Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[ASimpleSinner]

The central issue for using Syriac fathers for “proof” of the IC is to correlate the immaculate and stainless to the idea of sinless or inability to sin. The Syriac Fathers speak droves regarding the former, nothing regarding the latter.

And what are we then to make of this? This apparent silence…

Without rancor, polemic, prejudice or insult intended…

Well, it is worthy of consideration that the Syriac Fathers - however glorious and rich - were not a discrete and pristine tradition unto themselves that wholly encompass an ideal of being Catholic or Catholic faith. More plainly, they can be entirely orthodox (small “o”) but looking to them exclusively as THE soul legitimate source of theology based on one’s patrimony will never be catholic (small “c”).

Again this is not meant to offend or beguile. Analagous perhaps to the thinking I am seeing in demanding the presense of exact correlaries in a particular tradition to justify or find “kosher” the acceptance of traditions from without… Well I am left to think about how amazing and diverse the Franciscan or Carmelite multiple schools of theology are. They are wholly orthodox, but in and of themselves can never be catholic (again, small “c”). Our faith is entirely too big for any one expression to be not only pristine but utterly and totally complete.

It would be an odd thing for someone to assert that their allegiance or patrimony stemming from the work or attachment to one of the above Latin communities paved the way for them to be allowed to reject that which was NOT Franciscan or Carmelite or whichever. I find puzzling and odd the notions some (at least seem) to present that they are left free to reject or qualify their Catholic faith based on whether or not they can find convincing argument (based on their perceptions, no less!) from a singular distinctive school and era of thought (which their patrimony most strongly identifies) without reference to later developments or insights offered by the greater Body of Christ.

So as this discussion progresses, it is worth considering that hower orthodox and true a distinctive school of theology and thought from a distinctive era and place may be… Well I am not confident that gives the green light to measure all that has come later or from elsewhere based on its conformity to personal ideals of these ideas against personal standards of assessing them in the light of a personal litmus test for when the “pristine era” ended.

The Maronites, in particular, have been a living breathing entity that has born great fruit and demonstrated great fidelity and discipleship. The somewhat heady and academic (if not idealogical) measurements taken by some (it would seem here) to isolate their theology to a pristine period, as thought set in amber, of a singular time and place, against which later developments are allowed to be assessed… Well at best it seems presumptuous, at worst it seems like opportunity to be dissident, and somewhere in the middle it seems to give free reign to being an idealogue.

Inasmuch as so many would decry a prejucice in favor of exclusively understanding theology or speaking about in in terms of a patrimony of the wide Latin west, why is it the case that some (seem to) wish to reserve the right to interpret and understand the truths of the faith wholly in the light of whether it meets their assesment of the teachings from a group of fathers from a distinctive and particular era and area?

 

[anthony022071]

I don’t see where it says that she was conceived free of any sin. It mentions here being immaculate, which means pure.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

If she was sinless,as Ephrem says,then she was without original sin,which we have at conception.

 

[anthony022071]

[jimmy]

Exactly. There is not one mention of it in the Syriac fathers. The Syriac fathers, including Ephrem speak of her being cleansed when Christ was in the womb.

St Epiphanius says that Mary “was conceived the living heaven”.
How could he say that if he thought she was conceived in sin?

“O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens…This heaven is clearly much more divine and awesome than the first. Indeed he who created the sun in the first heaven would himself be born of this second heaven, as the Sun of Justice…She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God.” (Homily on the Nativity 2, 3, 9 PG 96:664,676)

 

[yeshua]

And what are we then to make of this? This apparent silence…

Without rancor, polemic, prejudice or insult intended…

Well, it is worthy of consideration that the Syriac Fathers - however glorious and rich - were not a discrete and pristine tradition unto themselves that wholly encompass an ideal of being Catholic or Catholic faith. More plainly, they can be entirely orthodox (small “o”) but looking to them exclusively as THE soul legitimate source of theology based on one’s patrimony will never be catholic (small “c”).

I have not stated that the Syriacs are the sole source of orthodox theology, nor have I implied such an arrogant stance. What I am defending is the abuses often placed on Syriac fathers in defense of theologies that they nor their inheritors believe or can incorporate into their theological understandings. The best a Syriac should only have to do is recognize the theological understanding within the context of another tradition and take heart of that tradition’s orthodoxy, whether it’s the Latin’s IC or the Byzantines Hesychasm. Taking out of context the fathers of the schools is as much as inappropriate in the Syriac tradition as it is in all of the other Catholic traditions.

Again this is not meant to offend or beguile. Analagous perhaps to the thinking I am seeing in demanding the presense of exact correlaries in a particular tradition to justify or find “kosher” the acceptance of traditions from without… Well I am left to think about how amazing and diverse the Franciscan or Carmelite multiple schools of theology are. They are wholly orthodox, but in and of themselves can never be catholic (again, small “c”). Our faith is entirely too big for any one expression to be not only pristine but utterly and totally complete.

I understand what you are saying, but again I refer you to what I stated above. I am not making judgment calls regarding he validity of the IC, but the implications it has for Syriac Christians. In the Latin construct it is wholly understandable, in the Syriac tradition it is not, this should not and does not denounce the position of either the Latin or the Syriac.

It would be an odd thing for someone to assert that their allegiance or patrimony stemming from the work or attachment to one of the above Latin communities paved the way for them to be allowed to reject that which was NOT Franciscan or Carmelite or whichever. I find puzzling and odd the notions some (at least seem) to present that they are left free to reject or qualify their Catholic faith based on whether or not they can find convincing argument (based on their perceptions, no less!) from a singular distinctive school and era of thought (which their patrimony most strongly identifies) without reference to later developments or insights offered by the greater Body of Christ.

I think the one fault in your analogy though is that the Franciscans and Carmelites are Latin orders who have developed under an umbrella school. The mainline traditions do not have this luxury and have submitted to much more geographical and cultural history. Thus the theological differences we have today make sense considering the stark contexts.

Also, I do not care for your implication about the classic “pick and choose” argument. I do not know what your premise of the “the Catholic faith” might be that I choose to reject or accept; I believe Mary is immaculate and pure, a special human being who was favored by God. This is in accordance to how I was raised and what I have been taught by my priests and Bishop in not only this country but my home.

To address the next part of your statement, I agree to a point. The Catholic Church offers a unique diversity of theologies that creates a community of Christians that truly represents a Universal Church that does not discriminate from peoples, traditions, or cultures. The theologies that developed, in some cases much more isolated from others, do have their individual differences and nuances. So no, it is not odd for a Syriac to simply be a Syriac, or a Latin to simply be a Latin, both having the comfortability to attend one another’s service, pray together, and both be witnesses to Christ in the individual ways they know to express their faith. I do not believe that either are under the obligation to know the difficult trouble it can be to wrap ones mind and heart around another’s theology and see it’s adaptation into their own; it is a hard process, and oftentimes this difficulty leads people, especially in the Byzantine tradition, to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. This is why I promote that instead of painstakingly adapting another theology into your own, with the risks like the abuses demonstrated in this thread, to make an effort to understand a particular person’s belief in that tradition’s context.

(continued)

 

[yeshua]

So as this discussion progresses, it is worth considering that hower orthodox and true a distinctive school of theology and thought from a distinctive era and place may be… Well I am not confident that gives the green light to measure all that has come later or from elsewhere based on its conformity to personal ideals of these ideas against personal standards of assessing them in the light of a personal litmus test for when the “pristine era” ended.

Again, I have not supported the arrogant notion of Syriac superiority, though I have defended my tradition from a development that occurred long after the tradition was flourishing. There is 1500 years of theology to deal with, one simply can’t quote our fathers and be done with it. As for the implications of these as my personal standards for theology and Catholicity, I think we both know that notion is quite far-fetched. Do Syriac Christians disagree with me? Some, just as much as there are plenty of Byzantines who disagree with your stances, Simple, though I would not nicely write off your beliefs as the personal idealism, so please do not do the same for me.

The Maronites, in particular, have been a living breathing entity that has born great fruit and demonstrated great fidelity and discipleship. The somewhat heady and academic (if not idealogical) measurements taken by some (it would seem here) to isolate their theology to a pristine period, as thought set in amber, of a singular time and place, against which later developments are allowed to be assessed… Well at best it seems presumptuous, at worst it seems like opportunity to be dissident, and somewhere in the middle it seems to give free reign to being an idealogue.

The casual reference to my motivations in finding the truth about my people’s history has really no bearing to this conversation. Nor has anyone, save an excellent post from Rony (whose great arguments I am waiting to hear back from a few priest friends of mine), further attempted to respond to what I have said, or presented counter arguments of theology or history. And if you would read what I have posted I am not isolating any period of Maronite history and claiming a pristine period, I am asking us to be honest about our history without saying there are retributions for the Maronite condition in the current present. I have not asked for exclusion in anything, just an open table. You see my efforts as presumptuous? You make values calls on my pursuit to help my people and imply me an ideologue where I do my my best to present the history, or the claims of history, and hope to see where the discussion goes. Perhaps your should stop with the personal inferences, sir, and look at the merits of my arguments, for all you have done in the preceding paragraph is offend and change the tone of the argument, not to mention the topic at hand.

Inasmuch as so many would decry a prejucice in favor of exclusively understanding theology or speaking about in in terms of a patrimony of the wide Latin west, why is it the case that some (seem to) wish to reserve the right to interpret and understand the truths of the faith wholly in the light of whether it meets their assesment of the teachings from a group of fathers from a distinctive and particular era and area?

Simple, I would encourage you to reread this discussion, for it is focused only the words of the Early Church Syriac Fathers, in fact, one of them. If we want to turn the tide of the conversation to Syriac Christians and other periods of history and their relationship to the IC, then so be it, I am all for more discussion! So please spare me the remarks about personal interpretation and idealistic assessment, for one’s Saint’s words is (or was) the bounds of our conversation which everyone was assenting too. Enough with the personal insults, please.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[anthony022071]

Here is part of the homily which I mentioned above by St. Jacob of Serug about Mary. Sorry but they are rather long. In the first part he spends several pages praising the beauty of Mary and how pure she is and that she is without any comparison.

She alone is humble, pure, limpid and without blemish,so that she was deemed worthy to be his mother and not another.He observed her, how exalted and pure from evil,nor stirs in her an impulse inclined to lust.And she allows no thought for luxury,nor worldly conversation which causes cruel harm.…………….She was most fair both in her nature and in her will,because she was not sullied with displeasing desires.…………….If there had been a spot in her soul or a defect,He would have sought for Himself another mother in whom there is no blemish.……………The beauty of Mary is beyond measure,because another who is greater than she has not arisen in all the world.Jacob of Serug On The Mother of God, p.23-27]

How could you miss the significance of the fact that Jacob is speaking about Mary in the time before the Annunciation?
If God observed that Mary was pure of evil and she had no impulse inclined to lust,if she was fair both in her nature and in her will,then that means she was already without original sin before the Annunciation.

 

[yeshua]

I don’t think this is an appropriate response to my words at all. I myself said that the Syriac Fathers can’t be used to directly support the IC. When the writings of the Syriac Fathers are used to imply that Mary was a sinner prior to the Annunciation, however, I think that is equally a twisting of Tradition.

Perhaps we are twisting conversations together. When you stated the “attack comment” I thought this was in reference to my words and not the conversation you and Jimmy are having. Bearing this in mind, I apologize for being so defensive.

It is one thing to defend the Syriac tradition and point out that it doesn’t make the claims others are asserting (and I have also said as much), it’s another to use the Syriac Fathers to say that Mary certainly wasn’t Immaculately Conceived (they are silent on the question), or imply that she was a sinner prior to the Annunciation.

It is true that Ephrem does not discuss the issue of Mary’s conception, but bearing in mind the sacramental theology and Syriac mysticism founded, it makes sense why the concept would not be something that Ephrem would need to address. So, yes, he is silent on the issue for there is nothing guiding him towards speaking on such a concept. Again, I do not know this reference to being a sinner prior to the Annunciation, nor do I personally believe it, so can we exclude that from our conversation?

I think you are placing far too much stock in the idea that Mary somehow has a different nature if she was conceived immaculately. By your reasoning, a Baptized person and an un-Baptized person have different human natures, since one is cleansed and the other is not. Is that what you believe? If not, then how can you claim that Mary being “Baptized from her conception” gives her a different nature? If so, then where do you find justification that there is a fundamental alteration of what it means to be human in Baptism?

But Mary was not baptized from her conception; from here mere existence she was preserved from the lack of sanctifying grace. This is an extraordinary human being, which though is comfortable in a Latin setting (as you demonstrate) it places Mary out of the paradigm that Ephrem and other church fathers speak God has set for her for Syriacs. This why Syriacs have the difficulty in incorporating it theologically.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[anthony022071]

Indeed, the Holy Spirit came to Mary,to let loose from her the former sentence of Eve and Adam.

 

[anthony022071]

Indeed, the Holy Spirit came to Mary,

 

[jimmy]

How could you miss the significance of the fact that Jacob is speaking about Mary in the time before the Annunciation?

That was my whole point of quoting that section of the homily. It is before the Annunciation and he praises her for her great purity and it sounds like he supports the IC doctrine but the fact is if you continue to read you see that he doesn’t. So I went on and posted a section from later in the homily which speaks of Mary being returned to the state of the pre-fall Eve at the Annunciation.

Saying that Mary is pure and humble and etc. is not the same as saying she was freed from OS at her conception and that she was in the state of Eve from her conception. St. Jacob says otherwise. Now maybe the Syriacs are wrong about Mary but it is a fact that their theology does not support the IC.

If God observed that Mary was pure of evil and she had no impulse inclined to lust,if she was fair both in her nature and in her will,then that means she was already without original sin before the Annunciation.

No it doesn’t. All it says is that she never willed to do evil. The state of original sin as defined in the west is a lack of Grace. St. jacob does not speak of Mary being filled with Grace from conception or that she never denied Grace. What it speaks of is the fact that Mary, of her own will, never committed any impure act and that she always followed the law. It later goes on to say that at the Annunciation she was returned to the state of Adam and Eve before the fall. This was because she humbly submitted to the will of God; ‘let it be done according to thy word.’

I think that you could find others in scripture that are given great honor by God like king David who was called God’s son. Or Moses. But these men were not free from OS.

 

[jimmy]

jimmy;3754000:

The angel addressed Mary as Full of Grace,or Perfectly Graced,a personal name. He does not re-name her,saying “You are Full of Grace”,as Christ re-named Peter,saying “You are Rock”,but simply says “Hail,Full of Grace”,as if that were her name already in heaven. And in scripture,a person’s name often tells something about the nature of the person. What is the substance of grace? The Holy Spirit. What does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit do to a person? It purifies his nature. Mary was already full of the Holy Spirit,perfect with the Holy Spirit,as Eve was before she sinned.

St. Jacob was not reading the Greek NT or the Latin so you might not see a vocative. He most likely went by the Peshitta version of the NT. You might be right but it might not be the way the Syriac peshitta has it.

 

[anthony022071]

That was my whole point of quoting that section of the homily. It is before the Annunciation and he praises her for her great purity and it sounds like he supports the IC doctrine but the fact is if you continue to read you see that he doesn’t.

 

[jimmy]

jimmy;3756030:

The words that Jacob used to describe Mary suggest her sinless nature prior to the Annunciation,whether or not that was his intention. She couldn’t have been “without blemish” unless she had been conceived that way. Original sin is a stain on human nature.

This is exactly why I brought up St. Ephrem being distorted by many westerners. You speak of OS beign a stain on the human nature but the fact is that that was not the view of the Syriacs. You are reading a western perspective back into the Syriac fathers.

Even this though is not consistent with the western perspective. The western perspective does not say it is a stain but that it is a lack of Original Justice or Holyness. Ultimately a lack of sanctifying grace. Without blemish does not indicate free from OS even according to the western tradition.

He says that she was pure of evil,not merely that she never willed to do evil. And anyway,if she never willed to do evil,then her human nature was intrinsically pure,because men naturally incline to evil from their early youth.

Actually most Catholic theologians say that we are inclined to the good, not toward evil. It is only that we are disordered so that we are blinded and we choose things that appear to be good but in reality are not.

Mary was given the law to follow. That in itself is a Grace. But according to Jacob she returned to the state of Eve at the Annunciation.

In that condition where Eve and Adam were placed,
before they sinned, He placed her and then descended in her.
That adoption of sons which our father Adam had,
He gave to Mary by the Holy Spirit, while dwelling in her.
​

Then her nature must have always been pure. She would not have been able to always will to obey the commandments unless she are born perfectly graced with the Holy Spirit. She must have been “called” from her conception because she was called in heaven Full of Grace.

But the angel called her Full of Grace before she submitted to the will of God.

Again, you are reading into the Syriacs what the modern west undestands of Grace. This is not the understanding which Jacob had.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Again, you are reading into the Syriacs what the modern west undestands of Grace. This is not the understanding which Jacob had.

Even we were to accept this interpretation of Jacobs writings, which could be seen as at odds with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, thankfully the Church, in her divine authority, has clearly spoken on this matter and corrected Doctors of the Church like Chrysostom and Aquinas had to say about the Blessed Virgin Mary sinlessness. Namely:

“in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Praise God

 

[anthony022071]

This is exactly why I brought up St. Ephrem being distorted by many westerners. You speak of OS beign a stain on the human nature but the fact is that that was not the view of the Syriacs. You are reading a western perspective back into the Syriac fathers.

 

[jimmy]

Ephrem and Jacob belonged to the Catholic Church,whose central teaching authority was Rome. So they must be read in light of the Church’s doctrines. Regional theological traditions don’t trump the defined doctrines of Rome.

That is nonsense, they should be read in the sense that they wrote. That is amazing that it doesn’t even matter whether the saints should be read as they wrote. And Jacob was a monophysite who were condemned in 536 at the council of Constantinople. They did not write as subjects of Rome, they wrote as faithful believers.

 

[anthony022071]

That is nonsense, they should be read in the sense that they wrote. That is amazing that it doesn’t even matter whether the saints should be read as they wrote. And Jacob was a monophysite who were condemned in 536 at the council of Constantinople. They did not write as subjects of Rome, they wrote as faithful believers.

They should be read in the sense that they meant,but since they belonged to the Catholic Church,whose reference point of orthodoxy was Rome,they should also be interpreted in light of the doctrines of the Church – just as the Hebrew scriptures are interpreted. Their theological perspectives don’t have authority equal to the doctrines of the popes and the councils ratified by the popes.

 

[jimmy]

They should be read in the sense that they meant,but since they belonged to the Catholic Church,whose reference point of orthodoxy was Rome,they should also be interpreted in light of the doctrines of the Church – just as the Hebrew scriptures are interpreted. Their theological perspectives don’t have authority equal to the doctrines of the popes and the councils ratified by the popes.

We are going to have to agree to disagree because I am not convinced of the ultramontanist position.

 

[Hesychios]

They should be read in the sense that they meant,but since they belonged to the Catholic Church,whose reference point of orthodoxy was Rome,they should also be interpreted in light of the doctrines of the Church – just as the Hebrew scriptures are interpreted. Their theological perspectives don’t have authority equal to the doctrines of the popes and the councils ratified by the popes.

This is the most astounding thing I have read here in a long time!

And in this place that is saying a lot.

Perhaps this is not your conscious intention, but you seem to be actually advocating and justifying theological-historical revisionism, “interpreting” what the ancient Syriac Fathers actually meant to support 21st century Latin theology, and you thereby are essentially dismissing the raison d’etre for even having a Syriac tradition in the church.

As a consequence, I believe you simultaneously undermine the “Two Lungs” rationale of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, and you reinforce a (sometimes asserted) Orthodox as well as Traditionalist Latin Catholic attitude toward the eastern churches as a merely liturgical variety.

You seem to be dismissing an entire ancient Apostolic spiritual tradition of the church to reinforce your own Latin viewpoint.

Michael

 

[East_and_West]

As a consequence, I believe you simultaneously undermine
You seem to be dismissing an entire ancient Apostolic spiritual tradition of the church to reinforce your own Latin viewpoint.

Michael

I don’t think he is concerned with forcing the “latin viewpoint” on everyone else. Rather, he is simply trying to reinforce the point that every Catholic is required to submitt to all the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic faith that are de fide statements.