Eastern Rite Catechisms?

[SyroMalankara]

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

Even this question is on it’s surface lacking basic historical knowledge. The See of Peter - historically, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria are considered the See of Peter. The Church in India was founded by St. Thomas the Apostle in 52AD, before Rome was founded by St. Peter. This Church was in union with the Patriarchate-Catholicos of the Church of the East, and later a portion under the Syriac Orthodox See of Antioch (NOT BYZANTINE!).

As to “remaining Orthodox”?? Did we somehow become heterodox when recognizing union with Rome? If so, why is heterodoxy something to strive toward??

 

[steve_b]

You want a specific?

Yep
Syro:

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?

That’s an accusation. Pick an issue. Where’s the specific “Eastern” issues I’m to understand?

IMV, Bp John hit a home run when he said the following

“Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.” There is no ‘Eastern truth’ vs ‘Western truth’. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by “party line” positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given “identity.” The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East.” This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.”

And look how often that happens in dialogues

 

[steve_b]

Even this question is on it’s surface lacking basic historical knowledge. The See of Peter - historically, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria are considered the See of Peter.

speaking of history, and ranking of sees,

The ancient ranking of sees (BC) before Constantinople

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   (AC) after Constantinople
   1. • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      I have some questions
      • How can Constantinople so easily move to 2nd place and push Alexandria and Antioch behind it, if those 2 sees had special ranking being sees of Peter?
      • If the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria are considered Peter’s successors also, shouldn’t we see that played out in a special way in history in terms of ranking or something?
      • Shouldn’t those 2 sees have permanent special positions for the Orthodox as a result? Do they have that special position throughout the last 2000 years?
      • When Antioch split in the 18th century, between Orthodox and Melkite for example, who then is the successor to St Peter THEN in Antioch? The Orthodox bishop or the Melkite bishop?
      • And Alexandria barely has a Christian population left. What about them?
      I would suggest this, even with your own bishops, when a bishop moves, a bishop’s see is where he is currently, not where he was… true?
      
      In Peter’s case, he has the entire world. But Rome is his last see. And there can be only one Peter at a time. That’s the way Jesus established Peter’s office. And his grave is under the altar at St Peter’s.
      
      another Example
      
      When popes for a time, left Rome and resided in Avingnon France, did that mean when the popes returned to Rome, that the bishops in Avingnon that succeeded as bishops in Avingnon, are automatically popes? No. Successors to Peter? No
      
      popes ordain bishops. Does that automatically make those bishops popes? No
      Syro:
      

      The Church in India was founded by St. Thomas the Apostle in 52AD, before Rome was founded by St. Peter.

      For clarification, when Paul wrote Romans, (letter to the Church at Rome), in ~54 a.d., he’s writing to an existing Church.
      Syro:
      

      This Church was in union with the Patriarchate-Catholicos of the Church of the East, and later a portion under the Syriac Orthodox See of Antioch (NOT BYZANTINE!).

      For clarification, in 52 a.d. there is no terminology like “Church of the East” or “Syriac Orthodox” or “patriarchal system” etc etc.
      
      I asked you this question previously but received no answer.
      
      When is the first time we see in writting, “Orthodox Church”? documented please.
      Syro:
      

      As to “remaining Orthodox”?? Did we somehow become heterodox when recognizing union with Rome? If so, why is heterodoxy something to strive toward??

      That wasn’t my question

 

[Vico]

speaking of history, and ranking of sees,

The ancient ranking of sees (BC) before Constantinople

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   (AC) after Constantinople
   1. • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      I have some questions
      • How can Constantinople so easily move to 2nd place and push Alexandria and Antioch behind it, if those 2 sees had special ranking being sees of Peter?
      • If the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria are considered Peter’s successors also, shouldn’t we see that played out in a special way in history in terms of ranking or something?
      • Shouldn’t those 2 sees have permanent special positions for the Orthodox as a result? Do they have that special position throughout the last 2000 years?
      • When Antioch split in the 18th century, between Orthodox and Melkite for example, who then is the successor to St Peter THEN in Antioch? The Orthodox bishop or the Melkite bishop?
      • And Alexandria barely has a Christian population left. What about them?
      I would suggest this, even with your own bishops, when a bishop moves, a bishop’s see is where he is currently, not where he was… true?
      
      In Peter’s case, he has the entire world. But Rome is his last see. And there can be only one Peter at a time. That’s the way Jesus established Peter’s office. And his grave is under the altar at St Peter’s.
      
      another Example
      
      When popes for a time, left Rome and resided in Avingnon France, did that mean when the popes returned to Rome, that the bishops in Avingnon that succeeded as bishops in Avingnon, are automatically popes? No. Successors to Peter? No
      
      popes ordain bishops. Does that automatically make those bishops popes? No
      
      For clarification, when Paul wrote Romans, (letter to the Church at Rome), in ~54 a.d., he’s writing to an existing Church.
      
      For clarification, in 52 a.d. there is no terminology like “Church of the East” or “Syriac Orthodox” or “patriarchal system” etc etc.
      
      I asked you this question previously but received no answer.
      
      When is the first time we see in writting, “Orthodox Church”? documented please.
      
      That wasn’t my question

1. 1. 
      This is from Letter 98 From the Synod of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) to Pope Leo I (The Great):“And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told. The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople as to provide for the good government of those cities, because of the frequent disorders that arise on the death of their bishops, both clergy and laity being then without a leader and disturbing church order. And this has not escaped your holiness, particularly in the case of Ephesus, which has often caused you annoyance. We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second:”
      
      Pope Leo “declared that this canon had never been submitted to Rome and that their lessened honor was a violation of the Nicene order.”
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople
      
      Pope Leo did not approve Canon 28 of the Council of Chalceldon which inserted Constantinople.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So when the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch are standing together, the Pope is just fooling around and not recognizing the 2nd place of honor of the EP in a future united Church?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yep

That’s an accusation. Pick an issue. Where’s the specific “Eastern” issues I’m to understand?

What for? You’ve got all the answers.

IMV, Bp John hit a home run when he said the following

“Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.” There is no ‘Eastern truth’ vs ‘Western truth’. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by “party line” positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given “identity.” The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East.” This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.”

And look how often that happens in dialogues

Right. There is not East or West. Only Latin. What was I thinking. We only have the privilege of being tolerated and ghettoized by the superior Latin intellect and thinking. Sorry for doubting you.

 

[Peter_J]

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

Just speaking for myself, I think his appointment by the pope is somewhat beside the point, which is this question: why the obsession with Bishop John Elya?

 

[Casilda]

Wondering if there are any Eastern Rite Catechisms in print and available now? Any Catechisms by Eastern Saints?

:doh2:

and all the OP wanted was specific Eastern catechisms. I guess we are all getting a lot more

 

[Bookcat]

:doh2:

and all the OP wanted was specific Eastern catechisms. I guess we are all getting a lot more

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.

ukrarcheparchy.us/index.php?categoryid=52

There is thus also in addition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church there is the Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I do not know what others have been so far created -but I did here of that one.

 

[Casilda]

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.

It is why I linked catechetical lectures that pre-date the CCC from St. Cyril, what the OP was asking for.

 

[Bookcat]

It is why I linked catechetical lectures that pre-date the CCC from St. Cyril, what the OP was asking for.

Yes there are great riches - east and west that can be discovered by all.

 

[steve_b]

What for? You’ve got all the answers.

Here’s my 1st post on this thread #15

I was up front, by saying “For my education, Just a quick question” concerning the text that I highlighted of yours.

I asked for examples of the various situations and cultural issues being suggested here that would be contrary or conflicting to what is in the CCC, and therefore needs to be accounted for?

BTW, I’m still waiting for the examples!

Look, I ask questions, lots of them, but as I say it’s for my education. That doesn’t mean however, I don’t chew on the answers I receive. I’m not just some backstop you can throw anything at, if I have something further to say, the ball is going to come back at you. Contrary to what you may think I do listen to what you’re saying. You say I need to be schooled on many things. I won’t disagree with that. But understand, that goes both ways.
Syro:

Right. There is not East or West. Only Latin. What was I thinking. We only have the privilege of being tolerated and ghettoized by the superior Latin intellect and thinking. Sorry for doubting you.

Well, when you say it like that, you take something meant to be neutral, and even handed, and bring polemics back into the mix. Why?

 

[steve_b]

why the obsession with Bishop John Elya?

No obsession, I just like his style.

And the quotes I use of his, IMV, he’s spot on. BULLSEYE

 

[SyroMalankara]

BTW, I’m still waiting for the examples!

Look, I ask questions, lots of them, but as I say it’s for my education. That doesn’t mean however, I don’t chew on the answers I receive. I’m not just some backstop you can throw anything at, if I have something further to say, the ball is going to come back at you. Contrary to what you may think I do listen to what you’re saying. You say I need to be schooled on many things. I won’t disagree with that. But understand, that goes both ways. What goes both ways? I didn’t ask you for an education. You came onto the Eastern subforum asking for one. I have at least one degree in theology and years of study on the subject, and have studied with Latins, Byzantines, Syriacs, Chaldeans, Malankara, Malabars, Anglicans, Marthoma and others you’ve probably never heard of. If I wanted an education on something substantial, I’d ask a scholar or search a journal, or seek a spiritual elder. When I get an answer, I’d try to absorb it, not contradict what I am being taught with 65 quotes from various sources, trying to prove I already know the answers to what I’m asking.

 

[steve_b]

What goes both ways? I didn’t ask you for an education.

okay
Syro:

You came onto the Eastern subforum asking for one. I have at least one degree in theology and years of study on the subject, and have studied with Latins, Byzantines, Syriacs, Chaldeans, Malankara, Malabars, Anglicans, Marthoma and others you’ve probably never heard of.

Good for you. I’ve got a degree as well. And I don’t mind at all that I’m still learning.
syro:

If I wanted an education on something substantial, I’d ask a scholar or search a journal, or seek a spiritual elder. When I get an answer, I’d try to absorb it, not contradict what I am being taught with 65 quotes from various sources, trying to prove I already know the answers to what I’m asking.

The people I quote have the credentials you say you seek. And I quote alot.

 

[The_Serpent]

Guess what? I found a Eastern Saint that made a Catechism! St. Josaphat, of the Ukraine Rite.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=71

 

[5Loaves]

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?

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

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?

The Orientale Lumen Conference XVIII last month in DC was on the topic “Ecumenical Dimensions of Marriage” The plenary sessions are all available on Ancient Faith Radio. You might find they help with your confusion, or not. I would suggest listening to Met. Kallistos first but not only to his.

 

[5Loaves]

For my education, Just a quick question

What are examples of the various situations and cultural issues being suggested here that would be contrary or conflicting to what is in the CCC, and therefore needs to be accounted for?

In her excellent interview series “Your Word From the Wise” Catherine Alexander has a two part interview with Abbot Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Monastery, Eastern Catholic Theology PART 1 and PART 2

It you click on “Show More” you can see which questions she asks Abbot Nicholas in each video.

PART 1
Questions Asked:

1. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches say in Canon 28 that “a rite encompasses the liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony, culture, and circumstances of history of a distinct people by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.” What does each rite having a different theological patrimony mean in this context?
2. Is there a multiplicity of theologies then accepted among the different Catholic Churches?
3. How can two churches in communion with each other have different theologies?
4. Do Eastern and Oriental Catholics have to affirm dogmas proclaimed by Rome?
5. Do Eastern and Oriental Catholics have to accept all Roman Catholic teachings and theology?
6. May Eastern and Oriental Catholics reject dogmas proclaimed by Rome as being outside their theological patrimony?

PART 2
Questions Asked:
7. May they reject doctrine and dogmas proclaimed by Rome as incorrect or heretical, like papal supremacy?
8. What about doctrines or dogmas proclaimed after the treaties of union, like the immaculate conception?
9. May Roman Catholics reject Eastern or Oriental Catholic theology as outside their theological patrimony, incorrect or heretical?
10. What is the bottom line on what it means to the everyday Catholic that each of the rites includes its own theological patrimony?

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

1. 
   Here’s an example of how the CCC overlooks the Eastern perspective. In the Latin perspective, the eschatological end of man in the beatific vision. In the Byzantine perspective, the eschatogical end of man is theosis, the process by which we are united to God by participating in God’s divine energies. In the CCC, there are five references in the CCC to the beatific vision. There are no references to theosis, deification, or divinization. There are also no references to participation in God’s divine energies. One cannot have an appreciation of the Byzantine understanding of salvation apart from theosis and God’s divine energies, yet the CCC makes no mention of either. This is just one example of why many Easterners, including me, view the CCC as Latin, and not universal in perspective.
   
   Another example is that there are far more references from Western Fathers and ecclesiastical writers than there are from Eastern Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. One of the traditional Greek Doctors of the Church, St. Basil the Great, isn’t even referenced at all, and St. Augustine is referenced far more times than Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom all three combined.
   
   Having said this, I’m not anti-CCC. I do think it is a great resource. I have not infrequently used it to demonstrate Catholic teaching. But I reject the mentality that Eastern Catholics have no need of their own catechisms, because all they need is the CCC, which I do not view as being universal. On the contrary, it is very Western in perspective.

 

[steve_b]

In her excellent interview series “Your Word From the Wise” Catherine Alexander has a two part interview with Abbot Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Monastery, Eastern Catholic Theology PART 1 and PART 2

It you click on “Show More” you can see which questions she asks Abbot Nicholas in each video.

PART 1
Questions Asked:

1. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches say in Canon 28 that “a rite encompasses the liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony, culture, and circumstances of history of a distinct people by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.” What does each rite having a different theological patrimony mean in this context?
2. Is there a multiplicity of theologies then accepted among the different Catholic Churches?
3. How can two churches in communion with each other have different theologies?
4. Do Eastern and Oriental Catholics have to affirm dogmas proclaimed by Rome?
5. Do Eastern and Oriental Catholics have to accept all Roman Catholic teachings and theology?
6. May Eastern and Oriental Catholics reject dogmas proclaimed by Rome as being outside their theological patrimony?

PART 2
Questions Asked:
7. May they reject doctrine and dogmas proclaimed by Rome as incorrect or heretical, like papal supremacy?
8. What about doctrines or dogmas proclaimed after the treaties of union, like the immaculate conception?
9. May Roman Catholics reject Eastern or Oriental Catholic theology as outside their theological patrimony, incorrect or heretical?
10. What is the bottom line on what it means to the everyday Catholic that each of the rites includes its own theological patrimony?

You put alot of work into that response. Thanks for that effort.

In those examples, from Fr Nicholas PART 1 & .PART 2

Being transparent, the questions asked, (which you are so kind to list) were good, and I’m sure meant to elicit rich answers. The interviewer unfortunately didn’t ask follow up questions based on answers given. I found myself wanting to ask followup questions during the 2 interviews . I found Fr Nicholas gave broad even vague answers to those questions and I was looking for specifics. So what I found lacking in those interviews, is how general he was, and non specific.

For me, I didn’t think he landed the plane.

Again, thanks for your response.