Do Eastern Catholics need to be taught Latin theology?

[East_and_West]

Did Jesus speak old Slavonic?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Aramaic, people, Aramaic…

He spoke Aramaic, there are a few Eastern Christians in Iraq and Syria who still speak it.

 

[Hesychios]

Michael and Al, my beloved brothers and friends,

Christos Razdajetsja!
Slavite Jeho!

Al, I think Michael was being facetious regarding the seemingly endless course of instruction being directed here of late at such as you and me by several Latins…

Essentially so Neil, thanks. I might also note that my post was not intended to be the start of this thread when written, and needs to be seen in the context of the thread it was pulled from.

I am actually in agreement with what Al has written here.

The irony is that an Eastern Catholic is expected to accept ALL Latin theological ideas, whether they know them or not…whether they understand them or not. (So too, presumably, an Orthodox convert.)

Does anyone here expect Latin Catholics to do the same with regard to Byzantine theology?

Not in 1000 years! Often we find the most Traditionalist among them come through here with both guns a-blazin’ attacking what they presume to be Orthodox errors in theology, but are in fact what Byzantine Catholics (Ruthenian Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Russian Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics and others) have always believed. They are, as my friend Al has stated, cafeteria Catholics themselves.

What is so troubling to me in this regard is the casual way people toss about that an Orthodox Cristian just can walk right in and be a Catholic, with just “a profession of Faith” or sometimes simply through confession. Then perchance they come on this board and be excoriated for not believing in Purgatory… Indulgences… Universal Papal Jurisdiction…

Opening themselves up to the same criticism an entire church, the Melkite church, has been exposed to. Not only on this board, but even in some esteemed locations like EWTN.

Christian unity (once achieved, in some fashion) will not last if it is taken in such a way, it respects no one and can only open us up to more damage and pain.
*
Michael*

 

[kitkatty]

Hesychios, youre statement about the Melkite Church being exposed to criticism on EWTN has me curious. The few times I hear Eastern Catholics mentioned on EWTN I havent ever heard anything I think critical or disrespectful. What did they say?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

jesus did he speak in Latin?

I believe an argument could be made that He could… His conversations with Roman soldiers come to mind.

Then again, being a Divine person, I am pretty confident he can and could speak every language!

 

[planter654]

I believe an argument could be made that He could… His conversations with Roman soldiers come to mind.

Then again, being a Divine person, I am pretty confident he can and could speak every language!

Yes also Jesus spoke to Saul or is now Paul it says in his native Hebrew tonque. I forgot that.

Thanks

 

[Aramis]

jesus did he speak in Latin?

I suspect he could. It was the language of the Roman Army and Administration.

 

[Alexius]

Christos Razdajetsja!
Slavite Jeho!

Hello,

I was thinking about the complaint that the Vatican I decrees on the Papacy and Purgatory and others are too Latin and thus can’t be accepted by the Eastern Churches. And also, that it was an evil of latinization (that tiresome word is like the religious version of crying wolf!) to try and make the East accept such doctrines.

Well, aside from the word Purgatory, the official definition:

1. There is a state/place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

How is that too Latin?

Also, even if such doctrines are built on Latin theology - they are decreed binding on the Universal Church by virtue of their being defined at an Ecumenical Council. Their are Universal beliefs that are built on Eastern theology - for instance the Hypostatic Union. Yet, the Latin Church doesn’t cry byzantinzaiton!!!

The Church is Universal and sometimes builds its Universal beliefs on theology from a particular region. That shouldn’t be a bone of contention between members of Christ’s Church.

Perhaps the openness of a doctrine like Purgatory is one thing, but what of indulgences, the Treasury of Merits and the Filioque among many other Latin doctrines? It seems alot of these doctrines are rightfully absent from Eastern Catholic theology. If one looks at other issues like the canonization of saints, the Pope reserved that right to himself in the 13th or 14th century. Before that, it was an open issue. I find it odd that Eastern Catholics are told they must accept the Filioque as legitimate, but are allowed to keep it out of the creed…?

Essentially so Neil, thanks. I might also note that my post was not intended to be the start of this thread when written, and needs to be seen in the context of the thread it was pulled from.

I am actually in agreement with what Al has written here.

The irony is that an Eastern Catholic is expected to accept ALL Latin theological ideas, whether they know them or not…whether they understand them or not. (So too, presumably, an Orthodox convert.)

Does anyone here expect Latin Catholics to do the same with regard to Byzantine theology?

Not in 1000 years! Often we find the most Traditionalist among them come through here with both guns a-blazin’ attacking what they presume to be Orthodox errors in theology, but are in fact what Byzantine Catholics (Ruthenian Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Russian Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics and others) have always believed. They are, as my friend Al has stated, cafeteria Catholics themselves.

What is so troubling to me in this regard is the casual way people toss about that an Orthodox Cristian just can walk right in and be a Catholic, with just “a profession of Faith” or sometimes simply through confession. Then perchance they come on this board and be excoriated for not believing in Purgatory… Indulgences… Universal Papal Jurisdiction…

Opening themselves up to the same criticism an entire church, the Melkite church, has been exposed to. Not only on this board, but even in some esteemed locations like EWTN.

Christian unity (once achieved, in some fashion) will not last if it is taken in such a way, it respects no one and can only open us up to more damage and pain.
*
Michael*

I agree…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I can agree with the above post and along those lines I say first we be taught we are one UNIVERSAL Church and be catechised from the start in our own respective Church sui iuris together with the concept that we have different traditions and theological approaches within that universal church that express the same truths; then I think we maybe wouldn`t have so much of the East vs. West approach thing going on if Catholics learned from the beginining of their catechesis there are various legitimate traditions within the Universal Church without necessarily having to study them in detail. I think if all of our children and adult converts were catechised this way the emphasis would be put on Universal truths of the Church which are adhered to by all of Her members expressed differently but equally validly by Western, Eastern, Oriental Catholics rather than always seeing differences between the traditions in light of whose are more Catholic than the other. And yes, I think all Catholics have a basic obluigations to at least be aware of all traditions within the Church though as others have pointed there is no way any Eastern Catholic is unaware of Latin teaching.

No, the official definition is not too Latin as far as Im concerned and it acknowledges the fact the Church officially attempts to define this state in no more detail. To me a process, a transformation. The problem is some will pick on their own particular idea of this definition and further detail and define it , insisting that everyone go along with their own particular definition rather than just the the official definition of the Church. No these things shouldnt be bones of contention at all and wouldnt be if some wouldnt always insist the slant of their own particular theology is the only one to express a universal belief. I am including any of either tradition who look for differences not to help us understand the other traditions but to question their Catholicity.

Yup, my thoughts, too.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Does anyone here expect Latin Catholics to do the same with regard to Byzantine theology?

Yes, I do! As I have stated before all Catholics must accept as valid all expressions of Faith that the Universal Church acknowledges and accepts as true and valid - even if the individual doesn’t know all the theological expressions. This is essentially an act of the will and not of the intellect.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I believe an argument could be made that He could… His conversations with Roman soldiers come to mind.

Then again, being a Divine person, I am pretty confident he can and could speak every language!

It’s hard for me to imagine that the Great Babbler (Gen. 11:9) can’t understand all our babbling. How can He understand all our prayers if He can’t speak the language.

As for His humanity, it could be argued that He would have known four languages - Aramaic (everyday language), Greek (to relate to the Hellenic area of Galilee where He was raised and began His ministry), Hebrew (for reading the Torah), and Latin (the language of the legions and conquerors of the day).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Perhaps the openness of a doctrine like Purgatory is one thing, but what of indulgences, the Treasury of Merits and the Filioque among many other Latin doctrines? It seems alot of these doctrines are rightfully absent from Eastern Catholic theology. If one looks at other issues like the canonization of saints, the Pope reserved that right to himself in the 13th or 14th century. Before that, it was an open issue. I find it odd that Eastern Catholics are told they must accept the Filioque as legitimate, but are allowed to keep it out of the creed…?

These are topics for other threads - but suffice to say that I don’t find any of these incompatible with Eastern theology.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I wonder about much of this myself. What is true for one person is true for another. If a Western teaching is true, then both Western and Eastern Catholics should accept it. If an Eastern teaching is true, then both Eastern and Western Catholics should accept it. If there appears to be a contradiction between Eastern and Western teaching, then this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps it is simply a matter of misunderstanding, or perhaps one view is quite simply incorrect.

God bless!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I wonder about much of this myself. What is true for one person is true for another. If a Western teaching is true, then both Western and Eastern Catholics should accept it. If an Eastern teaching is true, then both Eastern and Western Catholics should accept it. If there appears to be a contradiction between Eastern and Western teaching, then this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps it is simply a matter of misunderstanding, or perhaps one view is quite simply incorrect.

God bless!

Behold the $64K question!

Turning the question around in the mileu of “What is the Eastern thinking…” More problematic and prone to semantics is what can and truly could or should be understood to “the Latin thinking” as thought it were exclusive to the West?

Worth chewing on is this: On a ship at see in a rainstorm at midnight, the world seems entirely dark and wet. Similarly, will always attempting to understand the entirety of our Eastern patrimony as Catholics from non-Catholic Eastern parties be always appropriate, useful and accurate?

There are babies. There is bathwater. In shedding Latinisations (a term so omnipresent in the vast cacophony of opinions presented to almost be rendered without meaning, to be sure!) it has been a blessing and joy to work with various Orthodox theologians and liturgical scholars.

(Interestingly, it works both ways, scholars in Rome at the Russicum have worked with and provided valuable and scholarly insight for the Russian Orthodox, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, studied in Rome himself.)

So yes, may crowning, statuary, paraliturgical devotions to the Sacred Heart, or focus on a particular schools of theology to the exclusion of Eastern schools all represent Latinization.

The question from there is this: Is the papacy as understood and offered by Rome just one more latinization?

I believe it is not and good arguments can be made that it is not.

 

[ebed_melech]

I think one distinction to make is between “Latin theology” and the Catholic magisterium, which encompasses both East and West. As an Eastern Catholic, it is incumbent upon me to be familiar with that which is explicitly affirmed by the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which includes matters liturgical. That said, it behooves both Eastern and Western Catholics to be familiar with Greek, Latin and Syrian streams of theology, while still respecting and celebrating their own distinctive tradition. All Catholics should breathe with both lungs, even if we sing our own unique tone in the symphony that is Catholicism!

In ICXC,

Gordo

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is a real conundrum here.

From what I have been reading, Eastern Catholics are supposed to accept Latin theological constructs as valid and equal to their own. They cannot challenge or refute them, or be cafeteria Catholics.

If you’re implying that they are inferior to those of Eastern Catholicism - please say so. Clarity is essential in this kind of discussion. Sincere rejection of the convictions of others is far better than an insincere appearance of accepting them. That’s what’s so refreshing about so many Calvinists - if they regard Catholics as godless heathens, they say so, & don’t pretend to accept doctrines they find utterly repellent. One knows where one stands with them So if you think that RC theology is useful only for flushing into the drain - say so That’s what so wonderful about so many Orthodox - they regard the Pope as Antichrist, so they match their words to their beliefs; again, they let people know exactly where they stand. Insincere people OTOH are impossible to talk to ​

How can they do this without knowing what these doctrines are?

How can they do this without being instructed that they accept all Latin theological constructs?

Doesn’t this leave Eastern Catholics open to attack that they are not good Catholics, such as we find here so often? Shouldn’t they have a properly detailed instruction in the Latin theology so they know to what they will be assenting? Why keep them ignorant?

Michael

[Moderator Note: This discussion on Eastern Catholics being taught Latin theology was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from them. Please http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208022”]see here for the original discussion on Orthodox in RCIA.]

This is something I’ve been banging on about ad nauseam ​

A possible answer:

So far, Eastern Catholics have been fully Catholics in Rome’s eyes even without giving to certain Roman dogmas the same status as Rome does: transub’ion does not - or does it ? - have, for you non-Roman Churches, the same exclusive status as it for us in the Roman Church. That has not stopped you being as genuinely & authentically Catholic as us Romans.

***If ***that is so - why should you be any less authentically Catholic for not “accept[ing] Latin theological constructs” as having the status as they have for us ? What you would *not *be at liberty to do, is to regard our doctrinal emphases as less valid than your own.

As for being “good Catholics” - isn’t being a good disciple of Christ far more important ?

I hope this goes some way to helping answer your - very important & painful - question.

When it comes - a Happy & Blessed Christmas to you

 

[planter654]

I wonder about much of this myself. What is true for one person is true for another. If a Western teaching is true, then both Western and Eastern Catholics should accept it. If an Eastern teaching is true, then both Eastern and Western Catholics should accept it. If there appears to be a contradiction between Eastern and Western teaching, then this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps it is simply a matter of misunderstanding, or perhaps one view is quite simply incorrect.

God bless!

God said…a house divided cannot stand. I ponder this for they are not “ONE”, don’t you think? for there is only “ONE” God

God Bless

 

[planter654]

God said…a house divided cannot stand. I ponder this for they are not “ONE”, don’t you think? for there is only “ONE” God

God Bless

So I ask myself do I belong to the Eastern Catholic or the Western Catholic Church…soooo confusing.

God Bless

 

[Hesychios]

If you’re implying that they are inferior to those of Eastern Catholicism - please say so. Clarity is essential in this kind of discussion. Sincere rejection of the convictions of others is far better than an insincere appearance of accepting them. That’s what’s so refreshing about so many Calvinists - if they regard Catholics as godless heathens, they say so, & don’t pretend to accept doctrines they find utterly repellent. One knows where one stands with them So if you think that RC theology is useful only for flushing into the drain - say so That’s what so wonderful about so many Orthodox - they regard the Pope as Antichrist, so they match their words to their beliefs; again, they let people know exactly where they stand.​

I suppose that you did not mean it in such a way, but I took some offense to this.

I don’t know anyone (Orthodox, I mean) who thinks of the Pope as anti-Christ, and I don’t think of the Pope as anti-Christ. You should not generalize.

There was a fellow who was a Protestant most of his life, became a Catholic and then Orthodox who was posting here for a while. He swore off both Catholicism and Orthodoxy together, and continued to lurk a bit apparently. He became very disillusioned (especially about the CAF recently…for some reason) and posted some things in a fit of indignation, but I know it was just the heat of the moment. How do you classify such a person? He did not learn about the Pope from Orthodox.

About Latin theological constructs…they are not mine…I don’t need to flush anything. The forum and thread is about Eastern Catholics, they are the one’s who need to deal with it.

If anything, you know where Orthodox stand on the subject of the additional doctrines.

When it comes - a Happy & Blessed Christmas to you

Thank you for that

 

[Ridgerunner]

I haven’t read every post, so maybe this has already been said.

I think there really does need to be a re-emphasis on catechesis. I think it behooves Latins to learn about both Latin and Eastern Catholic theology, and vice versa.