East and West

[East_and_West]

Hey all. I spent approximately a year attending a Ruthenian Catholic Parish. Through this experience, I have been affected in the following ways:

1. The Eastern Emphasis on Theosis has really unlocked the riches of theology.
   2, I greatly appreciate the Eastern approach to the mystery of God.
2. I am still a huge fan of the Divine Liturity of St. John Crysostem;
3. I have an icon corner that I pray before and even a little icon of Christ the Teacher by my computer in my classroom.
4. I would like to start praying the Jesus Prayer with the corresponding prayer rope. There is a beautiful one here at a Catholic book store here in New Mexico that has the cross of Jerusalem on it.
5. Although I believe to deny the substance of the teaching of the Filioque is a grave error, the Eastern view of the Trinity has helped me to understand that the concept of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and [through] the Son are theologically compatible ideas.

Now there are some issues I take with many in the “de-latinization” camp who go way too far but that does not destroy my love for what I have experienced.
That being said, as a Latin Catholic I still really appreciate

1. Scholasticism
2. The strong adhereance of the West to all Catholic Dogmas
3. The Rosary
4. The NO mass celebrated properly,
5. The teaching of the Simplicity of God
6. The Beatific Vision.
7. Purgatory
8. The concept of original sin and the Immaculate Conception
   etc.
   Do you think that the mix of these things in one person’s life is a good thing or a bad thing? Should one be either totally western or totally eastern?

 

[wjp984]

I understand what you mean and have similar concerns being a Latinized Ruthenian Catholic. I like many things about my rite but also appreciate the Latin rite. From what I’ve been told I can have whatever private devotions I want East or West. I do not think I need to believe everything Eastern but I also don’t understand it very well since I was not catechized with an Eastern theology as I went to Roman Catholic school.

 

[East_and_West]

I understand what you mean and have similar concerns being a Latinized Ruthenian Catholic. I like many things about my rite but also appreciate the Latin rite. From what I’ve been told I can have whatever private devotions I want East or West. I do not think I need to believe everything Eastern but I also don’t understand it very well since I was not catechized with an Eastern theology as I went to Roman Catholic school.

Interesting. I had not come across many Eastern Catholics who leaned more towards the western experience.

 

[wjp984]

When I was being catechized, my Ruthenian parish still had kneelers, stations of the cross, and confessionals, and I was not allowed to receive communion until I was in the 2nd grade. I actually received my first communion at my Roman Catholic school since it was the first week of May. I had to wait until the third week of May to receive my first Eastern communion.

I do not remember the catechism being much different between the two rites since I was always bored out of my mind since my Roman Catholic school was way more advanced than the level of catechism offered at my Ruthenian parish. This makes sense since religion was once a week at the Ruthenian parish and every day of the week at school. So if there were slight variations I probably was not paying attention and I put up a huge fit about already knowing everything being taught at the Ruthenian parish and therefore convinced my dad not to make me go. However, I did learn the difference between the Assumption and the Dormition because of the little Eastern catechism I had and I honestly can’t choose which one to believe since they both make sense.

 

[wynd]

However, I did learn the difference between the Assumption and the Dormition because of the little Eastern catechism I had and I honestly can’t choose which one to believe since they both make sense.

Why do you need to choose?

 

[East_and_West]

I think the Dormition and the Assumption are the same teaching.

 

[wynd]

I think the Dormition and the Assumption are the same teaching.

Not quite. The Dormition is the belief that the Mother of God died. The Assumption is the belief that she was assumed into heaven (three days after her death according to the East, after “having completed the course of her earthly life” according to the West). So, depending on which tradition you come from, the Dormition can be seen as superfluous or even false, but that doesn’t make them the same thing.

 

[East_and_West]

Not quite. The Dormition is the belief that the Mother of God died. The Assumption is the belief that she was assumed into heaven (three days after her death according to the East, after “having completed the course of her earthly life” according to the West). So, depending on which tradition you come from, the Dormition can be seen as superfluous or even false, but that doesn’t make them the same thing.

Actually, the latin view does not rule out the possibility that she died. In fact, quite a few latins i have spoken with believe that she died and then was assumed.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Liturgical texts of the Post-festal period after the Dormition (starting aroudn 17 August, I think) refer to Our Lady’s bodily assumption.

The East, even the Orthodox, don’t deny her body was taken to heaven and reunited with her soul, where she lives totally in the Age to Come.

 

[wynd]

Actually, the latin view does not rule out the possibility that she died. In fact, quite a few latins i have spoken with believe that she died and then was assumed.

I guess it depends who you talk to. The document Munificentissimus Deus makes reference to her death several times, but the portion that is most often cited as the essential infallible “kernel” of the bull is worded in such a way that it can be interpreted as leaving open either possibility. That said, I’ve been told by several Latin Catholic priests that the RCC teaches that she did not die before being assumed.

 

[Ghosty]

I guess it depends who you talk to. The document Munificentissimus Deus makes reference to her death several times, but the portion that is most often cited as the essential infallible “kernel” of the bull is worded in such a way that it can be interpreted as leaving open either possibility. That said, I’ve been told by several Latin Catholic priests that the RCC teaches that she did not die before being assumed.

Then those priests don’t know their stuff, IMO. I’ve not heard of any belief in her not dying until after the declaration of the Dogma, and then it became an “open question” simply because the historical fact of her death wasn’t mentioned in the “definitive” portion of the text, despite it being referred to numerous times in the rest of the text. Then it became “acceptable” to question a historical fact with witnesses just because it wasn’t defined by the Pope; even the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, published only a few decades before the declaration of the Dogma, makes no mention whatsoever of any question regarding her death, and simply states it as a given.

If there are any accounts or arguments prior to the Dogmatification of her Assumption, I’ve not heard them though I’d like to in order to put this particular bugaboo to rest. I confess that it really bothers me to think that Catholics would drop a two-thousand year old accepted fact and tradition, not because it was defined against, or even because it wasn’t taught by the Popes, but because it wasn’t mentioned in a specific part of one Pope’s letter, while it’s discussed elsewhere in the same letter. That’s without even going into the theological problems with her not dying.

Peace and God bless!

 

[wynd]

Then those priests don’t know their stuff, IMO. I’ve not heard of any belief in her not dying until after the declaration of the Dogma, and then it became an “open question” simply because the historical fact of her death wasn’t mentioned in the “definitive” portion of the text, despite it being referred to numerous times in the rest of the text. Then it became “acceptable” to question a historical fact with witnesses just because it wasn’t defined by the Pope; even the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, published only a few decades before the declaration of the Dogma, makes no mention whatsoever of any question regarding her death, and simply states it as a given.

If there are any accounts or arguments prior to the Dogmatification of her Assumption, I’ve not heard them though I’d like to in order to put this particular bugaboo to rest. I confess that it really bothers me to think that Catholics would drop a two-thousand year old accepted fact and tradition, not because it was defined against, or even because it wasn’t taught by the Popes, but because it wasn’t mentioned in a specific part of one Pope’s letter, while it’s discussed elsewhere in the same letter. That’s without even going into the theological problems with her not dying.

Peace and God bless!

You’ve got no argument from me, my friend. I agree with every word you said. Like I said, it depends who you talk to. I’m just relating my experience

 

[Ghosty]

You’ve got no argument from me, my friend. I agree with every word you said. Like I said, it depends who you talk to. I’m just relating my experience

I hear ya. Just venting over the topic a bit, not at you.

Peace and God bless!