Eastern Rite Catechisms?

[RyanBlack]

and partaking in the divine nature is also a process, part of the salvific process as well.

After all, in a previous post you said “Theosis is synonymous with participation in the divine nature. The divine energies are an aspect of the divine nature.”

you’re not arguing it’s not all part of the same process…are you?

Theosis is partaking in the divine nature, so no, I’m not arguing that it’s not all part of the same process. What I’m saying is that theosis is not the same thing as divine nature. Theosis/divinization/deification is the process–for lack of a better word on my part–by which we are united to God’s divine natures.

 

[RyanBlack]

As for how Catholics look at “divine essence” look at this article under

part** III, SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER OF HEAVEN AND THE BEATIFIC VISION**
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heaven divine essence is mentioned 12 times in that section, out of 22 times in the entire article. Compare that with divine attributes (as opposed to “divine energies” )

As for God and “divine energies” we use different terms but I think you’ll agree we arrive at the same conclusions
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=God

for example, see part B. The Divine Nature and Attributes

You should qualify that and say how “Latin Catholics look at divine essence.” In the Byzantine Catholic tradition, the divine essence is completely beyond human comprehension and it is impossible for humans to participate in it–in other words, it is entirely transcendent.

As for the discussion of divine attributes in this article, part B is focusing on infinity, unity or unicity, and simplicity. When I’m talking about divine energies, I’m not talking about these attributes. I’m talking about how we encounter God as love, grace, mercy, etc. In the Byzantine tradition, we do not say that we encounter God’s incomprehensible essence, but that we encounter God’s energies as love, grace, mercy, etc. Ultimately, I’m not saying that this approach and the Latin approach are mutually exclusive or that they represent different truths. However, conceptually, the two approaches are quite distinct from each other.

 

[RyanBlack]

You said in a previous post “As a Byzantine Catholic, I understand the divine nature as inclusive of the divine essence and the divine energies”

So we have so far, with Byzantine understanding, God = divine nature + divine essence + divine energies. Are there any other terms for the attributes of God that Byzantines use that I should know about for this discussion?

I would not say God=divine nature + divine essence + divine energies. Rather, I would say divine nature=divine essence + divine energies.

Basically, in the Byzantine tradition, the divine energies are the attributes or characteristics by which God reveals Himself to mankind, such as love, grace, mercy, goodness, etc.

 

[RyanBlack]

you have the link. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=God

starting with B. The Divine Nature and Attributes

• essence mentioned 12 times
• attributes mentioned 17 times

Obviously there is some distinction here.

In the Thomistic tradition, there is no distinction between God’s essence and God’s operations, or attributes, such as love or grace. In this tradition, one would say that God’s love, for example, is not a divine energy distinct from God’s nature, but rather, that love is of God’s essence. Furthermore, in this tradition, God’s love, mercy, holiness, goodness, and so on, are not truly differentiated, but we, in our limited condition, understand or encounter them in ways that to us, are differentiated.

 

[RyanBlack]

In a previous post you wrote

"In the Byzantine perspective, the divine essence is entirely incomprehensible and entirely transcendent. It is impossible to know or state what it is, and it is impossible for creatures to participate in it. The divine energies are eternal because they are truly God, but they are are knowable, and we can participate in them. The divine energies include God’s love, his grace, his mercy, his goodness, etc. "

So, those energies you list, they are not part of God’s essence?

In the Byzantine essence-energies construct, the divine energies are not part of God’s essence. God’s essence is entirely incomprehensible and entirely transcendent. You can’t see it, you can’t understand it, you can’t name it, and you can’t be joined to it. It is through God’s energies that he reveals himself to us and unites us to him.

 

[RyanBlack]

This article mentions Beatific vision 28 times. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heaven If you haven’t read it already, see the sections starting with III. SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER OF HEAVEN AND THE BEATIFIC VISION. It doesn’t say theosis (a term we don’t use) but if we switch to a phrase like the “salvific process” which you used earlier, that too doesn’t end at the beatific vision. The reason being, God never stops enlightening us.

In the Latin tradition, the beatific vision is the end of theosis (a term that we in the Catholic East do use). It is the end not in the sense that once the beatific vision is granted that theosis comes to a halt. It is the end in the sense of a teleological end, or goal.

 

[steve_b]

You should qualify that and say how “Latin Catholics look at divine essence.”

When you said earlier

“I would say far more reflective of the Latin tradition the Alexandrian, West and East Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankara traditions”

I’m thinking, the Latin rite is already ~98% of the Catholic Church. Add those rites as you say, who reflect Latin traditions as well, that brings the total to 99%+, reflecting one perspective. While I wasn’t thinking of it that way, you make a strong point
R:

In the Byzantine Catholic tradition, the divine essence is completely beyond human comprehension and it is impossible for humans to participate in it–in other words, it is entirely transcendent.

As for the discussion of divine attributes in this article, part B is focusing on infinity, unity or unicity, and simplicity. When I’m talking about divine energies, I’m not talking about these attributes. I’m talking about how we encounter God as love, grace, mercy, etc. In the Byzantine tradition, we do not say that we encounter God’s incomprehensible essence, but that we encounter God’s energies as love, grace, mercy, etc. Ultimately, I’m not saying that this approach and the Latin approach are mutually exclusive or that they represent different truths. However, conceptually, the two approaches are quite distinct from each other.

Just thinking outloud, peeling back terms and concepts used so far, I’m seeing proposed distinctions but I’m not seeing the corresponding differences to the degree it’s a big deal. But I’m just thinking outloud

 

[babochka]

I’m thinking, the Latin rite is already ~98% of the Catholic Church. Add those rites as you say, who reflect Latin traditions as well, that brings the total to 99%+, reflecting one perspective. While I wasn’t thinking of it that way, you make a strong point

I think to be fair, you would have to include the entire Christian East, Catholic and Orthodox, in your perspective.

 

[5Loaves]

I think to be fair, you would have to include the entire Christian East, Catholic and Orthodox, in your perspective.

And fortunately the Holy See doesn’t look at us as a percentage. We are simply and clearly told to be faithful to our venerable and ancient traditions. “The Christian tradition of the East implies a way of accepting, understanding and living faith in the Lord Jesus. In this sense it is extremely close to the Christian tradition of the West, which is born of and nourished by the same faith. Yet it is legitimately and admirably distinguished from the latter, since Eastern Christians have their own way of perceiving and understanding, and thus an original way of living their relationship with the Savior.” Orientale Lumen

 

[Peter_J]

I’m thinking, the Latin rite is already ~98% of the Catholic Church.

Problem with that statement is that there is no Latin Rite.

The Latin Church uses a number of rite: Roman, Bragan, Ambrosian, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

Also, concerning the fact that there are only about 17 million Greek and Oriental Catholics: I firmly believe that our Catholic ancestors were wrong to engage in uniatism (the Union of Brest etc) but not so much because of its limited success. It’s just wrong to do in principle, even if it had resulted in, say, 100 million Eastern Catholics.

(Or possibly I’m just missing your point. Can you elaborate on why you brought up “the Latin rite is already ~98% of the Catholic Church”?)

 

[steve_b]

I think to be fair, you would have to include the entire Christian East, Catholic and Orthodox, in your perspective.

Couldn’t we then say to be fair, thinking of just “christians” in the East, you would then have to include protestants as well?

I’m focusing on Catholics, because we are talking about Eastern “rites” of the Catholic Church and Eastern rite Catechisms and in extension what would reflect distinctions in those catechisms. So in that case, that eliminates Orthodox and Protestants from the discussion, since they are not Catholic.

 

[steve_b]

And fortunately the Holy See doesn’t look at us as a percentage. We are simply and clearly told to be faithful to our venerable and ancient traditions. “The Christian tradition of the East implies a way of accepting, understanding and living faith in the Lord Jesus. In this sense it is extremely close to the Christian tradition of the West, which is born of and nourished by the same faith. Yet it is legitimately and admirably distinguished from the latter, since Eastern Christians have their own way of perceiving and understanding, and thus an original way of living their relationship with the Savior.” Orientale Lumen

And by this discussion I feel we are seeing that very point you make.

 

[Peter_J]

Couldn’t we then say to be fair, thinking of just “christians” in the East, you would then have to include protestants as well?

You could, but I wouldn’t say you have to include Protestants because you’re including Orthodox, any more than would say to an Orthodox “you have to include Protestants in the discussion if you’re including Catholics”.

I’m focusing on Catholics, because we are talking about Eastern “rites” of the Catholic Church and Eastern rite Catechisms and in extension what would reflect distinctions in those catechisms. So in that case, that eliminates Orthodox and Protestants from the discussion, since they are not Catholic.

Yes. But don’t forget that you brought up the fact that only about 17 million Eastern Christians are in the Roman Communion.

 

[steve_b]

In the Latin tradition, the beatific vision is the end of theosis (a term that we in the Catholic East do use). It is the end not in the sense that once the beatific vision is granted that theosis comes to a halt. It is the end in the sense of a teleological end, or goal

Theosis as you said earlier is

“the salvific process by which we partake of the divine nature”.

Re: Latin teaching, when we are in heaven we don’t need more “saving” and we do see God as He is. The “saving” process however is over. We’re home. The process of partaking in the divine nature however, in short, is a process that doesn’t end at the beatific vision, for Latins. I.E it doesn’t end now that we are in heaven. So I would say again, while we don’t use the same words, peeling back the words that ARE used so far for their meanings, we have a distinction without a difference… as I see it

 

[steve_b]

You could, but I wouldn’t say you have to include Protestants because you’re including Orthodox, any more than would say to an Orthodox “you have to include Protestants in the discussion if you’re including Catholics”.

Eastern “rite” in the context we’re using it, doesn’t include Protestants or Orthodox.
P:

Yes. But don’t forget that you brought up the fact that only about 17 million Eastern Christians are in the Roman Communion.

I tried to keep my comments corporately based. I.E. all rites are 100% Catholic. If they aren’t a Catholic rite, they aren’t in union with the chair of Peter, ergo they aren’t Catholic.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This discussion and it’s subsequent replies are aggravating; instead of learning about the various Eastern Traditions on their own merit, the equal Western Tradition is being presented by a non-Easterner to the Easterners as the standard-bearer which we Easterners should strive to explain with our ‘exotic’ lingo. Any attempt to educate the Eastern Tradition, by the Easterners are commandeered and dismissed, with a few smartalecky comments included - as if anyone needs or asked for a ‘being okay with’ for the Eastern Churches to present their faith in their own Catechisms.

I commend many of you for attempting to reply as best as possible, and restraining yourselves from writing a strongly worded admonishment. I am actively going to refrain from participating in this thread any further, should I fail deeper to maintain any more charity.

 

[steve_b]

This discussion and it’s subsequent replies are aggravating; instead of learning about the various Eastern Traditions on their own merit, the equal Western Tradition is being presented by a non-Easterner to the Easterners as the standard-bearer which we Easterners should strive to explain with our ‘exotic’ lingo. Any attempt to educate the Eastern Tradition, by the Easterners are commandeered and dismissed, with a few smartalecky comments included - as if anyone needs or asked for a ‘being okay with’ for the Eastern Churches to present their faith in their own Catechisms.

I commend many of you for attempting to reply as best as possible, and restraining yourselves from writing a strongly worded admonishment. I am actively going to refrain from participating in this thread any further, should I fail deeper to maintain any more charity.

Here is my 1st post on this thread.
#15
I pretty much stuck with that theme throughout my posts. Ask questions, & engage in dialogue. I never told any Eastern rite Catholic what they believe or teach. Not once. I always phrased a comment coming back at me, with a corresponding question, not a statement, unless I’m speaking about my own rite, not another person’s rite. When it’s all said, I’m free to make up my own mind based on what I’ve heard.

These Catholic Answers Forums, are geared towards apologetics. Which means one should always be ready to explain their faith for anyone who asks, and do it with charity. As you know, I said to you in a previous post, I ask alot of questions. #52 .That’s how I learn. And as I said, I like learning. I readily admit I have much to learn. I also realize after being on these forums for 10+ years, not everyone has the temperment to answer questions or to engage in explaining their beliefs in a charitabe way. I get that.

Re: Eastern Catechisms, I said it’s cool that Easterners make their own Catechisms. #64 I’m actually surprised no one quoted from any of them. So why are you turning what I said into something negative?

I’m here asking questions and chewing on what I’m told, because I have been told by others there are some major differences in Eastern theology from Western theology, so I thought I would see for myself if that’s true. What better place to find the answer than here…right? IMV, from the discussion so far, and the answers I received so far, I don’t see the major differences that I’ve been told are there. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[SyroMalankara]

IMV, from the discussion so far, and the answers I received so far, I don’t see the major differences that I’ve been told are there. Sorry to disappoint you.

A ‘cotton candy and popcorn’ reading will do that to you. Btw, I’m not disappointed, there are many differences in EMPHASIS, while some would argue unsolvable - I do think there is a common bridge. But, this, lets steamroll over them with quotes from my own position to lessen the one being presented – that method is less than a discussion, it’s actually doing harm to union.

 

[Elizium23]

Well, steve, you have to understand a few things. You and I, as Latins, are guests in the EC forum and therefore should tread lightly. The topic of this thread is a simple question from the OP about whether Eastern Catechisms exist. However, when some Latins become involved here in the EC forum, the topic of EVERY thread is “East vs. West, who’s better and why Latins rule!” Even if you are not combative or transparently arrogant about a Western position, you have dominated the thread for 6 pages in this back-and-forth about basic Eastern teachings. We in the EC forum have seen it all before and we’re a little tired of seeing threads veer off-topic to be dominated by the Western and Latin perspectives. I come here to learn about the East. I subscribed to this thread to find out more about Eastern Catechisms and I should have unsubscribed here five pages ago when I realized it would be more back-and-forth off-topic business-as-usual.