Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[johnnykins]

They (at least the Melkite Greek Catholics) are in communion without agreeing on all dogma. An example of this would be: Purgatory.
The Eastern Catholics maintain the communion with Roman Catholics dispite their differences.

Perhaps you would do well to make an appointment with the Melkite Greek Catholic Bishop or Archimantrite or Priest to see what their Church believes/teaches and also speak with imigrants who came to this country directly from the Middle Eastern Countries who have had the Melkite Faith handed down to them from their ancestors going all the way back to the time of Christ and they will tell you themselves what they recognize as Truth/Dogma and what doesn’t. By doing this, you will see that they are Orthodox in Faith/Doctrine/Dogma but have chosen to maintain unity with the Roman Catholic Church inspite of their differences.

And you being a convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy - QED.

I’ve known Melkites since I was a boy. My best friend in High School was Melkite. I’ve talked with many Melkites and read their literature and websites. While individuals may not accept all the Catholic Church teaches - just like many Latins - the Melkite Church is well within the ambit of Catholic teaching.

Frankly hinting the Melkites are either so ignorant of their own theology (see your position above) - or so venial as to sell out their heritage - is an insult. Naturally it is one well within the usual commentary on the Eastern Catholics typically found on this thread, and the prior thread on Eastern Christianity, by many (not all) Orthodox who visit here.

I assure you if the Melkite Church rejected Catholic dogma - they would have pulled up stakes long ago. Might I suggest the issue is with the Orthodox - who are indeed not Catholic.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Johnnykins,

I’ve known Melkites since I was a boy.

Apparently, you reside somewhere in the (what would be for Melkites) diaspora. If that is the case, I suppose all of your exposure could lead you to come to these understandings. But then, I must say your exposure to the Melkite church seems rather limited, from what you have stated here.

My best friend in High School was Melkite. I’ve talked with many Melkites and read their literature and websites. While individuals may not accept all the Catholic Church teaches - just like many Latins - the Melkite Church is well within the ambit of Catholic teaching.

But even everything Holy Orthodoxy teaches is well within the ambit of Catholic teaching.

It’s true! Every doctrine taught by Orthodox is acceptable to Rome…everything. The difficulties lie in what new doctrines Roman Catholicism has added since the Great East-West schism.

In Damascus, Melkites are very Orthodox and quite as likely to deny some western theological constructs like Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Purgatory. In Hackensack and Peoria where Melkites had been using the Baltimore catechism for five generations or more, the typical layperson might think differently.

Frankly hinting the Melkites are either so ignorant of their own theology (see your position above) - or so venial as to sell out their heritage - is an insult.

You cannot stifle this argument with threats and insults. Perhaps you do not like what you read here, but as uncomfortable as that makes you it is still up to you to try to understand the Melkites. Their heritage is not Latin and until you figure that out you will never understand why Ott carries little to no weight with them.

I assure you if the Melkite Church rejected Catholic dogma - they would have pulled up stakes long ago. Might I suggest the issue is with the Orthodox - who are indeed not Catholic.

Melkites worldwide do not reject their heritage of Catholic dogma, they might not understand or accept the Latin ideas that you accept, but what they do accept is thoroughly Catholic and proper to their own heritage.

It might help you to read the statements of Patriarchs of the Melkites, as well as any formal statements of their synods, and not be so dismissive of them.

Michael

 

[johnnykins]

Hello Johnnykins,
Apparently, you reside somewhere in the (what would be for Melkites) diaspora. If that is the case, I suppose all of your exposure could lead you to come to these understandings. But then, I must say your exposure to the Melkite church seems rather limited, from what you have stated here.

not sure what you’re saying here. What I’ve stated here is by necessity limited - as it is for everyone else. A thread is hardly the place for an extended exegesis on much of anything.

But even everything Holy Orthodoxy teaches is well within the ambit of Catholic teaching.

Naturally since the only thing that the Orthodox teach dogmatically is from the 7 councils (won’t get into the 8, 9 or more issues). Nothing else is taught dogmatically one way or the other - even the rejection of the “new doctrines” is not dogmatically anathematized by the Orthodox since no council recognized by the Orthodox have addressed the issues. I admit you couldn’t tell that from the postings on the old thread, but it’s true.

It’s true! Every doctrine taught by Orthodox is acceptable to Rome…everything. The difficulties lie in what new doctrines Roman Catholicism has added since the Great East-West schism.

Agreed - see above - of course the Orthodox have never rejected any dogmatically - no council to do so. 800 years of councils and then none… Don’t need to go to that issue.

In Damascus, Melkites are very Orthodox and quite as likely to deny some western theological constructs like Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Purgatory. In Hackensack and Peoria where Melkites had been using the Baltimore catechism for five generations or more, the typical layperson might think differently.

Again the Melkite Church - in Syria and Peoria is one church that is part of the Catholic Church - and not in schism or heresy whatever individuals may think. That certain Melkites might be confused - the Melkite Church is not. Hey, many Latin Catholics and many Orthodox adherents are confused on may issues that their Church is not confused about. Hardly a controversial statement. I certainly accept the 2 lungs metaphor and have no issue with the Melkites. Read my posts. It’s primarily the Orthodox posters on this thread that appear to have issues. Not me.

You cannot stifle this argument with threats and insults.

Not trying to do anything of the sort. That the Orthodox posters appear to imply that the Melkite Church is in schism from Rome except for a venial denial of it’s theology strikes me as insulting, self-serving and plain wrong. Rome and the Melkites are doing quite well. It’s the Orthodox who seem upset with this. Not insults or anything - just noting the facts on the Orthodox posts here.

The Melkites are Perhaps you do not like what you read here, but as uncomfortable as that makes you it is still up to you to try to understand the Melkites. Their heritage is not Latin and until you figure that out you will never understand why Ott carries little to no weight with them. Melkites worldwide do not reject their heritage of Catholic dogma, they might not understand or accept the Latin ideas that you accept, but what they do accept is thoroughly Catholic and proper to their own heritage.

I agree 100% - except I’m OK with what I read here only when it’s clear that the Melkites are in full communion and are part of the Church. When someone writes the Patriarch is a heretic or that the Melkites reject the Catholic Church or that Church dogma is misconstrued - that I do not agree with - whether written by a Melkite, a Latin or an Orthodox. I note most of the comments of that sort appear to be by Orthodox - or are by Latins in response to Orthodox misconstructions of what was said or is taught by the Melkies. Both are abhorrent.

It might help you to read the statements of Patriarchs of the Melkites, as well as any formal statements of their synods, and not be so dismissive of them.

Michael

I have - and I’m not. The Melkites Church and its hierarchy and theologians are quite clear, specific and in full accord with Catholic doctrine as I understand it. They have great comments such as I’ve read them and are not a problem for me. I do note thay are, like all serious theology, nuanced, specific often using jargon that is easily misunderstood by the average layman.

Overall, I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[thedejongs]

It doesn’t do any good to cite a canon and leave out the session and chapter. Please cite correctly next time. And just as I stated previously, it does not state that conception without original sin makes one incapable of original sin. It does not state that Mary did not have free will. It does not state that Mary was incapable of sin. It states what I’ve been saying all along, without an abundance of God’s grace no one can avoid sin.

Perhaps the following will be more helpful to you: The quote is Canon XXIII of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547. With that information, you should be able to find not only the Canon itself, but the context and the entire decrees of the Council. If you have any difficulties in doing so, please feel free to click this link: history.hanover.edu/texts/Trent/trentcom.html. As to the content of the Canon, I am not sure that it simply reiterates what you’ve been saying all along. It states expressly that Mary was, by special privilege, exempted from sin unlike any human being other than Christ himself.

Lol! I’ve read it. Have you? Give me the exact quote that supports this statement.

Not exactly sure why you’re laughing, but I am certainly happy to give you the exact quote that supports my statement. I italicized the portion I believe to be relevant. It comes from the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII “On the Mystical Body of Christ” (Mystici Corporis Christi) The 110th paragraph reads, in full, as follows:
Venerable Brethren, may the Virgin Mother of God hear the prayers of Our paternal heart - which are yours also - and obtain for all a true love of the Church - she whose sinless soul was filled with the divine spirit of Jesus Christ above all other created souls, who “in the name of the whole human race” gave her consent “for a spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature.” Within her virginal womb Christ our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him forth as the source of all supernatural life, and presented Him newly born, as Prophet, King and Priest to those who, from among Jews and Gentiles, were the first to come to adore Him. Furthermore, her only Son, condescending to His mother’s prayer in “Cana of Galilee,” performed the miracle by which “his disciples believed in Him.” It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother’s rights and her mother’s love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members. She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost; and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful “filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ…for His Body, which is the Church”; and she continues to have for the Mystical Body of Christ, born of the pierced Heart of the Savior, the same motherly care and ardent love with which she cherished and fed the Infant Jesus in the crib.
I see that you have read this document, as well, so I will forbear from providing a link thereto.

It’s extremely unhelpful for you to take portions out of Ott’s FCD and then pretend like you’ve read the source material.

I was unsure on how to respond to this, if at all. As you seem fond both of citations and of Ludwig Ott, I shall simply encourage you to consider the meaning and implementation of the fourth and fifth words counted from the end of the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Part 2, Section 21, of Book 4 of Ott’s FCD.

Have a great day!

 

[fulloffaith]

Is there anyone who knows why Melkites are permitted to deny some dogmas and still maintain full communion with Rome?

 

[Marina14]

Again the Melkite Church - in Syria and Peoria is one church that is part of the Catholic Church - and not in schism or heresy whatever individuals may think. That certain Melkites might be confused - the Melkite Church is not. Hey, many Latin Catholics and many Orthodox adherents are confused on may issues that their Church is not confused about. Hardly a controversial statement. I certainly accept the 2 lungs metaphor and have no issue with the Melkites. Read my posts. It’s primarily the Orthodox posters on this thread that appear to have issues. Not me.
QUOTE]

Yes, the Melkite Church is part of the Catholic Church, but ARE NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC.

What you fail to understand is that Catholic is not limited to Roman Dogma, Roman mindset or Roman Theology.

An Archimandrite of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church simply put it like this, “We are a Catholic Church in communion, but an Orthodox Church in faith.”

For some reason you are wanting to force Melkites into what they refer to as Latinization on their Church. (www.melkite.org click the “Role of Eastern Catholics” tab & click on “latinizations”) They are not Latin, they are not Roman. They do not believe or teach Purgatory, Infallibility, etc. These are Roman/Latin Catholic beliefs which are not a part of the original deposit of faith of the Catholic Church - the Roman Catholics (the Pope & Magestarium) recognizes these differences between themselves and the Eastern Catholics or Oriental Catholics and they all maintain unity within the Catholic Church. The Oriental Catholics don’t even teach that Christ has two distinct natures - yet Rome (Pope & Magestarium) still hold communion with them as well.
It’s Catholic to have differences of theology/doctrine/beliefs/Liturgy/etc. while maintaining unity.
Your strong point of view (trying to shove Roman Catholic doctrine down the throats of Eastern Catholics) is what is keeping many Orthodox outside the Catholic Church - the reason the Orthodox Patriarchs do not want to unite - because they have seen how Roman Catholics try to change the Orthodox Faith - they don’t want to risk losing their identity, their heritage from the Apostles, etc.
Perhaps it would be good for you to learn what it truly means to be Catholic and truly learn and experience all of the Rites within your Catholic Church. Continue being Roman Catholic if that’s your preference, but don’t try to change the Faith of other Catholics.
Peace.

 

[fulloffaith]

johnnykins;2990406:

Again the Melkite Church - in Syria and Peoria is one church that is part of the Catholic Church - and not in schism or heresy whatever individuals may think. That certain Melkites might be confused - the Melkite Church is not. Hey, many Latin Catholics and many Orthodox adherents are confused on may issues that their Church is not confused about. Hardly a controversial statement. I certainly accept the 2 lungs metaphor and have no issue with the Melkites. Read my posts. It’s primarily the Orthodox posters on this thread that appear to have issues. Not me.
QUOTE]

Yes, the Melkite Church is part of the Catholic Church, but ARE NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC.
i’m sorry, Marina, but Rome has dogmatically defined all of the doctrines you’ve just listed. At least the last time i checked, they were to be held by ALL CATHOLICS. They are not mere matters of opinion in the eyes of the Church, but divinely revealed truths, and any revealed truth IS indeed believed to be PART OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH. You might want to check the decrees of Trent or Florence again.
What you fail to understand is that Catholic is not limited to Roman Dogma, Roman mindset or Roman Theology.

An Archimandrite of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church simply put it like this, “We are a Catholic Church in communion, but an Orthodox Church in faith.”

For some reason you are wanting to force Melkites into what they refer to as Latinization on their Church. (www.melkite.org

click the “Role of Eastern Catholics” tab & click on “latinizations”) They are not Latin, they are not Roman. They do not believe or teach Purgatory, Infallibility, etc. These are Roman/Latin Catholic beliefs which are not a part of the original deposit of faith of the Catholic Church - the Roman Catholics (the Pope & Magestarium) recognizes these differences between themselves and the Eastern Catholics or Oriental Catholics and they all maintain unity within the Catholic Church. The Oriental Catholics don’t even teach that Christ has two distinct natures - yet Rome (Pope & Magestarium) still hold communion with them as well.
It’s Catholic to have differences of theology/doctrine/beliefs/Liturgy/etc. while maintaining unity.
Your strong point of view (trying to shove Roman Catholic doctrine down the throats of Eastern Catholics) is what is keeping many Orthodox outside the Catholic Church - the reason the Orthodox Patriarchs do not want to unite - because they have seen how Roman Catholics try to change the Orthodox Faith - they don’t want to risk losing their identity, their heritage from the Apostles, etc.
Perhaps it would be good for you to learn what it truly means to be Catholic and truly learn and experience all of the Rites within your Catholic Church. Continue being Roman Catholic if that’s your preference, but don’t try to change the Faith of other Catholics.
Peace.

 

[East_and_West]

Perhaps it would be good for you to learn what it truly means to be Catholic and truly learn and experience all of the Rites within your Catholic Church. Continue being Roman Catholic if that’s your preference, but don’t try to change the Faith of other Catholics.
Peace.

So you admitt that the East and the West profess two different faiths?

 

[fulloffaith]

Marina14;2991389:
Please ignore that. See the part that ends with a thumbs up and a smily-face, Marina.
Sorry, made a mistake.

 

[fulloffaith]

So you admitt that the East and the West profess two different faiths?

Good point, East and West!

 

[Marina14]

Marina14;2991389:
I don’t know about the other Eastern Catholic Churches and their participation with Trent or Florence, but the Melkite Greek Catholic Church did not come back into union with Rome until the 1700’s - centuries after either of these councils.

You are speaking of the Roman Catholic dogmas, not the dogmas of the Catholic Church which can & do vary from Rite to Rite.

 

[johnnykins]

Ahh - it would be real helpful if you’d bother to learn how to use the word processing on this forum.

Perhaps you would do well to make an appointment with the Melkite Greek Catholic Bishop or Archimantrite or Priest to see what their Church believes/teaches and also speak with imigrants who came to this country directly from the Middle Eastern Countries who have had the Melkite Faith handed down to them from their ancestors going all the way back to the time of Christ and they will tell you themselves what they recognize as Truth/Dogma and what doesn’t. By doing this, you will see that they are Orthodox in Faith/Doctrine/Dogma but have chosen to maintain unity with the Roman Catholic Church inspite of their differences.

Melkites are Catholic - Eastern Catholic., but Catholic in union with Rome accepting all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. In effect you are disparaging the Melkites by claiming they have sold out - denying their own theology for union. NOTHING could be further from the TRUTH. Don’t claim that the Melkites are not Catholic. They are Catholic in faith and doctrine - 100%. Catholic faith and doctrine more than amply accommodates eastern theology as expressed by the Melkite, the Maronites and all other Catholic Churches.

 

[johnnykins]

fulloffaith;2991467:

I don’t know about the other Eastern Catholic Churches and their participation with Trent or Florence, but the Melkite Greek Catholic Church did not come back into union with Rome until the 1700’s - centuries after either of these councils.

You are speaking of the Roman Catholic dogmas, not the dogmas of the Catholic Church which can & do vary from Rite to Rite.

Perhaps this is why you left the True Church - you don’t understand the concept of dogma. - meant this for Marina. Not FOF.

 

[Joab_Anias]

You are speaking of the Roman Catholic dogmas, not the dogmas of the Catholic Church which can & do vary from Rite to Rite.

The is one Catholic Dogma. It is irreversable and inclusive of all rites and 23 Catholic Churches.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of
faith.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and
make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. “In Catholic
doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy 234 of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”

Dogmas of the Catholic Church. (Fundamentals)

The following De Fide statements comprise “Our Catholic Faith without which it is impossible to please God” (The Council of Trent, Session V, explaining the correct interpretation of Hebrews 11: 6). These positive “articles of faith” have the function of fundamental principles which the faithful accepts without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, Who is absolute truth (Council of the Vatican). They represent the mind of Christ as St. Paul says:

1 Cor. 2:16. But we have the mind of Christ.
Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ yesterday, and today: and the same for ever.

Since Our Catholic Faith comes from God, they are not open for debate, and they are not reversible.

The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes:

1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgement.

There is, then, no place for “pick and choose” in the truths proposed to the Faith of Christians by the Infallible Teaching Church for they are bound in Heaven by God Himself. If something is decreed on earth and is also bound in Heaven, that thing must be the truth. Otherwise, God is no longer the Truth, which is contrary to the Gospel:

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.

The Catholic Church is infallible because it is :

1 Tim 3:15. the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.

If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

For a list of 16 groupings of these irreversible truths see:

The work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop.

 

[yeshua]

So you admitt that the East and the West profess two different faiths?

O contraire, do *you *admit that the East and West profess two different faiths?

It is not the difficulty of an Easterner or Oriental to see that there is a difference and the subsequent dialogue that needs to be had. The answer you want must come from Latins and some diasporic Eastern and Orientals.

From the scholastic (anthropological) study of religion, unity within a religion is defined as the group’s perception of unity, not an actual fact of unity in belief; demonstrated in excess by history.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Catherine_Grant]

General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button.** If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked.** Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

We understand that there is a wide diversity of expression of theology, spirituality, and discipline between and within the Eastern, Oriental, and Western rites and churches. While these topics may legitimately be discussed in charity, calling into question the catholicity, orthodoxy, or personal faith of another is outside the purpose of this forum and will not be tolerated. Please review our forum guidelines on charity before posting. Thank you.

Banned Topic #19
Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion

 

[yeshua]

So you admitt that the East and the West profess two different faiths?

Bear in mind when you answer, it is the Catholic Church’s position that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the belief system of Holy Orthodoxy, except the deficiency they have in lacking the Petrine ministry. It is because of this that the Catholic Church allows communion with the Orthodox Church (even if you personally disagree with the matter, it does not change this blatant fact).

(I bring in the Orthodox because the beliefs of the EC being asked the question are often claimed synonymous (dare I say the same) with Orthodoxy, and yet they are out of our Catholic communion. The point is if there are two different faiths in the Catholic Communion, and we acknowledge the Orthodox’s faith as having the fundamentals except the Papacy, how can a Latin claim our theology as EC and OC is in need of correcting itself?)

Peace and God Bless!

 

[ronyodish]

Hi everyone,

In these discussions on the patrimonies of the Catholic Communion of Churches, let’s be careful not to go into opposite extremes, one extreme resulting in a multiplicity of contradicting faiths/realities/truths, while the other opposite extreme resulting in a rigid uniformity of theological, liturgical, spiritual, and disciplinary expressions/symbols/terms

**Here are some Catechetical statements:

Light For Life (Part One - The Mystery Believed):**​

We Grow in Faith

The Scriptural word for the way the believer puts one faith in God is eis (“into”). Our Lord told the apostles to “baptize [all nations] into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). Accordingly at every baptism we sing, “All of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, alleluia” (cf Gal 3:27). Baptism “into” means most accurately that we belong to Him in whose name we have been baptized. We more than belong; we “become” Christ as if we were embraced by Him. We express a faith that is more than just a belief in a set of propositions. It is a process of becoming what we believe, of moving towards union with the Trinity to whom we belong by baptism.

How far is this vision of faith from that of our own age! For many today faith is simple opinion about the appearance of truth: a matter of intellectual or emotional conviction. In the traditional Christian understanding, faith is nothing less than an event of ultimate reality, surpassing the limitations of the life of this world.

Yet there is an intellectual side to faith, a dimension of reasonableness or openness to logical expression. We can express our perception of what faith reveals through word-symbols, though these words remain inadequate to express the fullness of this reality. Thus the Church proclaims the mystery of God in specific terms in its profession of belief, the Nicene Creed, while reminding us that this is but a Symbol of the One we encounter through faith.

One aspect of the call to faith, then, is an invitation to make our own the Church’s understanding of what God has shown us of Himself and what He has done to unite ourselves with Him. We are called not simply to a generic belief in God or religion, but to the faith of the Church. The first part of this presentation, “The Mystery Believed,” sketches this mystery of the God who loves us and reveals Himself to us.​

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:​

II. The Language of Faith

170 We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities they express, which faith allows us to touch. "The believer’s act [of faith] does not terminate in the propositions, but in the realities [which they express]."All the same, we do approach these realities with the help of formulations of the faith which permit us to express the faith and to hand it on, to celebrate it in community, to assimilate and live on it more and more.

171 The Church, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, faithfully guards “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. She guards the memory of Christ’s words; it is she who from generation to generation hands on the apostles’ confession of faith. As a mother who teaches her children to speak and so to understand and communicate, the Church our Mother teaches us the language of faith in order to introduce us to the understanding and the life of faith.

III. Only One Faith

172 Through the centuries, in so many languages, cultures, peoples and nations, the Church has constantly confessed this one faith, received from the one Lord, transmitted by one Baptism, and grounded in the conviction that all people have only one God and Father. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, a witness of this faith, declared:

173 “Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples. . . guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but a single house, and similarly believes as if having but one soul and a single heart, and preaches, teaches and hands on this faith with a unanimous voice, as if possessing only one mouth.”

 

[ronyodish]

174 “For though languages differ throughout the world, the content of the Tradition is one and the same. The Churches established in Germany have no other faith or Tradition, nor do those of the Iberians, nor those of the Celts, nor those of the East, of Egypt, of Libya, nor those established at the center of the world. . .” The Church’s message “is true and solid, in which one and the same way of salvation appears throughout the whole world.”

175 “We guard with care the faith that we have received from the Church, for without ceasing, under the action of God’s Spirit, this deposit of great price, as if in an excellent vessel, is constantly being renewed and causes the very vessel that contains it to be renewed.”​

Captivated by Your Teachings (A Resource Book for Adult Maronite Catholics)​

Catholic Faith, Eastern-style

Our Catholic Faith is a sure expression of what God has revealed in the message and life of Jesus. It is not a blind faith. We really do grow in our knowledge of revealed truths - personally, and as a Community of Believers.

Western Catholicism has had a long-standing emphasis on the rational and systematic ordering of Church beliefs. Since the Middle Ages the approach to theology has been described as “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). Using certain categories such as “The Trinity,” “Grace,” “The Sacraments,” et al., has helped define these areas of belief rather strictly.

The Eastern Churches, however, have not usually been so similarly systematic. For us, all the truths of our Catholic heritage have been embodied and celebrated in a liturgical setting - icons, chant and more - and a rich prayer life. We have tended to sing our faith more than categorize it.

This Eastern view may be summed up in a descriptive phrase offered by Robert Murray in his book, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. In it he speaks of fides adorans Mysterium, or “faith adoring the Mystery,” by which he means the Mystery of God and divine revelation. While it is true that our minds seek answers, and while it is also true that doctrinal questions have been clarified more and more through theological reflection (especially in the West - the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good example), nevertheless, the East witnesses that too much systematizing produces the illusion that the Mystery of God can be exhausted through such a process. In more than one place, even the Catechism reminds us that the Mystery of God is inexhaustible.
…​

**Papal and Vatican II statements:

Pope John Paul II in Orientale Lumen:**​

Knowing the Christian East
An Experience of Faith

1. “In the study of revealed truth East and West have used different methods and approaches in understanding and confessing divine things. It is hardly surprising, then, if sometimes one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed them better. In such cases, these various theological formulations are often to be considered complementary rather than conflicting.”

Pondering over the questions, aspirations and experiences I have mentioned, my thoughts turn to the Christian heritage of the East. I do not intend to describe that heritage or to interpret it: I listen to the Churches of the East, which I know are living interpreters of the treasure of tradition they preserve. In contemplating it, before my eyes appear elements of great significance for fuller and more thorough understanding of the Christian experience. These elements are capable of giving a more complete Christian response to the expectations of the men and women of today. Indeed, in comparison to any other culture, the Christian East has a unique and privileged role as the original setting where the Church was born. 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. Here, with respect and trepidation, I want to approach the act of worship which these Churches express, rather than to identify this or that specific theological point which has emerged down the centuries in the polemical debates between East and West.

From the beginning, the Christian East has proved to contain a wealth of forms capable of assuming the characteristic features of each individual culture, with supreme respect for each particular community. We can only thank God with deep emotion for the wonderful variety with which he has allowed such a rich and composite mosaic of different tesserae to be formed.​

 

[ronyodish]

Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium says:​

23 … By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties. This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church. In like manner the Episcopal bodies of today are in a position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance, so that this collegiate feeling may be put into practical application.​

God bless,

Rony