Eastern Church teaching

[Ungcsertez]

[BTW, Christ has Ascended inGlory! (for those of us who are still catholic, calendarwise)
[/QUOTE]

Does not you RC diocese celebrate Ascension of Our Lord tomorrow (i.e. Sunday)?

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

U-C

 

[SVP]

[BTW, Christ has Ascended inGlory! (for those of us who are still catholic, calendarwise)

Does not you RC diocese celebrate Ascension of Our Lord tomorrow (i.e. Sunday)?

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

U-C
[/quote]

Who said I was RC?

 

[Ungcsertez]

Does not you RC diocese celebrate Ascension of Our Lord tomorrow (i.e. Sunday)?

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

U-C

Who said I was RC?

Just a hunch!

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

U-C

 

[SVP]

Who said I was RC?

Just a hunch!

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

U-C

Perhaps you should check profiles before trusting your hunches

 

[Ghosty]

What is your background, Ungcsertez? Would we be correct in assuming that you were born and raised Eastern Catholic, without even a stint elsewhere?

Peace and God bless!

 

[theistgal]

(BTW, Christ has Ascended inGlory! (for those of us who are still catholic, calendarwise)

Does not you RC diocese celebrate Ascension of Our Lord tomorrow (i.e. Sunday)?

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

U-C

Actually, U-C, perhaps you are confusing my husband with me. I am a Roman Catholic and SVP is a Byzantine Catholic. And I have occasionally posted under his username on our computer at home - by mistake, I assure you!

We were married in the Byzantine Catholic Church, and since then I have only attended RC churches a few times. You are right that in the RC diocese headed by Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the feast of the Ascension has been moved from Thursday to Sunday for “pastoral reasons”.

I do not like this action, and back when I was single and attended only RC churches, it was rather annoying, because from time to time I would take a long weekend to Phoenix, AZ to visit my family.

Therefore, when I went to Mass in L.A. on Thursday morning before leaving, it would not be the Mass of the Ascension, as they weren’t celebrating it till Sunday; and when I went to Mass in Phoenix on Sunday, it would also not be the Mass of the Ascension, as they had properly celebrated it on Thursday! So some years I’d just miss it altogether!

I really prefer the Eastern way of just celebrating every feast on its proper day, come h-e-double toothpicks or high water!

 

[Ungcsertez]

What is your background, Ungcsertez? Would we be correct in assuming that you were born and raised Eastern Catholic, without even a stint elsewhere?

Peace and God bless!

Yes, and yes, but I could be opting for Orthodoxy in the future.

X.B.! B.B.!

U-C

 

[East_and_West]

Is not Fr. Zuger a Roman Catholic by birth, and was incardinated into the Van Nuys Eparchy, no?

U-C

Yes he is Latin by birth but was ordained as a Ruthenian, not a Latin Priest.

 

[wjp984]

Your parish in New Mexico was one of the nicest Divine Liturgies I have been to and the people were really nice. It’s the only parish where I have seen a choir. I wish the Ruthenian parish near me had a choir. Maybe I would go more often then since I go to the Latin Rite church most of the time.

 

[East_and_West]

Your parish in New Mexico was one of the nicest Divine Liturgies I have been to and the people were really nice. It’s the only parish where I have seen a choir. I wish the Ruthenian parish near me had a choir. Maybe I would go more often then since I go to the Latin Rite church most of the time.

Why thank you. I think the clergy there is amazing and that a big reason for the success of the Church. I don’t really attend that parish anymore but I certainly have fond memories of it.

 

[natsclem]

Who told you a Mortal Sin does not exist? The tendency in the East is not make a hard and fast formal distinction between mortal and venial sins. Certainly there are greater and lesser sins. Your conscience should be a big help to your here, if the Law of God is written on your heart.

Ultimately, only God can judge the severity of your missteps, assuming that you have tripped up now and again , I know I have.

One should just go to confession at vespers before Divine Liturgy, every time if necessary. Confession is good medicine, especially if the priest knows us and can discern trends in our choices and behavior. We can work on those things and better ourselves, that’s what a spiritual director is for.

There have been Catechisms produced by Eastern Catholics for Eastern Catholics. I don’t know about the Maronites and Chaldeans but the Byzantines have produced a simple one in three short volumes (see Light for Life here and here). The UGCC is ready to release a new one, if they have not done so already, I have no info on it.

An older catechism by Father Casimir Kucharik (a UGCC priest) called “Our Faith” might be had in used book shops or on Ebay. Don’t look for the publisher Alleluia Press to have any because I got the very last one a few years ago .

The Divine Liturgy serves as a catechism, and in the Byzantine tradition (not sure of the others) it really works. One must follow the entire liturgical cycle but practically everything Byzantines believe is discernible in the Divine Liturgy and the Divine Praises.

Michael

Both Easterns or Westerns should subscribe to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for guidance in faith and morals.

There are are different ways of expressing the faith in the Sacraments and in administering justice among the members of the different rites but no two standards of faith and morality.

Otherwise…

 

[Formosus]

Nat, the whole point of the CCC was to be a base for local catechisms to be produced, so there is nothing wrong and its quite commendable to have Eastern churches (not rites) produce their own catechisms.

 

[natsclem]

There is actually a great deal of debate about these matters among Eastern Catholics. My former pastor, for example, is a Ruthenian Catholic priest. While he solidly holds to the Eastern Liturgical practices, spiritualities, and theological language, he believes that he is “Catholic first”. Thus, he firmly believes that all Catholics, including Eastern Catholics, are bound to believe in Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, the distinction between mortal and venial sin, etc. He believes that there is such a thing as an Eastern approach to these matters, but that no Catholic may reject them. On the other hand, you have many in the Eastern Catholic Churches who reject many of the above mentioned dogmas. They call them “Latin innovations” or, if accepted in the east, “Latinizations”. I presonally think that this second group is in grave error but they believe themselves to faithful to the Catholic Church and I certainly am in no place to judge the status of their relationship with God. I will have to simply disagree with them.

You know what? I am tired of hearing (rather, reading) the word Latinization. It seems to me…anything that the East cannot fathom is called Latinization or Latin innovation. What is quite clear is…the Roman Catholic Church is farther away ahead in theology. You know why? I guess…it is because it does not have prejudice—whether the expounder of faith is Eastern or Western, it does not care as long as it is consistent with and grounded on the written (Scripture) and unwritten Tradition.

On the issue of the difference of mortal and venial sins–this is grounded in Scripture, just as Purgatory, Papal Supremacy & Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.

my impression…most of the Easterns difficulty is their almost idolatrous attachment to their ethnic origins. I’m sorry brethren, but I am just being honest with you. I hope you prove me wrong. Again, i am sorry.

 

[natsclem]

Nat, the whole point of the CCC was to be a base for local catechisms to be produced, so there is nothing wrong and its quite commendable to have Eastern churches (not rites) produce their own catechisms.

What do you mean by “there is nothing wrong”?

Local catechisms–Eastern Rites or Latin Rite–should be consistent with the CCC. Otherwise, they are not Catholic.

 

[Formosus]

What do you mean by “there is nothing wrong”?

Local catechisms–Eastern Rites or Latin Rite–should be consistent with the CCC. Otherwise, they are not Catholic.

So now you are making baseless accusations against Eastern catechisms that you did not even know existed until you made this topic?

As for your rant against latinizations, some Eastern churches, like the Maronite Church suffered great latinizations in liturgy and theology ever since the 13th century and it is just now removing these latinizations and returning to its authentic Tradition that was stolen from us, so sorry if you don’t quite understand why Eastern Catholics dislike latinizations, but it is an important issue for ECs.

 

[kitkatty]

There is actually a great deal of debate about these matters among Eastern Catholics. My former pastor, for example, is a Ruthenian Catholic priest. While he solidly holds to the Eastern Liturgical practices, spiritualities, and theological language, he believes that he is “Catholic first”. Thus, he firmly believes that all Catholics, including Eastern Catholics, are bound to believe in Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, the distinction between mortal and venial sin, etc. He believes that there is such a thing as an Eastern approach to these matters, but that no Catholic may reject them. On the other hand, you have many in the Eastern Catholic Churches who reject many of the above mentioned dogmas. They call them “Latin innovations” or, if accepted in the east, “Latinizations”. I presonally think that this second group is in grave error but they believe themselves to faithful to the Catholic Church and I certainly am in no place to judge the status of their relationship with God. I will have to simply disagree with them.

East and West, I disagree with your definition of Latinizations. Without getting into the discussion of individual Eastern Catholics who might question Catholic Dogma, Latinizations would apply to things like Rosary as public devotion, Sacred Heart, Eucharistic adoration, Stations, etc. Practice of spiritualites as part of the public, communal worship that are foreign to Eastern spirituality. This is what is meant by Latinizations. Im not saying you meant to but your post implies that when Easterners speak of Latinizations they are speaking of Dogma; some of them might wrongly be but that is not what is usually meant by the term Latinizations in Eastern Catholic Churchs.

 

[kitkatty]

What do you mean by “there is nothing wrong”?

Local catechisms–Eastern Rites or Latin Rite–should be consistent with the CCC. Otherwise, they are not Catholic.

Why do you automatically assume they would be anything but consistent with the CCC?

 

[jimmy]

What do you mean by “there is nothing wrong”?

Local catechisms–Eastern Rites or Latin Rite–should be consistent with the CCC. Otherwise, they are not Catholic.

The CCC is a latin Catechism and nothing more. It presents latin tradition. The Eastern Churches are developing their own Catechisms that will present the faith as experienced in Greek or Syriac Christianity to their faithful. The Tradition and experience of the Latin Church is not that of the whole Church. The CCC is for Latins, not for Easterns.

 

[jimmy]

Both Easterns or Westerns should subscribe to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for guidance in faith and morals.

There are are different ways of expressing the faith in the Sacraments and in administering justice among the members of the different rites but no two standards of faith and morality.

Otherwise…

Latin theology is not our standard of truth. We have experienced the faith as we have experienced it. Our standard is that of the action of the Holy Spirit within the Church, not whether Rome has given its approval.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Latin theology is not our standard of truth. We have experienced the faith as we have experienced it. Our standard is that of the action of the Holy Spirit within the Church, not whether Rome has given its approval.

All well and good and hard to argue otherwise…

The problem, Jimmy, is understanding who can approve anything.

An analogy that may somewhat be lacking I admit is a scenario wherein I work for the marketing department of a large corporation, and one day decide to set up a charcoal grill in the lobby and start barbecueing up a storm. The Senior VP of accounting comes in and asks what the heck I am doing, do I just say “You are from accounting, you do things differently and have different protocols, you have no authority over me!” ??

Jimmy you have latched unto this contradistinctive strain of thought and I believe created the false dichotomy that the Papacy is reduced to little more than the Patriarch of the West and the Petrine ministry exists in a fashion no more than analagous to just being the head of a local church. From there what he says or rules you equate with just being “for them” and not for all. I simply don’t think this is workable in a Catholic framework.

More plainly, I don’t believe adherenece to the Pope of Rome’s authority equates to some vague notion of submission to “Latin” theology (as though there were just one school of it! Don’t take my word for it - call a Scotist a Thomist sometime!)…

There is a rightful pride and beauty that can be had in asserting and defending and adhearing to one or more tenants of a plurality of accepted expressions of Truth, there is more than one way to believe things are true, but not more than one Truth. You may describe the red circle as very red, I may describe it as very round, someone else may note how much it is not a blue triangle… All would be true and harmonious. The problem we get down to is when and where and how do we have assurance against someone coming up and claiming the round, red circle (which is not a blue triangle) is a very lovely green square?

We also run into the problem - I believe - of begining to enshrine singular schools of thought as either definative or definative to us (by virtue of our ethnic heritage or church membership). From there some go so far as to treat these schools of thought as discrete and pristine traditions that are either so true and “catholic” (lower case “c”) that we need never look elsewhere for confirmation in our thinking, or have no use for anything not from that school. This has been what keeps certain Eastern schools from being truly catholic even if they are emphatically orthodox.

Never mind that the free flow of ideas from Greek to Latin to Syriac existed in the Early Church and it was - often enough - parties from other schools of thought that stepped in to critique other groups outside their school when heresies or perceptions of heresies arouse. Using the model some here present, the parties that became non-Chalcedonian should have looked at the Greeks and Latins and said “That is your school of thought, leave us be, we are whole and complete and the thinking you bring to the table is not our thinking.” Did they? If it can be said to be the case that orthodoxy can be reduced to single schools of thought without critique from the outside or authority from elsewhere why did some of these schisms even play out?