EC's and Western Apparition Theology

[neokarny]

I’m curious how the Eastern Catholics here feel about Western apparition theologies, and Divine Mercy is a wonderful example. It is liturgically observed int he Latin Church through the Divine Mercy Sunday, and has had fairly large endorsement from recent Popes. It, like other Western apparitions, is thoroughly Latin in its theology.

Here’s the problem as I see it, assuming the Roman Catholic Church’s claims are true:

If the Divine Mercy apparitions are true, then its accompanying theology is true.
Also, if its theology is true then contary (thus Eastern) theology is false.
The Bishop of Rome, in seeming exercise of his universal office, has deemed Divine Mercy to be true.
So, contrary (thus Eastern) theology is false.

Examples of this Latin theology in the Divine Mercy apparitions would different understanding of the Fall of humanity, purgatory, the results of sin and how its overcome (Jesus being the mercy that overcomes justice), etc. I’d say that these and other similar ideas range from being incompatible to problematic when contrasted with Eastern theology.

This question I’ve been mulling over is different from the regular West-vs-East theolgoy questions in that it directly related to apparitions in reference to theological truth claims. Generally similar questions end in the result of, “each West and East have theological attempts at expressing the ineffable.” However, the attempts don’t matter if the apparition is true, since it affirms one theology or the other. In this case, Latin theology is unilaterally affirmed by these apparitions. The only conclusion I can come to from this is either that: 1) Eastern theology is false, or 2) Eastern theology is inferior or flawed in some way(s).

I’m personally rather drawn to the Divine Mercy apparitions/chaplet myself but sadly find them almost impossible (apart from the Chaplet) to reconcile with Eastern beliefs. I’m opposed to anti-Westernism, so I don’t believe it’s a bias leaking in.

Any thoughts regarding this or other theologies in the context of West and East as they appear in apparitions? The Fatima apparitions are likewise completely Latin to the seeming expense of Eastern theology if true. I’m asking this here because I’m particularly interested in seeing how Eastern Catholics think about, and deal with, this sort of thing.

 

[twf]

I have found that in many cases particular strains of Eastern theological thought have been emphasized, in recent decades, at the expense at others by those who have already determined that Eastern theology cannot be reconciled with Western theology. I personally, like many Catholics, believe that various schools of Western and Eastern theology (for there is hardly a single “theology” on either side…within the Latin Church, Franciscan theology would be quite distinct from Dominican theology…and Carmelite theology has an almost Eastern ring to it…). There are certain points of doctrine, between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches that are at odds with each other (the papacy, divorce/remarriage, among others), but within the Catholic communion Latin, Eastern and Oriental theologies happily (for the most part) coexist. Is it possible that the fundamental message of the Divine Mercy message is compatible with Eastern theology even if it is presented using Latin theological constructs - even if such a reconciliation is beyond your current understanding? We see through a mirror dimly…our understanding of the Truth - the grand mysteries which our feeble theology seeks to express is very limited.
That being said…a few points:

1. The Divine Mercy apparitions themselves are not liturgically commemorated. It is true that Blessed John Paul was inspired by these messages when he declared that the Second Sunday of Easter would also be known as “Divine Mercy Sunday”, and that he encouraged people to pray the chaplet of Divine Mercy, but the devotional aspects associated with the apparition do not form part of the Church’s liturgy. The liturgy of the Second Sunday of Easter has not changed - it is still first and foremost a commemoration of the Risen Christ appearing to the 11 and in particular to St. Thomas. The Easter Octave is an appropriate time to reflect on Christ’s Divine Mercy, but nothing beyond that general theme of mercy factors into the liturgy itself.
2. No Catholic is obliged to accept any apparition - we are simply permitted to do so.
3. Many believe that the Divine Mercy Chaplet has an Eastern ring to it in some regards…keep in mind that each decade ends with Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us…

 

[neokarny]

I have found that in many cases particular strains of Eastern theological thought have been emphasized, in recent decades, at the expense at others by those who have already determined that Eastern theology cannot be reconciled with Western theology. I personally, like many Catholics, believe that various schools of Western and Eastern theology (for there is hardly a single “theology” on either side…within the Latin Church, Franciscan theology would be quite distinct from Dominican theology…and Carmelite theology has an almost Eastern ring to it…). There are certain points of doctrine, between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches that are at odds with each other (the papacy, divorce/remarriage, among others), but within the Catholic communion Latin, Eastern and Oriental theologies happily (for the most part) coexist. Is it possible that the fundamental message of the Divine Mercy message is compatible with Eastern theology even if it is presented using Latin theological constructs - even if such a reconciliation is beyond your current understanding? We see through a mirror dimly…our understanding of the Truth - the grand mysteries which our feeble theology seeks to express is very limited.
That being said…a few points:

1. The Divine Mercy apparitions themselves are not liturgically commemorated. It is true that Blessed John Paul was inspired by these messages when he declared that the Second Sunday of Easter would also be known as “Divine Mercy Sunday”, and that he encouraged people to pray the chaplet of Divine Mercy, but the devotional aspects associated with the apparition do not form part of the Church’s liturgy. The liturgy of the Second Sunday of Easter has not changed - it is still first and foremost a commemoration of the Risen Christ appearing to the 11 and in particular to St. Thomas. The Easter Octave is an appropriate time to reflect on Christ’s Divine Mercy, but nothing beyond that general theme of mercy factors into the liturgy itself.
2. No Catholic is obliged to accept any apparition - we are simply permitted to do so.
3. Many believe that the Divine Mercy Chaplet has an Eastern ring to it in some regards…keep in mind that each decade ends with Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us…

First, regarding your points:

1. Thank you for the clarification. I didn’t think that Divine Mercy Sunday had a distinctive liturgy. I believe I was intending “liturgical observation” to refer to the obervence of the church calendar, not a special liturgical service. In other words, feast days are observed regardless of whether they have a distinct liturgy to honor them or not. Just a confusion in semantics I believe.
2. I realize this, however it seems contrary to reject what one’s Church accepts as true and honors through the calendar. Are there any theologically orthodox Catholics that reject Divine Mercy Sunday as being legitimate? I can’t fathom being able to, as an individual, reject feast days and their associated figures/events without compromising the faith in some way.
3. Absolutely, and probably part of why I appreciate it.

Now, regarding your earlier point about not being one of “those who have already determined that Eastern theology cannot be reconciled with Western theology.” The Divine Mercy apparitions affirm what I perceive to be a very Latin approach by insisting that punishment is a requirement of justice for sin. I don’t see how this is not in opposition to Eastern theology. It seems that there are two polar-opposite assumptions that are being made here with this example, and the apparitions affirm the former indirectly against the latter.

The two cannot, so far as I’m aware, be true at the same time - punishment cannot both be required of God’s justice and not required of God’s justice. And if the apparition does affirm that it is required of God’s justice, it makes no sense to “agree to disagree” over something that’s been seemingly conclusively affirmed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No Catholic is obliged to accept any apparition - we are simply permitted to do so.

If that is the case, why are apparitions part of dogma and Liturgy? If I was still Catholic and I am free not to believe in the Divine Mercy, how can I get around that if I am expected to be in Church on all Sundays and one of those Sundays happen to be Divine Mercy Sunday?

 

[GaryTaylor]

catholic.com/quickquestions/are-any-apparitions-ever-considered-dogma

catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2013-04-07

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’m curious how the Eastern Catholics here feel about Western apparition theologies, and Divine Mercy is a wonderful example. It is liturgically observed int he Latin Church through the Divine Mercy Sunday, and has had fairly large endorsement from recent Popes. It, like other Western apparitions, is thoroughly Latin in its theology.

Here’s the problem as I see it, assuming the Roman Catholic Church’s claims are true:

If the Divine Mercy apparitions are true, then its accompanying theology is true.
Also, if its theology is true then contary (thus Eastern) theology is false.
The Bishop of Rome, in seeming exercise of his universal office, has deemed Divine Mercy to be true.
So, contrary (thus Eastern) theology is false.

Examples of this Latin theology in the Divine Mercy apparitions would different understanding of the Fall of humanity, purgatory, the results of sin and how its overcome (Jesus being the mercy that overcomes justice), etc. I’d say that these and other similar ideas range from being incompatible to problematic when contrasted with Eastern theology.

This question I’ve been mulling over is different from the regular West-vs-East theolgoy questions in that it directly related to apparitions in reference to theological truth claims. Generally similar questions end in the result of, “each West and East have theological attempts at expressing the ineffable.” However, the attempts don’t matter if the apparition is true, since it affirms one theology or the other. In this case, Latin theology is unilaterally affirmed by these apparitions. The only conclusion I can come to from this is either that: 1) Eastern theology is false, or 2) Eastern theology is inferior or flawed in some way(s).

I’m personally rather drawn to the Divine Mercy apparitions/chaplet myself but sadly find them almost impossible (apart from the Chaplet) to reconcile with Eastern beliefs. I’m opposed to anti-Westernism, so I don’t believe it’s a bias leaking in.

Any thoughts regarding this or other theologies in the context of West and East as they appear in apparitions? The Fatima apparitions are likewise completely Latin to the seeming expense of Eastern theology if true. I’m asking this here because I’m particularly interested in seeing how Eastern Catholics think about, and deal with, this sort of thing.

Hi NeoKarny. I’m not sure if I’ve seen you post in these forums before, so let me start by simply saying “welcome.” It’s good to have you here.

As I’m sure others have pointed out, when the Papacy (actually the local bishop is the final authority in these matters unless he decides to take the issue up to the level of the Papacy) rules that a vision and its teachings are free from error, he’s not necessarily giving his dogmatic seal of approval, so to speak. He is simply stating that the teachings contained in the apparitions contain no dogmatic error and that the Faithful are free to believe them and follow the teachings and devotions recommended by said apparitions (incidentally they are also free not to believe them and not to follow them). He is NOT saying that the teachings contained in the apparitions are binding on all Catholics and that all Catholics must believe everything contained in them. Nor is he saying that the theological framework (i.e. the Western framework) within which those teachings were delivered is the only or best framework for the Church. Again, he is simply stating that the teachings contained in the apparitions themselves contain no error and thus the Faithful are free to follow them or not with the certainty that they will not be led astray.

Another problem with your question is the presumed opposition of Western and Eastern (in this case Byzantine) theology. As others have pointed out, there is no one Western theology, nor is there one Eastern (or one Byzantine for that matter) theology. Rather in both East and West there exists many schools of theology. Incidentally too, in ecumenical dialogue in general there is a tendency to limit “Eastern” theology to “Byzantine” theology. In actuality in the East there also exists Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, Assyrian, and other such schools of theology. The Catholic Church’s approach is not to oppose these theologies, but to see in them complimentary (if on the surface contrary) approaches to the same theological truth. No one culture - be it Byzantine, Roman, Syrian, or what have you - has a monopoly on truth, but rather every culture has sought to express the truth of the Gospel in its own times, for its own peoples, and in its own language.

The language of purgatory is a perfect example of that. Although the Byzantine East claims not to believe in purgatory, I have seen plenty of examples from the writings of the Eastern Fathers as well as Byzantine theologians of our own day that profess to believe in some sort of purification after death and before entry into heaven. Essentially that’s all that the Roman Church teaches as well. At one time it was believed in the West the purgatory was basically just a temporary hell, but such a notion has pretty much been dropped by most modern Western theologians. Now most theologians simply affirm that purgatory is a state of purification that takes place in some instances before one can be admitted to heaven. The so-called “fire” of purgatory is nothing more than the fire of God’s love for us consuming that within us which is not holy.

Okay, my children have train-wrecked my train of thought. So I guess that’ll do for now.

 

[twf]

If that is the case, why are apparitions part of dogma and Liturgy? If I was still Catholic and I am free not to believe in the Divine Mercy, how can I get around that if I am expected to be in Church on all Sundays and one of those Sundays happen to be Divine Mercy Sunday?

You and I both know that personally, Blessed John Paul was inspired by the apparitions when he declared the Second Sunday of Easter to be Divine Mercy Sunday…but as I’ve noted before, the liturgy itself was not modified…there is nothing in the propers (divine office or mass) that directly alludes to the apparitions. From a liturgical standpoint, we are simply commemorating the Lord’s mercy…nothing else…even if the pope’s personal motivations were inspired by the apparitions. The apparition is not in any way referenced in the texts of the liturgy. The liturgy is limited to the official prayers and texts - not the individual thoughts, feelings, or motivations of the human men who promulgated them. In the same way, we all know that all sorts of personal motivations, biases, and even politics have been involved at every Church council - but the final dogmatic decrees are limited to the words the Council Fathers left us - not the human process that went on behind the scenes leading up to their promulgation.

 

[Denho]

You and I both know that personally, Blessed John Paul was inspired by the apparitions when he declared the Second Sunday of Easter to be Divine Mercy Sunday…but as I’ve noted before, the liturgy itself was not modified…there is nothing in the propers (divine office or mass) that directly alludes to the apparitions. From a liturgical standpoint, we are simply commemorating the Lord’s mercy…nothing else…even if the pope’s personal motivations were inspired by the apparitions. The apparition is not in any way referenced in the texts of the liturgy. The liturgy is limited to the official prayers and texts - not the individual thoughts, feelings, or motivations of the human men who promulgated them. In the same way, we all know that all sorts of personal motivations, biases, and even politics have been involved at every Church council - but the final dogmatic decrees are limited to the words the Council Fathers left us - not the human process that went on behind the scenes leading up to their promulgation.

Isn’t it problematic that the personal affectations of one Pope can impose a variant interpretation of a liturgical feast that has had its own meaning and emphasis for nearly two millennia? I say the same thing of other feasts that were added over the years as well but these did not necessarily supplant a previous feast, especially one as important as the Octave Day of Easter. Robert Taft has written about the dangers of corrupting the fundamental Paschal/Incarnational cycles of the year with these feasts of affectation.

 

[twf]

Isn’t it problematic that the personal affectations of one Pope can impose a variant interpretation of a liturgical feast that has had its own meaning and emphasis for nearly two millennia? I say the same thing of other feasts that were added over the years as well but these did not necessarily supplant a previous feast, especially one as important as the Octave Day of Easter. Robert Taft has written about the dangers of corrupting the fundamental Paschal/Incarnational cycles of the year with these feasts of affectation.

To a point I can agree with you. Liturgical changes should be organic - but at the same time, it could be argued that Bl John Paul was simply responding to the large number of faithful who desired greater emphasis on Divine Mercy and who practiced the devotion personally. The feast is still the Octave of Easter - the propers/readings are still there…and like all liturgical feasts, there are layers upon layers of meaning and mystery to focus on. There was a thread somewhere on CAF not too long ago where some posters were advocating raising the memorial of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the level of a feast. I disagreed…I pointed out that the existing Marian feasts focus on fundamental theological mysteries or events in salvation history. The Immaculate Conception of Mary, for example, is fundamental to salvation history (the conception of the Theotokos who would bring the Christ into the world) - while the emphasis is different, the same feast is celebrated in the East as the Conception of St. Anne - because it is a monumental event for our faith. The Immaculate Heart of Mary, on the other hand, is simply a devotion that draws from this more fundamental mystery of the faith - the conception of Mary as the pure, spotless future Mother of God. So yes, I would agree that there is an unfortunate Latin tendency to focus on private devotions to the point that revealed Tradition is obscured. I love the Rosary and pray it every day - but I also pray parts of the Divine Office…the Second Vatican Council encouraged the faithful to participate in lauds and vespers, but unfortunately most lay Catholics seem to be too caught up in private devotions (good as they are) to have time for the public liturgy of the Church…

 

[theistgal]

Father Benedict Groeschel wrote a WONDERFUL book about how Catholics should respond to apparitions, visions, etc. in a book that’s finally available on the kindle: “A Still Small Voice”.

I highly recommend it to anyone who thinks that because a private revelation has been approved by the Church, it means everyone must obey whatever is commanded in it. The answers may surprise you.

 

[neokarny]

Hi NeoKarny. I’m not sure if I’ve seen you post in these forums before, so let me start by simply saying “welcome.” It’s good to have you here.

Thank you. I don’t post too often here on CAF, but when I do I think it’s generally here.

As I’m sure others have pointed out, when the Papacy (actually the local bishop is the final authority in these matters unless he decides to take the issue up to the level of the Papacy) rules that a vision and its teachings are free from error, he’s not necessarily giving his dogmatic seal of approval, so to speak. He is simply stating that the teachings contained in the apparitions contain no dogmatic error and that the Faithful are free to believe them and follow the teachings and devotions recommended by said apparitions (incidentally they are also free not to believe them and not to follow them). He is NOT saying that the teachings contained in the apparitions are binding on all Catholics and that all Catholics must believe everything contained in them. Nor is he saying that the theological framework (i.e. the Western framework) within which those teachings were delivered is the only or best framework for the Church. Again, he is simply stating that the teachings contained in the apparitions themselves contain no error and thus the Faithful are free to follow them or not with the certainty that they will not be led astray.

So is it the case that the Pope is not saying necessarily that the apparitions are true, but only that they are not heretical to believe? Although, that seems problematic when there are feast days dedicated to Divine Mercy and Our Lady of Fatima. If one is a member of the Latin Church, it confuses me as to how anyone could deny the very apparition associated with a feast of the church - especially if they’re not merely localized feasts. Not judging, again just confused regarding this point.

The language of purgatory is a perfect example of that. Although the Byzantine East claims not to believe in purgatory, I have seen plenty of examples from the writings of the Eastern Fathers as well as Byzantine theologians of our own day that profess to believe in some sort of purification after death and before entry into heaven. Essentially that’s all that the Roman Church teaches as well. At one time it was believed in the West the purgatory was basically just a temporary hell, but such a notion has pretty much been dropped by most modern Western theologians. Now most theologians simply affirm that purgatory is a state of purification that takes place in some instances before one can be admitted to heaven. The so-called “fire” of purgatory is nothing more than the fire of God’s love for us consuming that within us which is not holy.

I’m not sure how I feel regarding the mutual acceptance of a purgatory. While I do hesitantly believe in a mild form of the toll houses theory, it is not at all a purgation period. Even if we both were to agree that a purification takes place at some point before the soul’s entering heaven, I’m not sure if the underlying assumptions regarding why couldn’t be mutually exclusive (i.e. the necessary relationship between confessed sins, penance and punitive justice).

That said, I do understand your point. Although as much as I would like all of the various churches to be describing the same transcendant reality through means that aren’t mutually exclusive, I find certain beliefs (e.g. punitive justice) hard to reconcile this way.

 

[neokarny]

Father Benedict Groeschel wrote a WONDERFUL book about how Catholics should respond to apparitions, visions, etc. in a book that’s finally available on the kindle: “A Still Small Voice”.

I highly recommend it to anyone who thinks that because a private revelation has been approved by the Church, it means everyone must obey whatever is commanded in it. The answers may surprise you.

Just curious, does it deal with the apparitions being inserted into the Latin calendar? As I’ve mentioned before, it just seems like it would be too individualistic to be able to reject church feasts.

 

[theistgal]

Just curious, does it deal with the apparitions being inserted into the Latin calendar? As I’ve mentioned before, it just seems like it would be too individualistic to be able to reject church feasts.

Yes, it definitely deals with that.

And btw you may want to check the Latin calendar - if it makes any difference there are never any Sundays dedicated to any particular “apparition” or vision - occasionally a weekday mass (like Our Lady of Guadalupe). But even there, the dedication is to Our Lady, not the apparition itself.

 

[twf]

Yes, it definitely deals with that.

And btw you may want to check the Latin calendar - if it makes any difference there are never any Sundays dedicated to any particular “apparition” or vision - occasionally a weekday mass (like Our Lady of Guadalupe). But even there, the dedication is to Our Lady, not the apparition itself.

This is a very good point. The Divine Mercy feast is obligatory for all Latins - but as I have been trying to get across, there is nothing proper to the liturgy that requires one to believe in the apparition or to participate in the devotions associated with it. The feast itself simply calls to mind Our Lord’s infinite mercy in the context of the Easter Octave celeration - it doesn’t add anything that wasn’t already there. All other feasts associated with very particular apparitions, such as Our Lady of Fatima, are typically optional memorials celebrated on weekdays that no one is obliged to participate in…and even when they do, the propers of the liturgy (the prayers and texts) honor the Mother of God in a generic fashion rather than referencing the apparition in particular.

 

[neokarny]

Yes, it definitely deals with that.

And btw you may want to check the Latin calendar - if it makes any difference there are never any Sundays dedicated to any particular “apparition” or vision - occasionally a weekday mass (like Our Lady of Guadalupe). But even there, the dedication is to Our Lady, not the apparition itself.

I see. It seems that the calendar itself is treated and approached differently in the Latin church than in the eastern ones. I can’t think of any similar days in the Orthodox calendars, for example, that wouldn’t be mentioned in the liturgical cycle (e.g. the Protection of the Mother of God - likewise based upon a miraculous apparition) through the variable hymns. Even if they aren’t directly mentioned, I can’t imagine any that can be just opted out of belief-wise as an individual choice unless one’s church doesn’t observe that feast in their calendar, which is probably the root of my confusion regarding the Latin (or Catholic?) practice.

 

[kitkatty]

To a point I can agree with you. Liturgical changes should be organic - but at the same time, it could be argued that Bl John Paul was simply responding to the large number of faithful who desired greater emphasis on Divine Mercy and who practiced the devotion personally. The feast is still the Octave of Easter - the propers/readings are still there…and like all liturgical feasts, there are layers upon layers of meaning and mystery to focus on. There was a thread somewhere on CAF not too long ago where some posters were advocating raising the memorial of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the level of a feast. I disagreed…I pointed out that the existing Marian feasts focus on fundamental theological mysteries or events in salvation history. The Immaculate Conception of Mary, for example, is fundamental to salvation history (the conception of the Theotokos who would bring the Christ into the world) - while the emphasis is different, the same feast is celebrated in the East as the Conception of St. Anne - because it is a monumental event for our faith. The Immaculate Heart of Mary, on the other hand, is simply a devotion that draws from this more fundamental mystery of the faith - the conception of Mary as the pure, spotless future Mother of God. So yes, I would agree that there is an unfortunate Latin tendency to focus on private devotions to the point that revealed Tradition is obscured. I love the Rosary and pray it every day - but I also pray parts of the Divine Office…the Second Vatican Council encouraged the faithful to participate in lauds and vespers, but unfortunately most lay Catholics seem to be too caught up in private devotions (good as they are) to have time for the public liturgy of the Church…

:thumbsup:Very well said!

 

[kitkatty]

---

Yes, it definitely deals with that.

And btw you may want to check the Latin calendar - if it makes any difference there are never any Sundays dedicated to any particular “apparition” or vision - occasionally a weekday mass (like Our Lady of Guadalupe)****.

But even there, the dedication is to Our Lady, not the apparition itself.

Right, something Catholics need to be aware of or understand.

 

[Lester_S]

:thumbsup:Very well said!

I concur.