N
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Could you please provide the question and the answer given? I do not really feel like skimming a whole thread for this.
The theology has a different focus. Latin theology is more scholastic while Eastern theology is more mystical. That is Latin theology looks to define much, Eastern theology will look upon it as a mystery.
The focus on the death of Christ can be different, Latins look more to the Crucifixion while the East looks more to the Resurrection. Again, just a different focus.
Basically they are the same, they are just different views to the same thing.
The story of the three blind men and the elephant works good here.
G
Ghosty
Guest
One has to be very careful about defining what one means by theology. If the fundamental principles of the Faith are meant, then there is no difference between Latins and Melkites. If you mean that the theological approach is much different, then yes this is of course true.
It can also be said that the theological approach of St. Thomas Aquinas (at least in his written work) and St. John of the Cross are completely different, even “polar opposites”, yet St. John of the Cross was a staunch Thomist at the same time. Melkite and Latin theological approaches are complementary, as our Bishop has insisted, and ByzCath’s reference to the three blind men and the elephant is perfectly apt. Both approaches can be found in the Apostolic Tradition since the beginning; the two traditions merely focus more on one element than the other, but neither completely abandons nor negates the other.
To use one apparent contradiction, in Melkite theology it would be typical to say that God is “beyond being”, while in Latin theology it would be more typical to say that God is the “ultimate being” or “perfect being”. These are not actually contradictions, however. The Melkite tradition inherits a manner of speaking about being as it relates first to creatures, and as being fundamentally limited by definition (if you’re being this, then you’re not being that, ect) while the Latin tradition adapted a different manner of speaking in which God is pefectly being (“I Am that Am”), and all creatures are imperfect and in some way transitory (even everlasting things, like human souls and angels, are made from nothing, and therefore fundamentally nothing without God’s will) so Latin theology would speak of creatures as being, in some sense, less than being (to use Thomistic terms, God is pure act, while everything else is a mixture of act and potential).
This is not a contradiction, because the terms are being used, and God is being approached, from widely different angles. Both speak the same Truth about God, however.
Also, to speak to your example about the difference on the question of why God died, there is no fundamental difference, only a difference of emphasis just as with the Church Fathers. You can find both approaches in both traditions, but one will be emphasized above the others as we can’t very well represent the whole Mystery of Faith as a single tradition; if all the things of God were recorded, the books would fill the whole planet. When preaching and teaching we must be selective in what we utilize, if only aid in understanding.
Peace and God bless!
D
dvdjs
Guest
The context is from the remarks of poster, who converted from protestant to RCC, then later moved to the EOC, then reverted to the RCC, but has very recently returned to the GOC. Speaking of a time during her reversion to the RCC, she wrote (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6166569&postcount=4):
ps Ghosty, would you be so kind as to check your messages?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
He is wrong and if a Melkite priest did say that, then that priest was in error.
The Canons show how wrong this is.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
It may be that the priest was not referring to the canons, but to the spiritual needs of this particular individual. Perhaps he felt it would be best for this person to attend only Melkite services for their spiritual benefit. We don’t have the advantage of knowing the entire situation here.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You are correct on that.
K
KevinM09
Guest
Read the article “Does it Matter that we are Melkites?” on the Eparchy of Newton’s website.
J
jimmy
Guest
The way I see it is, if we are just Romans with a different liturgy we are basically children throwing a tantrum and insisting on doing things our own way. If that is the case then we should just become Romans because we are fooling ourselves. But the reality is that our eastern theology has its own basis and is just as legitimate as the west. The west is going to have to accept us as we are, because I have no intent of ever becoming roman in any sense.
We say that Adam’s sin caused death. The West says that Adam’s caused the removal of sanctifying grace.
Concerning the Western teaching of the Immaculate Conception… We do not have need of teaching it in the East because we do not teach original sin as causing man to lack any sanctifying grace. The West needs it because Mary cannot be graceless and the only way that can be is if she was cleansed. However, we both teach that Mary never sinned and was full of grace.
Concerning the Western teaching of the Immaculate Conception… We do not have need of teaching it in the East because we do not teach original sin as causing man to lack any sanctifying grace. The West needs it because Mary cannot be graceless and the only way that can be is if she was cleansed. However, we both teach that Mary never sinned and was full of grace.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
M
malphono
Guest
No argument from me, but I have to add this:
The unfortunate thing, of course, is that some Churches persist in doing just that: become more and more Latin while they continue to delude themselves (and anyone else who will listen) that they are not.
The worst part is that the problem isn’t really the West, as such. It’s internal. You know what I mean here, so I’m not going to go on and put the rest of the forum to sleep. 
J
jimmy
Guest
Yeh, I see it. With that being the case, what is going to happen over the next few generations to the Maronite, Chaldean, and some of the other eastern churches who are largely diaspora churches anymore? Over a few generations they will lose their Lebanese identity in favor of the country they live in. What will be left of the Maronite Church when the people no longer consider themselves Lebanese; when they have fully assumed the American life (I am American, my family has been here for 100 years, I don’t know any Arabic, and the only reason I have ever been to a Maronite Church is because I made the choice to check it out when I was older)? All that is left is a bunch of eccentric Romans. At that point the churches are dead. If we don’t maintain our traditions our churches will die as well.No argument from me, but I have to add this:
The unfortunate thing, of course, is that some Churches persist in doing just that: become more and more Latin while they continue to delude themselves (and anyone else who will listen) that they are not.
J
jimmy
Guest
Thanks MorEphrem.This.
By the way, nice to see you back, Jimmy
M
malphono
Guest
The problem in our case is, I think, even more insidious than that, since the dissolution of tradition and the deprivation of patrimony isn’t strictly a diasporal issue.
Yes, the “ethnic connection” (let’s call it “Levantine” since it’s not strictly a Lebanese matter: remember we have Syrians, Israelis, and even some Cypriots too) is one aspect, and this applies to the Oriental and Eastern Churches in general, not uniquely the Maronites. Contrary to what so many, both in this forum and elsewhere, contend, without that connection, even if it’s vestigial, we lose part of our reason for existence, since our traditions and spirituality are rooted there. For example, the maintenance of our traditional “liturgical” languages, at least to some degree, is helpful, but it’s not by any means the whole story.
More particular to the Maronites, though, the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations that I constantly rail against are anything but diasporal in nature. The process of same is on-going and seemingly never-ending, and without our identify and patrimony, we will lose ever.
The Chaldeans, OTOH, have a much better chance of survival.
R
Rafkqa
Guest
I think it is interesting. The Maronite Community I grew up in was heavily latinised and has been here for over 100 years as well. They had originally attended at the any of the local Roman Catholic Parish in the Diocese they were in. Then like many other places the Maronites purchased one of the Churches attached in the Diocese. The primary motivation would not have been because they were particularly concerned about the Maronite tradition (although some of it may have been). What of course transpired is they built parishes because they wanted Arabic and of course soon found out that the children did not want to attend because they needed English. Did all these Parishes die? No, of course not. Various things happened, some of the children left Catholicism all together (however that is not a phenomenon that is just linked to Maronites in the period), some remained attached to the latin Parishes - many of those Parishes would have not survived if it had not been for the other rites who attended. But the most interesting phenomenon is that the Maronites Parishes had to adapt. They had to introduce the Maronite Liturgy in English. But the more interesting phenomenon I think is those children. Those are the children that could have gone for English mass elsewhere, but decided to stay because they wanted something Maronite. They are the children who stayed for the the Maronite Liturgy - not only for the English, because they could have gone to Latin Parishes for that, but because they saw something more. We have Maronite Children who attend while there parents still attend the local Latin Parish down the road. Those children are the ones who are now making noises about the holding onto Maronite Traditions, because they know the value. Will those Maronite Parishes be dead in generations to come? I can’t tell you, only time will tell that, but I do not think so.
D
Devoted_to_Jude
Guest
Sanctifying grace just means life. Sanctifying grace is the life of the Trinity. It is eternal and uncreated life. I think this illustrates perfectly how the theologies are only different in their use of language and in their emphasis. Going back to what I understand to be the original question: Latin rite Catholics are encouraged to attend Eastern rite Catholic services and doing so fulfills their obligation. However Eastern rite Catholics are discouraged from attending Latin services, except when their Eastern services are unavailable to them. This practice is simply there to help foster Easter rites and help those rites preserve themselves in way that holistic with their own tradition–in other words so that they don’t become unduly Latinized.We say that Adam’s sin caused death. The West says that Adam’s caused the removal of sanctifying grace.
Concerning the Western teaching of the Immaculate Conception… We do not have need of teaching it in the East because we do not teach original sin as causing man to lack any sanctifying grace. The West needs it because Mary cannot be graceless and the only way that can be is if she was cleansed. However, we both teach that Mary never sinned and was full of grace.
So yes if one wishes on formally joining a Eastern rite Catholic Church then it would mean, in a virtual or practical sense, never attending a Latin rite service again. Of course if you move and your rite is not celebrated in your new area then you would have to attend a Latin service.
- Status