Eastern Rite Catechisms?

[SyroMalankara]

What are “days” spent there [Purgatory]?

If it’s about indulgences, those did not mean days in Purgatory but “days performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance”.“A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church. To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance.”
Kent, W. (1910). Indulgences. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 12, 2014 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Normally, in Eastern practice, when the absolution is given, it is intended to cancel out all punishments along with being restored.

 

[Vico]

Normally, in Eastern practice, when the absolution is given, it is intended to cancel out all punishments along with being restored.

In all of the Catholic churches today, the sacrament of Holy Penance has the same effects of reconciliation with God and the Church. There are some differences in discipline on certain matters such as reserved sins and need to confess as soon as possible.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not a Byzantine, but they tend to emphasize St. Mary’s falling asleep, while Latins emphasize her Assumption into heaven.

And you no doubt know I’m Latin

As you know, for us it’s not dormition **or **assumption, it’s both.
S:

Orientals emphasize both, but to which degree depends on which Oriental Catholic/Orthodox Church.

okay
S:

Historically, I’d say not Melkites also, as they are generally included among Byzantines.

Actually here’s the Melkite explanation

These 3 entries are a quick read, 1 page each Q/A format.

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…of-indulgences
S:

The “sufferings” and “pains” of purgatory;

As you know, purgatory a Catholic term for what happens

1 Cor 3:12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

obviously

• not described by scripture as a comfortable experience.
• it does happen **AFTER **death and BEFORE heaven for only those deemed saved but are not getting a straight shot to heaven.
• how long it takes isn’t described.

S:

Purgatory as a place; “days” spent there;

The Church doesn’t officially call purgatory a “place”. It happens to be an easy way conversationally, to explain the experience of what happens here [In Context (1 - - Bible Gateway Corinthians+3:12-14&version=NIV) when that day happens. The day being our death.

I can see where the reference to “place” + “time” can bring discussion in all types of circles. At death a soul is then outside of time. So why talk about “days” when there are no days outside of time…right? To God it’s all the eternal now. No past present or future for God. As Revelations puts it, 1000 years is like a day and a day is like 1000 years. It’s an analogy in THAT context for our small minds to try and grasp the infinite.

As an aside, Re:indulgences, even the secular court systems around the world use what amounts to “indulgences”, (commuting one’s sentence, shortening the time one spends in prison, etc etc) the same goes with the Church and purgatory. And the Catholic Church has that authority from Jesus to lighten a person’s sentence, “whatever you bind, whatever you loose…” and we see that scripture shows God honors that.
S:

Aristotelian philosophies, especially of “substance” and “accidents”, etc.

Are you speaking of the way the Church explains the Eucharist?
S:

I’m didn’t spend much time on them, but one stand out particularly:

In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom.

The lawful ordination of an Eastern bishop requires no special intervention, other than the approval of the Holy Synod of his church.

I think what’s meant there is, the pope needs to know who is going to be made bishop. ALL bishops of the Church East and West have meetings with the pope every so many years. After all, he’s head of the entire Church. Not just the West.
S:

Historically, up to three marriages were permitted, but only one which was sacrament, the others natural;

Could you explain?

• Where / when did the limit of 3 marriages come from? Why not 4 or 5 etc
• are “natural” marriages after a sacramental marriage, valid? Why aren’t they adulterous?

S:

divorce was tolerated; ‘til death do you part’ was never Eastern theology, marriage is eternal;

I’m confused. If marriage is eternal then there can BE no divorce…right?
S:

canons, although extremely strict, were permitted to be modified for the individual by his own bishop with ‘economia’ (dispensation), but these were never applied as law only permitted exceptions; annulments were rare and almost never sought;

So annulments are possible? Does an annulment mean a person is deemed to have not been in a sacramental marriage and is free to marry again with the sacrament?

 

[SyroMalankara]

And you no doubt know I’m Latin

As you know, for us it’s not dormition **or **assumption, it’s both.

As it is for all Catholics, but I’ve rarely heard the dormition mentioned in a Latin parish.

Actually here’s the Melkite explanation
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…of-indulgences

To be perfectly honest, Bishop John’s explanations are unique, as is his situation, compared to the other Melkite Bishops. He was appointed directly from Rome for the diaspora; I’d look to other Melkite Bishops for the Synod’s official stance; or even Bishop Nicholas Samra, he’s worked intimately with the Synod for decades.

As you know, purgatory a Catholic term for what happens

1 Cor 3:12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

obviously

• not described by scripture as a comfortable experience.
• it does happen **AFTER **death and BEFORE heaven for only those deemed saved but are not getting a straight shot to heaven.
• how long it takes isn’t described.

The Church doesn’t officially call purgatory a “place”. It happens to be an easy way conversationally, to explain the experience of what happens here [In Context (1 - - Bible Gateway Corinthians+3:12-14&version=NIV) when that day happens. The day being our death.

I can see where the reference to “place” + “time” can bring discussion in all types of circles. At death a soul is then outside of time. So why talk about “days” when there are no days outside of time…right? To God it’s all the eternal now. No past present or future for God. As Revelations puts it, 1000 years is like a day and a day is like 1000 years. It’s an analogy in THAT context for our small minds to try and grasp the infinite.

This whole conversation is beyond Eastern sensibilities. We simply pray for our deceased and leave it to God, how, where, what, when, isn’t really something our Fathers historically spoke definitely on.

Are you speaking of the way the Church explains the Eucharist?

Yes, the Latin language of the Eucharist, and other sacraments, are couched in Aristotelian philosophy.

I think what’s meant there is, the pope needs to know who is going to be made bishop. ALL bishops of the Church East and West have meetings with the pope every so many years. After all, he’s head of the entire Church. Not just the West.

Sure - but you must realize this is a recent phenomenon. Historically, the Bishops met in their own Synod; perhaps the Patriarchs could meet to collaborate on something; no real reason for the Bishop of Damascus for the Syriac Churches to directly meet with the Pope every 5 years.

• Where / when did the limit of 3 marriages come from? Why not 4 or 5 etc

That you’d have to speak to an Eastern canonist on, I only know this to be the case. I’d assume the ideal is 1 marriage, a 2nd out of dispensation, and another is the final attempt; if you can’t make it work after this, please stop trying. It should be noted, however, that widowers fall under this rule as well. 3 is the limit for everyone; whether by divorce or death.

• are “natural” marriages after a sacramental marriage, valid? Why aren’t they adulterous?

Eastern theology tends to put aside the law for the good of the persons involved, on a case-by-case basis, according to the pastoral approach of the bishop. Each divorce results in temporary excommunication, usually for up to 3 years; after which the bishop can determine if the couple can be restored.

I’m confused. If marriage is eternal then there can BE no divorce…right?

Yes, marriage is eternal. The ideal is what is taught; on the other hand, the Eastern approach recognizes we live in a fallen world and the ideal isn’t always possible. It’s a paradox which can’t be understood from a strict legalistic approach.

So annulments are possible? Does an annulment mean a person is deemed to have not been in a sacramental marriage and is free to marry again with the sacrament?

Depends on the particular Church. In the case of the Syriac Orthodox, annulments are only given by the Patriarch personally; I don’t know of one that has been given in my lifetime. Since the priest/bishop is imparting the blessing on the couple, the there are very few means to get an annulment (for example, and not a divorce), such as someone deliberately lied about something essential or one of the couple apostasizes or something.

One other thing to note, divorce is possible, by mutual consent if one or both of the couple chooses to join monasticism. The late Patriarch Alexii of Russia, for example, was a married priest; both he and his wife divorced and he joined the monastery before being ordained bishop.

 

[steve_b]

To be perfectly honest, Bishop John’s explanations are unique, as is his situation, compared to the other Melkite Bishops. He was appointed directly from Rome for the diaspora; I’d look to other Melkite Bishops for the Synod’s official stance; or even Bishop Nicholas Samra, he’s worked intimately with the Synod for decades.

Since I gave you Bp John’s answers linked for your convenience, do you have Bp Smara’s answers linked for my convenience as well, that refute Bp John’s answers?

I’m confused, how does Bp John’s appointment by the pope diminish his credentials with other bishops in Eastern eyes?
S:

This whole conversation is beyond Eastern sensibilities. We simply pray for our deceased and leave it to God, how, where, what, when, isn’t really something our Fathers historically spoke definitely on.

Re: Speaking of beyond Eastern sensibilities on this,

The ROC dwarfs in size all the other EO churches combined. And the ROC teaches toll houses. A very elaborate theology after death.

I would submit, what’s so difficult about 1 Cor 3:12-15?

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is really very simple.
S:

Yes, the Latin language of the Eucharist, and other sacraments, are couched in Aristotelian philosophy.

Aristotle was Eastern…right?
S:

the Bishops met in their own Synod; perhaps the Patriarchs could meet to collaborate on something; no real reason for the Bishop of Damascus for the Syriac Churches to directly meet with the Pope every 5 years.

As we know by union with the pope, one is Catholic, which means we live by different rules.
S:

It should be noted, however, that widowers fall under this rule as well. 3 is the limit for everyone; whether by divorce or death.

Eastern theology tends to put aside the law for the good of the persons involved, on a case-by-case basis,

So it’s more discipline than doctrine?
S:

Yes, marriage is eternal.

reference?

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church applies to all Churches in its communion.

There is no Eastern Catechism, and no need for one in the ECC, as they are affirmed in the CCC.

Just stick with the CCC. It’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

See below.

This is factually wrong. The CCC is Latin, and was only a generic outline basis for all the Eastern Churches to produce their own Catechism. This was clearly stated by VC2 and the Eastern hierarchs.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a universal Catechism and is for all the Catholic Churches East and West that make up the One Catholic Church.

But yes the Eastern Catholic Churches could then make local (or particular) Catechisms that conformed to it. As some have. As also some Conferences of Catholic Bishops in the West also have.

In terms of Eastern Catholic Churches - the creation of their particular Catechisms can bring out their particular riches in a fuller why than can be done in a Universal Catechism.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Since I gave you Bp John’s answers linked for your convenience, do you have Bp Smara’s answers linked for my convenience as well, that refute Bp John’s answers?

No, no one has asked Bp. Samra these questions and posted it, nor are there any concise sites that carry the Melkite teaching in one place. The Melkites do have their own catechism series if you are interested.

I’m confused, how does Bp John’s appointment by the pope diminish his credentials with other bishops in Eastern eyes?

Not diminish, necessarily, however he does see some things through Latin eyes, and explains in a way not common among Melkites.

Re: Speaking of beyond Eastern sensibilities on this,

The ROC dwarfs in size all the other EO churches combined. And the ROC teaches toll houses. A very elaborate theology after death.

I would submit, what’s so difficult about 1 Cor 3:12-15?

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is really very simple.

Tollhouses are a Byzantine speculative theology, if you say the Latin teaching on purgatory is the same, then we are all in agreement.

Aristotle was Eastern…right?

A pagan Greek. Eastern? To me, both the Latins and Greeks are Western… my Church is based in India with ties to Syriac Antioch.

As we know by union with the pope, one is Catholic, which means we live by different rules.

?? The rules were only made to meet with the Pope every 5 yrs, relatively recently in ecclesial terms - less than 100yrs…

So it’s more discipline than doctrine?

There’s no doctrine that one must marriage up to 3 times. 1 is doctrine, up to 3 is allowed, not preferred nor condoned.

reference?

orthodoxwiki.org/Marriage
See Fr. John Meyendorff Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective

And this summary from a well-studied poster StuartK on ByzCath, a forum on Eastern Christianity:

The oldest stratum of Tradition in both the East and the West saw marriage as an eternal bond that transcended death. For that reason, the early Church refused to bless second marriages for any reason. In the West, the view of marriage as a life contract eventually emerged, probably because remarriage was a virtual necessity at a time of low life expectancy. In the East, until the 9th century, the Church did not bless second marriages, but civil marriage was available for those who wanted to remarry after divorce or widowhood, and the Church focused instead on reintegrating those who did into the Body of Christ. In the West, with the collapse of civil authority, civil marriage did not exist, and the Church became the de facto regulator of marriage.

In the 9th century, the Emperor Leo VI abolished civil marriage and made the Church responsible for all aspects of marriage. The Church now had to deal with the social and legal aspects of marriage, as well as the sacramental aspect. It had to recognize that marriages do break down, and that men and women may feel the need to remarry, either after divorce or widowhood. But it did not want to compromise its understanding of Christian marriage as a sacrament that perdures in the divine kairos. The compromise solution was the “Rite of Second Marriage”, open to those who are widowed and the innocent parties in a divorce, which was not sacramental but merely contractual, and highly penitential in nature. There is no crowning, there is no Dance of Isaiah, there is no sealing with the Eucharist. In fact, those who remarry are excluded from communion for a period of 3-5 years, which in itself means that second marriage ceremonies are not sacramental.

 

[steve_b]

No, no one has asked Bp. Samra these questions and posted it, nor are there any concise sites that carry the Melkite teaching in one place. The Melkites do have their own catechism series if you are interested.

From my perspective, I was under the impression that when you said the following

“I’d look to other Melkite Bishops for the Synod’s official stance; or even Bishop Nicholas Samra, he’s worked intimately with the Synod for decades.”

I thought you were going to give evidence to rebut Bp John’s answers. It seems to me, unless one can show Bp John’s answers are not accepted, easily referenced of course, then there is no reason to suspect what Bp John said.
S:

Not diminish, necessarily, however he does see some things through Latin eyes, and explains in a way not common among Melkites.

With all due respect, how do you know that?

I give references to support what I post because I anticipate automatically that who I’m talking with, will want evidence for what I say to make sure it’s backed up, and I’m not just shooting from the hip.

All I ask is the same in return. Do you have evidence?
S:

Tollhouses are a Byzantine speculative theology, If you say the Latin teaching on purgatory is the same, then we are all in agreement.

Russians will take issue with that. As for Purgatory otoh (a Catholic term) it’s not speculation. It’s real. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15
S:

To me, both the Latins and Greeks are Western… my Church is based in India with ties to Syriac Antioch.

The rules were only made to meet with the Pope every 5 yrs, relatively recently in ecclesial terms - less than 100yrs…

malankaracatholicchurch.net/Articles.html scroll down to “CANONICAL STATUS OF THE SYRO-MALANKRA CATHOLIC CHURCH”

Note: as you scroll down the page, your Church also follows the Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCOE) A few were summarized. Here is the full CCOE jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html As an aside, note canon #'s 43, 45, 46

while on the Malankara Church page, at the top of the page, click “Hierarchy”
S:

There’s no doctrine that one must marriage up to 3 times. 1 is doctrine, up to 3 is allowed, not preferred nor condoned.
orthodoxwiki.org/Marriage
See Fr. John Meyendorff Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective
And this summary from a well-studied poster StuartK on ByzCath, a forum on Eastern Christianity:
The oldest stratum of Tradition in both the East and the West saw marriage as an eternal bond that transcended death. For that reason, the early Church refused to bless second marriages for any reason. In the West, the view of marriage as a life contract eventually emerged, probably because remarriage was a virtual necessity at a time of low life expectancy. In the East, until the 9th century, the Church did not bless second marriages, but civil marriage was available for those who wanted to remarry after divorce or widowhood, and the Church focused instead on reintegrating those who did into the Body of Christ. In the West, with the collapse of civil authority, civil marriage did not exist, and the Church became the de facto regulator of marriage.
In the 9th century, the Emperor Leo VI abolished civil marriage and made the Church responsible for all aspects of marriage. The Church now had to deal with the social and legal aspects of marriage, as well as the sacramental aspect. It had to recognize that marriages do break down, and that men and women may feel the need to remarry, either after divorce or widowhood. But it did not want to compromise its understanding of Christian marriage as a sacrament that perdures in the divine kairos. The compromise solution was the “Rite of Second Marriage”, open to those who are widowed and the innocent parties in a divorce, which was not sacramental but merely contractual, and highly penitential in nature. There is no crowning, there is no Dance of Isaiah, there is no sealing with the Eucharist. In fact, those who remarry are excluded from communion for a period of 3-5 years, which in itself means that second marriage ceremonies are not sacramental.

why are you using and following Orthodoxwiki and an “Orthodox perspective”? You’re Catholic

Romans 7:2
1 Corinthians 7:39

the reverse is likewise the same for the husband.

Canon 853 - The sacramental bond of marriage for a consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power nor by any cause other than death.

That’s where “death do us part” comes from

 

[SyroMalankara]

From my perspective, I was under the impression that when you said the following

“I’d look to other Melkite Bishops for the Synod’s official stance; or even Bishop Nicholas Samra, he’s worked intimately with the Synod for decades.”

I thought you were going to give evidence to rebut Bp John’s answers. It seems to me, unless one can show Bp John’s answers are not accepted, easily referenced of course, then there is no reason to suspect what Bp John said.

With all due respect, how do you know that?

I’ve spoken to many Melkite clergy and attended various dialogues. They tend to hold the Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic perspective, even when it’s uncomfortable for Latins.

I give references to support what I post because I anticipate automatically that who I’m talking with, will want evidence for what I say to make sure it’s backed up, and I’m not just shooting from the hip.

All I ask is the same in return. Do you have evidence?

melkite.net/resources/suggested-reading

Russians will take issue with that. As for Purgatory otoh (a Catholic term) it’s not speculation. It’s real. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15

I don’t doubt “its” real, the problem as stated earlier, is the Latin scholasticism involved with “it”. As to Russians taking issue with their theological speculations, ok, so what? Others will take issue with their issue.

malankaracatholicchurch.net/Articles.html scroll down to “CANONICAL STATUS OF THE SYRO-MALANKRA CATHOLIC CHURCH”

Note: as you scroll down the page, your Church also follows the Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCOE) A few were summarized. Here is the full CCOE jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html As an aside, note canon #'s 43, 45, 46

while on the Malankara Church page, at the top of the page, click “Hierarchy”

What about it? As stated earlier, the Eastern Churches historically were not having ad limina 5yr visits with the Pope, until fairly recently. The Malankara Church reunited with Rome in 1930, even then there were not regular ad limina visits every 5yrs until recently. What does showing me the canons of actions we know perform, disprove the historic practice of the Churches? They’ve tweaked some practices to make the Latins happy, as have many Easterners; sometimes for good order, sometimes as a latinization which ultimately will be eliminated in the case of a reunion with the Orthodox; or not eliminated and prevent any reunion.

why are you using and following Orthodoxwiki and an “Orthodox perspective”? You’re Catholic

I know what I am; I am providing you the Byzantine teaching, if you check the same Melkite Catholic site you posted Bp. John’s answers on, you will see this: melkite.net/resources/suggested-reading

For beginners, it is easy to be quickly overwhelmed with the intense writings on monastic spirituality (the Philokalia, etc.) It has been suggested that one might start first with a general overview of the faith and the history of the early Church, then move to the basics: the scripture from an Eastern perspective, how we worship, and how we are united to God through our sacraments. Then, with the guidance of the priest, venture into the depths.

These are some suggestions to help you begin.

Schmemann, Alexander (an Orthodox Church of America priest and theologian)

        For the Life of the World       "a paradigm-shifter" for many

        Great Lent      a guide to the meaning of and full participation in Great Lent

Bloom, Anthony (Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh) (a Russian Orthodox priest)

        Beginning to Pray   

        God and Man

        Living Prayer

Raya, Joseph (Melkite Archbishop, our parish’s “official theologian,” per Fr. Daniel.)

        The Face of God    currently out of print, but hopefully back soon

        The Eyes of the Gospel

Ware, Timothy (Metropolitan Kallistos (Anglican, then Greek Orthodox bishop)

        The Orthodox Church    overview of history and dogma, classic over-all introduction

        The Orthodox Way   introduction to doctrine, worship, life, and theology

Light for Life, Volumes 1-3, pub. by God With Us “Melkite catechism”

Saato, Fred (Melkite priest)

        American Eastern Catholics

Chryssavgis, John (Greek Orthodox Deacon and theologian)

        In the Heart of the Desert - the Spirituality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers

Evdokimov, Michael (Russian Orthodox Priest)

        Light from the East:  Icons in Liturgy and Prayer

Ward, Benedicta, trans.
(sister of the community of Sisters of the Love of God, based in Oxford, England)

        The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Alphabetical Collection

Canon 853 - The sacramental bond of marriage for a consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power nor by any cause other than death.

That’s where “death do us part” comes from

What about it? Seems like a bit of sloppy wording to me; can you think of any other Sacraments being dissolved by death? Holy Orders, Baptism, Chrismation, Penance, Anointing - are these all secure to the next life, but Marriage cannot be?

 

[RyanBlack]

The Face of God is no longer out of print. I recently purchased a new copy.

store.godwithusbooks.org/specials/the-face-of-god/

 

[steve_b]

I’ve spoken to many Melkite clergy and attended various dialogues. They tend to hold the Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic perspective, even when it’s uncomfortable for Latins.

I see your personal opinion there. I was looking for Church evidence to support your claims.
Syro:

melkite.net/resources/suggested-reading

the Melkites follow the CCEO as do the Syro Malankara.
Syro:

I don’t doubt “its” real, the problem as stated earlier, is the Latin scholasticism involved with “it”.

Here’s what the Church teaches on purgatory

all 4 paragraphs ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=purgatory&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

As I said, the doctrine isn’t complicated, it’s simple.
Syro:

As to Russians taking issue with their theological speculations, ok, so what? Others will take issue with their issue.

I mentioned them because they dwarf in size all the other EO Churches combined. Point being, who speaks for the Orthodox on these or any issue? Truth is, no ONE speaks for the Orthodox in total. It’s a question if even the patriarch of -]Constantinople/-] Istanbul has any authority with the Russians. So regarding this issue of the afterlife, Orthodox don’t agree with each other.
Syro:

What about it? As stated earlier, the Eastern Churches historically were not having ad limina 5yr visits with the Pope, until fairly recently. The Malankara Church reunited with Rome in 1930, even then there were not regular ad limina visits every 5yrs until recently.

You lump all Eastern Churches together as if they moved lock step with each other. Some Eastern Churches have been united to Rome for centuries. As you said, you’ve been reunited for under 100 years.
Syro:

To me, both the Latins and Greeks are Western… my Church is based in India with ties to Syriac Antioch.

Greeks are Easten, and if Orthodox, they are Byzantines as well, thus connected with Antioch as well.
Syro:

What does showing me the canons of actions we know perform, disprove the historic practice of the Churches?

You said yourself, 1930 changed your allegiance as a Church. You reunited to Rome. If you reunite to something, that means

• you were previously united to Rome in the past.
• and being in communion again, means accepting all that communion means, like accepting the CCEO.

Did you look at the canons I suggested?
Syro:

They’ve tweaked some practices to make the Latins happy, as have many Easterners; sometimes for good order, sometimes as a latinization which ultimately will be eliminated in the case of a reunion with the Orthodox; or not eliminated and prevent any reunion.

What are you suggesting?
Syro:

I know what I am; I am providing you the Byzantine teaching, if you check the same Melkite Catholic site you posted Bp. John’s answers on, you will see this: melkite.net/resources/suggested-reading

Re: Bp John A. Elya, what exactly am I supposed to be looking for on that site?
Syro:

For beginners, it is easy to be quickly overwhelmed with the intense writings on monastic spirituality (the Philokalia, etc.) It has been suggested that one might start first with a general overview of the faith and the history of the early Church, then move to the basics: the scripture from an Eastern perspective, how we worship, and how we are united to God through our sacraments. Then, with the guidance of the priest, venture into the depths.

These are some suggestions to help you begin.

[snip]

You said you didn’t read a link I posted with a few paragraphs on it. And I am supposed to go through that litany of books?
Syro:

What about it? Seems like a bit of sloppy wording to me; can you think of any other Sacraments being dissolved by death? Holy Orders, Baptism, Chrismation, Penance, Anointing - are these all secure to the next life, but Marriage cannot be?

You questioned “till death do us part” not being in Eastern thought.

So I posted

Romans 7:2
1 Corinthians 7:39

the reverse is likewise the same for the husband.

Canon 853 - The sacramental bond of marriage for a consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power nor by any cause other than death.

That shows, marriage between husband and wife according to scripture and the Church, dissolves at death.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You seem to be looking for an answer you predetermined agrees with everything the Latin Code suggests. I’m stating as a fact that many of the Eastern Churches adopted Latinizations which Vatican 2 and many previous Councils, along with our own Synods recognize is less than ideal. In the event of an eventual reunion of our mother Orthodox Churches, we will be adopting whatever it is the union emcompasses, this CCEO is a working document, heavily latinized. Each of the Eastern Churches also have their own particular Codes of Law which are to some degree latinized to conform to the Latin code. Again, in an eventual reunion, these canons will be eliminated in favor of a purely Eastern - call it Orthodox, call it Catholic - Code.

I don’t know what you keep answering as if to suggest you know more than a practicing Easterner about Eastern practices. It’s forced suggestions like yours which enrage Eastern Catholics and make many leave Catholicism for Orthodox Churches; presuming to speak on our praxis using an individual quote here and there. If you really want to know about Eastern Churches, visit many, and study the matter. Most of the non-latinized Churches use Orthodox material because we see ourselves as Orthodox, with union with Rome. We have made compromises for the sake of unity, but still see these compromises as far less than ideal.

If you want a truly Catholic understanding, you have to study all the Churches on their own terms. Not try to fit a square peg into a round hole. Many theologians now recognize three major schools of Patristic theology: Latin West, Greek West (Latins and Greeks themselves call this East), and Syriac East. There are many commonalities and differences which you cannot impose latinisms on before studying the matter objectively.

 

[steve_b]

You seem to be looking for an answer you predetermined agrees with everything the Latin Code suggests. I’m stating as a fact that many of the Eastern Churches adopted Latinizations which Vatican 2 and many previous Councils, along with our own Synods recognize is less than ideal. In the event of an eventual reunion of our mother Orthodox Churches, we will be adopting whatever it is the union emcompasses, this CCEO is a working document, heavily latinized. Each of the Eastern Churches also have their own particular Codes of Law which are to some degree latinized to conform to the Latin code. Again, in an eventual reunion, these canons will be eliminated in favor of a purely Eastern - call it Orthodox, call it Catholic - Code.

I have a question for you. I’ve asked this dozens of times over the years. Still haven’t gotten anyone to answer it…yet. Maybe you have the answer.

When is the first time we see in writting, “Orthodox Church”? documented please.
Syro:

I don’t know what you keep answering as if to suggest you know more than a practicing Easterner about Eastern practices. It’s forced suggestions like yours which enrage Eastern Catholics and make many leave Catholicism for Orthodox Churches; presuming to speak on our praxis using an individual quote here and there. If you really want to know about Eastern Churches, visit many, and study the matter. Most of the non-latinized Churches use Orthodox material because we see ourselves as Orthodox, with union with Rome. We have made compromises for the sake of unity, but still see these compromises as far less than ideal.

so why didn’t you remain Orthodox? Why did you agree to unite/reunite with the see of Peter?
Syro:

If you want a truly Catholic understanding, you have to study all the Churches on their own terms. Not try to fit a square peg into a round hole. Many theologians now recognize three major schools of Patristic theology: Latin West, Greek West (Latins and Greeks themselves call this East), and Syriac East. There are many commonalities and differences which you cannot impose latinisms on before studying the matter objectively.

When exactly did this East/West differentiation in thought and practice become such an issue? As Bp Elya expressed, “there is no Eastern Truth or Western Truth. Truth is not schizophrenic”. So when exactly did all this schizophrenia begin?

 

[RyanBlack]

When exactly did this East/West differentiation in thought and practice become such an issue? As Bp Elya expressed, there is no Eastern Truth or Western Truith. Truth is not schizophrenic. So when exactly did all this schizophrenia begin?

It becomes such an issue when Latin Christians insist on approaching all theological thought from uniformly from a Latin perspective. BTW, Bishop John speaks for no one other than Bishop John, and his approach among the Melkites is by no means mainstream.

When did uniformity in expressing the faith become such an issue? Expression of the faith is not uniform.

 

[steve_b]

It becomes such an issue when Latin Christians insist on approaching all theological thought from a Latin perspective. BTW, Bishop John speaks for no one other than Bishop John, and his approach among the Melkites is by no means mainstream.

It came up earlier about the Catechism

The CCC = the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not the “Latin” Church, Not the “Western Church” not the “Roman Church” but the Catholic Church.

I honestly don’t understand what all the annamus is on this issue.

I’m sure you’ve seen this quote dozens of times. It’s from a bishop who is one man away from an apostle, and taught by those who were taught and contemporaries of the apostles.

Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

All must agree with “this Church” i.e. the Catholic Church that he listed in Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3, and here in Bk 3 ch 3, and more specifically, founded by Peter and Paul at Rome… And because of it (Rome) being Peter’s see, it has “preeminent authority” over all Churches. Then Irenaeus goes on to list 11 bishops after Peter in Rome just so there is no confusion as to which Church is “This Church” he’s talking about.

Ryan, Is THAT a Latin perspective? Irenaeus after all was from Smyrna. The same city as Bp Polycarp. I would suggest before all this East/West differentiation we see today took place regarding thought process.

What say you?

 

[RyanBlack]

It came up earlier about the Catechism

The CCC = the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not the “Latin” Church, Not the “Western Church” not the “Roman Church” but the Catholic Church.

I honestly don’t understand what all the annamus is on this issue.

I have no animus towards the CCC. I’ve read it in its entirety. I chose to do this on my own when I decide to enter the Catholic Church. I think it’s a wonderful resource. However, it was in fact produced by the Latin Church, and is quite Latin in its perspective.

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m sure you’ve seen this quote dozens of times. It’s from a bishop who is one man away from an apostle, and taught by those who were taught and contemporaries of the apostles.

Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

All must agree with “this Church” i.e. the Catholic Church that he listed in Bk 1 Chapter 10 and here in Bk 3 ch 3, and more specifically, founded by Peter and Paul at Rome… And because of it (Rome) being Peter’s see, it has “preeminent authority” over all Churches. Then Irenaeus goes on to list 11 bishops after Peter in Rome just so there is no confusion as to which Church is “This Church” he’s talking about.

Ryan, Is THAT a Latin perspective? Irenaeus after all was from Smyrna. The same city as Bp Polycarp. I would suggest before all this East/West differentiation we see today took place regarding thought process.

What say you?

I’ve stated nothing in this thread in opposition to this. My opposition is to attempts to force upon Easterners a Western mindset with respect to the articulation and expression of the Catholic faith.

 

[steve_b]

I have no animus towards the CCC. I’ve read it in its entirety. I chose to do this on my own when I decide to enter the Catholic Church. I think it’s a wonderful resource. However, it was in fact produced by the Latin Church, and is quite Latin in its perspective.

Just the “index of citations” in the CCC covers 63 pages

For example

1. 
   *]Index of Citations pt. 1 OT +NT
   *]Index of Citations pt. 2 90 % NT and beginning of Ecumenical councils
   *]Index of Citations pt. 3 Church Fathers East & West, + papal documents + other synods etc
   
   There’s alot of credit E & W to go around.

 

[steve_b]

I’ve stated nothing in this thread in opposition to this. My opposition is to attempts to force upon Easterners a Western mindset with respect to the articulation and expression of the Catholic faith.

I’m still trying to find out what that is. Give specifics

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m still trying to find out what that is. Give specifics

You want a specific? Why is the Latin Church, it’s theology, fathers, patristics, scholasticism, language, and more given priority; while 22 Eastern Churches are all lumped together with not a mention of the concrete theology profoundness between them? Start from there and work your way back. Entire PhDs have been written on these; you claim to be able to understand it because you read some website? Do you read Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Ge’ez, Armenian, and more - or are you digging only for the answers you prefer, and imposing your understanding on a subject you’ve barely scratched the surface on?