and under Muslims. East was more about practice, West about theory. Fun part is that when West was persecuted and East was flourishing through Eastern Roman Empire, it was opposite. East defined stuff while West didn’t.
Apparently parents who use reason with their kids and don’t just say “because I said so” tend to raise kids better at math. So for some sceptical types such as me, defining things is pretty helpful.
But if defined properly within context of God’s mercy, I don’t think it necessarily leads to people being unaware of God’s mercy. Key is however that God rules with both justice and mercy, so blindly following either is going to leave the other unaccounted for. Latin Church may define bare minimum for fasting but always provides definition where if there are good reasons to break it, it is alright.
With how Western Church operates along multiple cultures through same law and theology, definitions are necessary because each culture could be interpreting things their way and that may even lead to wrong assumptions. East doesn’t have this problem yet because while Eastern Churches are truly global in nature, they are not yet so widespread that they need to accommodate every culture. In fact, people who come to Eastern Churches do not want them to accomodate to their culture, they just want to be Eastern Catholics. So East in way it operates does not take culture of each parish or diocese into account but West does try to make itself multi-cultural. It’s a difference in this approach that breeds strict/unclear definitions.
And that doesn’t mean either side is wrong, just different.
Last edited:
