Healing misunderstandings and wounds through charitable dialogue

  • Thread starter Thread starter lssanjose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
Constantine, you and I both know those particular postings are erroneous.

Falsehood doesn’t become truth no matter how many times it’s repeated. Why should it bother us that some people persist in the inaccurate belief that eastern Christianity and western Christianity are the same?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if this is fair or accurate to say about this thread. Also this statement you made is too broad- ‘‘E. C and W. C are not the same’’. I mean, it could mean too much. Constantine has been speaking of a gap in Catholicism that simply could not be true if the Eastern and Western Catholics are really one communion, and they are. That is just as much exaggeration and inaccurate assertions as any other inaccurate statement made here. ‘‘Worlds apart’’ was the particular phrase (and many others).

Now, even Judaism and Christianity are very different (They miss out on a whole epoch of revelation, those Jews) yet even I as Christian who shares with them the OT and its saints, still wouldn’t describe that difference as ‘‘worlds apart’’- we still have a common language, a common deposit of truths that we draw from. East and West (in Christianity) have different emphasis and approaches (not to mention that west has several approaches within itself!) yet we are talking of an identical revelation, apostolic truths, sacraments, and (for E.Catholics) one communion. If I could add St. Paul’s admonition, ‘‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’’. How could we say that differences in approach (which amount to culture) are so great as to amount to such a gap? Are they greater than the one Lord and the one faith and the one baptism that we share?

I find a lot of this to be a continuation of those cultural fights between the Judaizers and gentile Christians. Diversity is great. Unity is most important though. To me that just means that our cultures are great because they are the language in which we approach everything and are so in so far as they are compatible with the faith and can be redeemed by it, used by it for itself- they are not as important as the faith itself though. When I read the NT, it strikes me how much the unity of faith is emphasized over cultural (even theological and philosophical) diversity. But sometimes these threads end up exaggerating the latter (diversity) and throwing the former (unity of faith) under the bus to protect the latter.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
Constantine, you and I both know those particular postings are erroneous.

Falsehood doesn’t become truth no matter how many times it’s repeated. Why should it bother us that some people persist in the inaccurate belief that eastern Christianity and western Christianity are the same?
Click to expand...
Indeed, such obviously inaccurate statements aren’t much of a danger. It’s often the smaller, subtler errors that are more troublesome.

In this particular case, I should think that most people would reject the idea that “eastern Christianity and western Christianity are the same”; but they might not reject an assumption that’s contained within that statement, namely what we might call the “sameness of Eastern Christianity”. Without that assumption, it wouldn’t even make sense to ask if eastern Christianity and western Christianity are the same.
 
Marybeloved said:
I don’t know if this is fair or accurate to say about this thread. Also this statement you made is too broad- ‘‘E. C and W. C are not the same’’. I mean, it could mean too much. Constantine has been speaking of a gap in Catholicism that simply could not be true if the Eastern and Western Catholics are really one communion, and they are. That is just as much exaggeration and inaccurate assertions as any other inaccurate statement made here. ‘‘Worlds apart’’ was the particular phrase (and many others).

Now, even Judaism and Christianity are very different (They miss out on a whole epoch of revelation, those Jews) yet even I as Christian who shares with them the OT and its saints, still wouldn’t describe that difference as ‘‘worlds apart’’- we still have a common language, a common deposit of truths that we draw from. East and West (in Christianity) have different emphasis and approaches (not to mention that west has several approaches within itself!) yet we are talking of an identical revelation, apostolic truths, sacraments, and (for E.Catholics) one communion. If I could add St. Paul’s admonition, ‘‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’’. How could we say that differences in approach (which amount to culture) are so great as to amount to such a gap? Are they greater than the one Lord and the one faith and the one baptism that we share?

I find a lot of this to be a continuation of those cultural fights between the Judaizers and gentile Christians. Diversity is great. Unity is most important though. To me that just means that our cultures are great because they are the language in which we approach everything and are so in so far as they are compatible with the faith and can be redeemed by it, used by it for itself- they are not as important as the faith itself though. When I read the NT, it strikes me how much the unity of faith is emphasized over cultural (even theological and philosophical) diversity. But sometimes these threads end up exaggerating the latter (diversity) and throwing the former (unity of faith) under the bus to protect the latter.
Click to expand...
How would ‘‘Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity are not the same’’ mean too much?
 
Marybeloved said:
I don’t know if this is fair or accurate to say about this thread. Also this statement you made is too broad- ‘‘E. C and W. C are not the same’’. I mean, it could mean too much. Constantine has been speaking of a gap in Catholicism that simply could not be true if the Eastern and Western Catholics are really one communion, and they are. That is just as much exaggeration and inaccurate assertions as any other inaccurate statement made here. ‘‘Worlds apart’’ was the particular phrase (and many others).

Now, even Judaism and Christianity are very different (They miss out on a whole epoch of revelation, those Jews) yet even I as Christian who shares with them the OT and its saints, still wouldn’t describe that difference as ‘‘worlds apart’’- we still have a common language, a common deposit of truths that we draw from. East and West (in Christianity) have different emphasis and approaches (not to mention that west has several approaches within itself!) yet we are talking of an identical revelation, apostolic truths, sacraments, and (for E.Catholics) one communion. If I could add St. Paul’s admonition, ‘‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’’. How could we say that differences in approach (which amount to culture) are so great as to amount to such a gap? Are they greater than the one Lord and the one faith and the one baptism that we share?

I find a lot of this to be a continuation of those cultural fights between the Judaizers and gentile Christians. Diversity is great. Unity is most important though. To me that just means that our cultures are great because they are the language in which we approach everything and are so in so far as they are compatible with the faith and can be redeemed by it, used by it for itself- they are not as important as the faith itself though. When I read the NT, it strikes me how much the unity of faith is emphasized over cultural (even theological and philosophical) diversity. But sometimes these threads end up exaggerating the latter (diversity) and throwing the former (unity of faith) under the bus to protect the latter.
Click to expand...
Sister MaryBeloved, the gap (perceived) is regarding emphases. Western Christianity is stereotypically characterized by codification, dogmatization; a law and order type approach, or emphasis. Here, the stereotype is on having things clearly defined, and spelled out. This isn’t the case among Eastern Christians. There is little attempt to codify, or dogmatize a number of matters. It still points to the same truth, but the way Truth A is viewed, and explained by tradition y, will be different from the way tradition x views, and explains Truth A.
 
Peter_J said:
I read the post already. Is that the best advice you can offer?
Click to expand...
Read it again then. What you’re asking is what I took three paragraphs to explain (That is, what I meant by saying that such a broad statement could mean too much- and yes, I said ‘‘could’’ not would). Are you saying that you missed everything I said and want me to explain it again? I don’t mind doing it, I’m just not clear what your confusion is.
 
Peter_J said:
OIC. This is, as a matter of fact, something I’ve been wondering about recently.

On the one hand, official publications generally use “Eastern Catholic” and “Oriental Catholic” interchangeably. On the other hand, I seem to recall “Eastern Catholics” being used to mean only Byzantine Catholics, and “Oriental Catholics” to mean all others (other than Latin Catholics, that is) – but I haven’t been able to find anything to back up my “memory”. What I have been able to find is many webpages that speak of “Eastern and Oriental Catholics” but with no definitions.
Click to expand...
In some older Latin Church documents I’ve read from the high Middle Ages, Latins referred to Easterns as “Greeks” and referred to the rest as “Orientals.”

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Marybeloved said:
Read it again then.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I’m going to disobey you here.
Marybeloved said:
What you’re asking is what I took three paragraphs to explain (That is, what I meant by saying that such a broad statement could mean too much- and yes, I said ‘‘could’’ not would). Are you saying that you missed everything I said and want me to explain it again?
Click to expand...
No, I’m not saying that I missed anything that you said. I’m saying that I read your post once, and I’m not going to go back read it again. And, no, I don’t really want anything from you, I just asked a question; your response to it is up to you. At this point, I’m not really interested in any addendums you’re (possibly) going to make to your answer. (I’m not exactly a captive audience you know.)

Best,
 
Peter_J said:
No, I’m not saying that I missed anything that you said. I’m saying that I read your post once, and I’m not going to go back read it again. And, no, I don’t really want anything from you, I just asked a question; your response to it is up to you. At this point, I’m not really interested in any addendums you’re (possibly) going to make to your answer. (I’m not exactly a captive audience you know.)
Click to expand...
If you don’t point out what it is that you didn’t get about my post, then surely I can only assume you want me to do it again- from scratch. That’s not really fair, either. The difference is not as great as Constantine made it, and simply saying that we are ‘‘not the same’’ could mean just that. So if there’s something you disagree with, you should say it to me directly instead of asking me a question that requires me to explain everything I just did. Also, my response was rather curt- I guess I immediately assumed that you were ‘‘deliberately ***MIS-***understanding me’’ just to make a point. That’s not fair either, so I do apologize.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
Constantine, you and I both know those particular postings are erroneous.

Falsehood doesn’t become truth no matter how many times it’s repeated. Why should it bother us that some people persist in the inaccurate belief that eastern Christianity and western Christianity are the same?
Click to expand...
I don’t want other people to have that wrong impression. If people come to this forum and this thread and see that we who know about the Eastern faith say nothing about the false Latin claims, then they will assume that what is said is true.
Cristiano said:
I think that the Eastern/Oriental Churches prefer to talk about Holy Mysteries and those do not have a one to one correspondence with the seven Sacraments as defined by the Council of Trent. I think that the Holy Mysteries encompass more, including your example of the sacramentals.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church, through Trent, has fixed the number of Sacraments. The Orthodox hasn’t. This is because of a different understanding of what Sacraments are and how it is used in our Christian lives.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I don’t want other people to have that wrong impression. If people come to this forum and this thread and see that we who know about the Eastern faith say nothing about the false Latin claims, then they will assume that what is said is true.

The Catholic Church, through Trent, has fixed the number of Sacraments. The Orthodox hasn’t. This is because of a different understanding of what Sacraments are and how it is used in our Christian lives.
Click to expand...
Good call, brother.
 
lssanjose said:
Sister MaryBeloved, the gap (perceived) is regarding emphases. Western Christianity is stereotypically characterized by codification, dogmatization; a law and order type approach, or emphasis. Here, the stereotype is on having things clearly defined, and spelled out. This isn’t the case among Eastern Christians. There is little attempt to codify, or dogmatize a number of matters. It still points to the same truth, but the way Truth A is viewed, and explained by tradition y, will be different from the way tradition x views, and explains Truth A.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but isn’t this what I said? This gap is still not as has been exaggerated here, though.
 
Dear brother ConstantineTG,
ConstantineTG said:
The gap is indeed wide if you bother to learn what the East actually believes.
Click to expand...
Are you learning about the East itself ONLY, or are your sources also inclined to give you a rather inaccurate understanding of Latin Catholicism in the process of their attempts to make the distinction? I have to tell you right now that upon reading your posts in the past several months insisting on the “worlds apart” view, you have shown very little understanding of Latin Catholic doctrines. I don’t know if it’s because you forgot what was taught you as a Latin Catholic, or because you are simply now more inclined to listen to non-Latins who know little or nothing about Latin Catholicism.

You really need to distinguish between the two (i.e., learning about the East for its own sake, on the one hand, and learning about the differences with the West through the eyes of Easterns who know little or nothing about the Latins, on the other), or you end up doing the same thing to the Latins that you claim the Latins are doing to Easterns.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
ConstantineTG said:
The gap is indeed wide if you bother to learn what the East actually believes.
Click to expand...
I could believe you if you bothered to learn what the West actually believes. Instead you usually go to the Orthodox to explain to you what the Latin church teachings really are. A comparison is only worthwhile if you know what you’re comparing, on BOTH ends, not just one.
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Are you learning about the East itself ONLY, or are your sources also inclined to give you a rather inaccurate understanding of Latin Catholicism in the process of their attempts to make the distinction? I have to tell you right now that upon reading your posts in the past several months insisting on the “worlds apart” view, you have shown very little understanding of Latin Catholic doctrines. I don’t know if it’s because you forgot what was taught you as a Latin Catholic, or because you are simply now more inclined to listen to non-Latins who know little or nothing about Latin Catholicism.

You really need to distinguish between the two (i.e., learning about the East for its own sake, on the one hand, and learning about the differences with the West through the eyes of Easterns who know little or nothing about the Latins, on the other), or you end up doing the same thing to the Latins that you claim the Latins are doing to Easterns.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I am a Latin Catholic of 33 years and am been a trained catechist in the Latin faith.
Marybeloved said:
I could believe you if you bothered to learn what the West actually believes. Instead you usually go to the Orthodox to explain to you what the Latin church teachings really are. A comparison is only worthwhile if you know what you’re comparing, on BOTH ends, not just one.
Click to expand...
In addition to my above answer, I now explain via the Eastern perspective because that is the faith I now live.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I am a Latin Catholic of 33 years and am been a trained catechist in the Latin faith.
Click to expand...
And you still don’t know a lot of basics about Latin teaching, evidently. I’m Latin- only ever read Latin teaching and writings and I have seen a lot of errors about it in your posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top