Do Eastern Catholics need to be taught Latin theology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hesychios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hesychios

Guest
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.

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

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.]
 
Hesychios said:
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.

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

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*
Click to expand...
Greek Catholics need properly detailed Latin theology instruction?? Huh?

More than a few Latins could use that, I digress.

I am trying to see where you are going with this, and to be charitable and sensible in response. To be sure that is a provacative assertion!

Is this sarcasm?
 
Michael, my long-time brother,

Christos Razdajetsja!
Slavite Jeho!

Long time, no see! Hope all is well! 🙂

Couldn’t/shouldn’t your question be flip-flopped the other way around as well, with regard to Latins learning Eastern theological constructs? To suggest this as being a one-way street serves to (falsely!) emphasize the Latin Church’s role as the “yardstick” by which Catholicism is to be measured. Of course, we know it is not, but I don’t deny that the misperception exists. Why perpetuate it?

If, indeed, Latin Catholics are in full communion with other Churches (read: the Eastern Catholic Churches), does not their own ignorence of Eastern theological constructs, which they, too, are bound to accept as valid and equal to their own, place them in the same “cafeteria,” along with the same inherent risk of being labeled bad Catholics?

You mention as well that that we “find here so often” the labeling of Eastern Catholics as “not good Catholics.” My experience has been (at least on this forum) that the vast majority of this labeling that you speak of comes not from our own Latin Catholic brethren, but from others outside of the Catholic communion who seem either unable or unwilling to accept that our Catholic communion can, indeed, exist!

Prayers, Michael, that you enjoy a blessed Nativity Season, and that Our Lord’s peace will be with you throughout the coming year! I truly hope to see you sometime during this new year!
 
a_pilgrim said:
Michael, my long-time brother,

Christos Razdajetsja!
Slavite Jeho!

Couldn’t/shouldn’t your question be flip-flopped the other way around as well, with regard to Latins learning Eastern theological constructs?..
Click to expand...
AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaMEN! 👍 👍

Al, you have hit the nail on the head here. We Easterns are VERY, very aware of Latin Catholic teaching and praxis. Ignorance is definitely the shoe on the other foot. It is one of the reasons why I set up my website with the “2 Lungs Links”:

www.catholicchurchgeek.com

It is also a specific request of Pope John Paul the Great in his apostolic letter, Orientale Lumen.

In ICXC,

Gordo
 
The situation is further complicated by the fact that many of the concepts that are referred to as “Latin theological constructs” have been made dogma by the Church. For example:
“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world; or that he has only the principle share, but not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these, let him be anathema.” (First Vatican Council)
With such an anathema proclaimed on those who do not hold such “Latin theological constructs” (which we refer to as dogmas) it seems that all Catholics, Eastern or Western must asent to these ideas or suffer loss of communion with the Church. Yet many (not all) Eastern Catholics deny that such teachings are necessary for them. So should they be taught these dogmas?
 
W
ith such an anathema proclaimed on those who do not hold such “Latin theological constructs” (which we refer to as dogmas) it seems that all Catholics, Eastern or Western must asent to these ideas or suffer loss of communion with the Church. Yet many (not all) Eastern Catholics deny that such teachings are necessary for them. So should they be taught these dogmas?
Click to expand...
And here is the crux of it. According to this interpretation, the Orthodox who say that Eastern Catholics are nothing more than Roman Catholics really are right.

Thank God this is not the Melkite position.
 
LakaYaRabb said:
W

And here is the crux of it. According to this interpretation, the Orthodox who say that Eastern Catholics are nothing more than Roman Catholics really are right.

Thank God this is not the Melkite position.
Click to expand...
So what are we to do? Have contradicting faiths?
 
East_and_West said:
So what are we to do? Have contradicting faiths?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that. I feel that Eastern theology has been hugely ignored here in the West. What I think should happen is to have a council between the East and the West within the Catholic Church where both sides evaluate their theologies and come up with a solution for each doctrine. For example, concerning the Dormition of our Lady, East and West can combine both the East’s view on the Dormition with the West’s view on our Lady’s acsension into Heaven. The same can be applied towards the Eucharist. Both theologies reflect the same Truth, but one theology is being grossly ignored for no reason.
 
Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Please do not take this as being an attempt to stir up controversy or begin an argument. It just seems that sometimes things seem one sided.
Do we consider different emphasis or a different understanding as being incorrect? Or do we consider Latin interpretation and emphasis as being the only true course to follow?

Example interpretation of Original sin, or if you wish when does the bread and wine at the altar become the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

When we talk of Eastern Catholics need to be taught Latin theology, I would begin on a much more basic level with this question. What percentage of Latin Catholics have attended an Eastern Divine Liturgy as compared to the percentage of Eastern Catholics who have attended a Western Mass?

If this is too argumentative please feel free to delete.

Yours in Christ,

Father Deacon Paul
 
<<“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, . . . or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over . . . all the faithful, and over each individual one of these, let him be anathema.”>>

Frankly, the possibility of receiving a letter from Pope Benedict saying, “Basil, you are to do such and such or refrain from doing so and so” is infintessimal.

If he were to tell me to do something, health and ability permitting, I would.

OTOH, if he were to tell me to stop taking my medicines, I would have to respectfully decline.

But as a practical matter, has any pope been into such micromanagement?
 
Hello,

I think it is imperative that every Catholic do two things in relation to this thread:
  1. believe in the essential beliefs of the Universal Church
  2. accept that those viewpoints of other particular Churches as being valid (presupposing that those viewpoints have been acknowledged as valid by the Universal Church).
The Universal Church is neither exclusively Latin nor Greek. The Universal Church has certain beliefs that must be held by all (i.e., Jesus is God, Trinity, etc.). These beliefs must be believed by all the faithful, even if they don’t know them or understand them.

Also, each person must accept as valid the viewpoints of the various particular Churches. Thus a Latin Catholic must accept that the Eastern viewpoints are valid and the Eastern Catholics must accept that the Latin viewpoints are valid. This is essentially an act of the will and doesn’t require everyone to be fully catechized in all the different viewpoints (though that would be laudable if a person had the ability to do that). This presupposes that the viewpoint is acknowledged as valid by the Universal Church (which is not just the Latin Church, FYI).
 
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.
 
bpbasilphx said:
<<“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, . . . or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over . . . all the faithful, and over each individual one of these, let him be anathema.”>>

Frankly, the possibility of receiving a letter from Pope Benedict saying, “Basil, you are to do such and such or refrain from doing so and so” is infintessimal.

If he were to tell me to do something, health and ability permitting, I would.

OTOH, if he were to tell me to stop taking my medicines, I would have to respectfully decline.

But as a practical matter, has any pope been into such micromanagement?
Click to expand...
Your profile says you are Orthodox (Capital O.) I’m confused.:confused:
 
Hesychios said:
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.

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

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?
Click to expand...
a_pilgrim said:
Couldn’t/shouldn’t your question be flip-flopped the other way around as well, with regard to Latins learning Eastern theological constructs? To suggest this as being a one-way street serves to (falsely!) emphasize the Latin Church’s role as the “yardstick” by which Catholicism is to be measured. Of course, we know it is not, but I don’t deny that the misperception exists. Why perpetuate it?

If, indeed, Latin Catholics are in full communion with other Churches (read: the Eastern Catholic Churches), does not their own ignorence of Eastern theological constructs, which they, too, are bound to accept as valid and equal to their own, place them in the same “cafeteria,” along with the same inherent risk of being labeled bad Catholics?

You mention as well that that we “find here so often” the labeling of Eastern Catholics as “not good Catholics.” My experience has been (at least on this forum) that the vast majority of this labeling that you speak of comes not from our own Latin Catholic brethren, but from others outside of the Catholic communion who seem either unable or unwilling to accept that our Catholic communion can, indeed, exist!
Click to expand...
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 (I would ordinarily term them brethren, but from the tenor of their remarks, I rather fear that they’d bristle at such 🤷 ).

The thrust of the posts in question appears to be that we of the Eastern persuasion (most especially those of my particular ilk) are just shy of meriting an anathema for our seeming unwillingness to adopt, wholesale, Latin theology, spirituality, and devotions, as being - if not a substitute for - certainly an adjunct to anything we may have lugged into our Catholicism from the heretical world of Orthodoxy.

I do believe that I sense a willingness to allow us to maintain our praxis, just that whatever spiritual underpinnings there may be to it, should be set aside in favor of those that our Latin brothers are willing to have us adopt - that we may be saved.

Ah, the magniminity!

I trust all is well with the both of you and my prayers for you both in this holy season, that the new year will be both healthy and prosporous, that God grant you both many years, and that - before many more years pass - we three have the opportunity to stand on North Michigan and embrace - one of my fondest hopes.

Neil
 
JMJ_coder said:
Hello,

I think it is imperative that every Catholic do two things in relation to this thread:
  1. believe in the essential beliefs of the Universal Church
  2. accept that those viewpoints of other particular Churches as being valid (presupposing that those viewpoints have been acknowledged as valid by the Universal Church).
The Universal Church is neither exclusively Latin nor Greek. The Universal Church has certain beliefs that must be held by all (i.e., Jesus is God, Trinity, etc.). These beliefs must be believed by all the faithful, even if they don’t know them or understand them.

Also, each person must accept as valid the viewpoints of the various particular Churches. Thus a Latin Catholic must accept that the Eastern viewpoints are valid and the Eastern Catholics must accept that the Latin viewpoints are valid. This is essentially an act of the will and doesn’t require everyone to be fully catechized in all the different viewpoints (though that would be laudable if a person had the ability to do that). This presupposes that the viewpoint is acknowledged as valid by the Universal Church (which is not just the Latin Church, FYI).
Click to expand...
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.
 
kitkatty said:
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.
Click to expand...
jesus did he speak in Latin?
 
JMJ_coder said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I am serious when I ask if Jesus spoken Latin? If God says his foolishness is GREATER THAN OUR WIDOM now I am really confused! If Jesus was Hebrew should we not learn Hebrew instead of Latin or say the mass in Hebrew? I am not being disrespectful, but ask why is it important for Eastern Catholics to be taught Latin theology?

God Bless…little child of God. Moses did speak latin, nor Abraham, nor the apostles etc etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top