M
Myhrr
Guest
Hubert Butler was a Titoist?? Really Greg, you have to do better than that, the history is covered from various angles, only your Church’s denies the facts.
- Status
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
Whatever…
M
Myhrr
Guest
Whatever…
- Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
M
mark_a
Guest
Did George Castanza ever make it into the Latvian Orthodox Church? Are the Latvians orthodox Orthodox or did they just steal the name like the Polish National Catholic Church?
H
Hesychios
Guest
The Polish National Catholic Church stole the name Orthodox!?! 
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
Didn’t you read about this in the Onion Dome? It was a smash and grab job; some PNCC bishops broke into OCA headquarters and made off with the title “pravoslavny.” The OCA has sent out special shock-troops to recover it:
http://www.saintelias.com/Pascha/Pascha2004/TERRYBAN.jpg
%between%Is outrage!
N
NightRider
Guest
I just wanna say I love the term *ortho-cathlidoxy!! *I’ve never heard it before!
N
NightRider
Guest
*Cathodox *is a great term, too! I’ve never heard that one before either! See what I learn when I’m on the Catholic Forums?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I have not read the Catechism but I confess to having undertaken two Catholic courses on the documents of Vatican II.
I could not attempt to answer that since I have not read it. But what I have seen of it, bits and prieces here and there, it seems to embody a heartening attempt to bring Orthodox concepts and approaches into modern Roman Catholicism. Whether it provides an accurate “big picture” of Orthodox teaching, I cannot say.
LOL! No, I live in Middle Earth - New Zealand. But I know a little about Holy Cross because I correspond with a man who was a novice there until recently. It is a monastery of my own Russian Church and has a good reputation for spiritual life. If you’re Irish, ask to see their Icons of Saint Brendan the Navigator, Saint Brigid, etc.
They have a website
holycross-hermitage.com/
In the love of Mary’s Son,
Fr Ambrose
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
“Armenian Orthodox” is a popular misnomer.
If you look here at the list of Armenian parishes in the States, every one is known as “Armenian Apostolic Church of Saint Gregory” etc.
armenianchurchwd.com/church/index.htm
Also see this Catholic site
cnewa.org/ecc-armenian-apostolic.htm
W
whosebob
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
. I looked today and the CCC sells in a compact paperback edition for under US $9.
By the way, the CCC is surely the definitive interpretation (and “application” in the context of teaching) by the Church Herself of the conciliar and post-conciliar documents of Vatican II. Really, you should read it, it won’t take you that long.
Errrmm, well I’m starting to repeat myself and you get the point, or you know how I feel about it at least. Did I mention that I think you should begin ASAP to read the Catechism from cover to cover?
As I come across items of particular interest or quandary in the “Light for Life” catechism, I may well post some questions in hope of your and other readers’ insights.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
I think it would be worth your time to mentally and spiritually digest the Catechism in its entirety, from front to back, given your level of dialogue with members of the Roman Church . . . but that’s just my opinion; and I’m sure like most of us here you have a long “I plan to be read . . .” list. However, keep in the mind the “8 paragraphs per day” plan I mentioned before – that works out to about 10 minutes or less per day, and in just under a year you’ll be done (the first time through
. I looked today and the CCC sells in a compact paperback edition for under US $9.By the way, the CCC is surely the definitive interpretation (and “application” in the context of teaching) by the Church Herself of the conciliar and post-conciliar documents of Vatican II. Really, you should read it, it won’t take you that long.
Errrmm, well I’m starting to repeat myself and you get the point, or you know how I feel about it at least. Did I mention that I think you should begin ASAP to read the Catechism from cover to cover?
As I come across items of particular interest or quandary in the “Light for Life” catechism, I may well post some questions in hope of your and other readers’ insights.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I think I may just stick with the documents of Vatican II. I understand that they are infallible, but infallibility is not claimed for the CCC.
I still prefer the conciliar documents as the primary source. The CCC is only a popular version of the same, so why talk to the monkey when you can talk to the organ grinder?
W
whosebob
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
If indeed you wished to read all of the primary sources that went into the Catechism you would have to read the equivalent of the Lord of the Rings trilogy literally every day for the next twenty years.
The CCC is a reflection and compact synthesis by the Catholic Church Herself of Her own teaching across 20 centuries. If you look through the vast footnotes (there are easily more than a thousand, probably several thousand), you will see that it draws from: Scripture (of course); the documents of 21 Church councils (not just Vatican II, although Trent and V2 are quoted more than any others); patristic, medieval and modern theology and philosophy; the spiritual writings of Saints from the East and West from all 20 centuries; the encyclicals of John Paul II and much, much more!
The CCC is made up of four parts:
(1) THE PROFESSION OF FAITH – uses the Apostles’ Creed as a framework.
(2) THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
– the Sacraments and the Sacred Liturgy. This section involves quite a bit of “side by side” of the practices of the Eastern Churches and the Roman Church.
(3) LIFE IN CHRIST – uses th Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes as a framework.
(4) CHRISTIAN PRAYER – uses the Our Father as a framework.
By the way, it’s not quite correct to describe the Catechism as being a popular text, as really it is written at a post-college reading level. That’s not to say that parts of it aren’t accessible to even high school students, but I know doctors and lawyers who struggle with the density (and profundity) of the text. That’s not to say it is written in an unclear or obtusue or deliberately difficult manner. Rather, if it wasn’t written with such density and compactifying vocabulary, it would surely be three to four times its current length.
It’s a bit of a misunderstanding too that the CCC isn’t infallible. Sure, it wasn’t published with a “blanket ex cathedra” declaration in the preface. But there is actually very little in there that would be understood as “debatable” or non-definitive when it comes to doctrine and dogma. Whenever a paragraph or sentence in the CCC is “defining” something it nearly always directly quotes or unambiguously paraphrases a Church document or declaration that does enjoy infallibility. The parts of the Catechism that are “up for grabs” then are usually very easy to recognize and they make up less than 1% of the text (that’s my guess at least).
Finally, let me say that I understand your hesitation to commit your time such a project. But if your primary reason for declining to tackle the CCC is an understanding that going straight to the documents of Vatican II is “better,” then I hope this message will make clear your error. The Vatican II documents are a “piece” of the CCC, which is a grand exposition of every facet of the Catholic Faith as expressed in the Roman Church (the V2 documents themselves are not). And too it includes innumerable insights from the Eastern Fathers and Churches, which are integrated in a truly organic and “both lungs” fashion.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
Primary sources are good, I understand your motive. However, it would be a misunderstanding to see the CCC as a scaled-down version of the documents of Vatican II.I think I may just stick with the documents of Vatican II. I understand that they are infallible, but infallibility is not claimed for the CCC.
I still prefer the conciliar documents as the primary source. The CCC is only a popular version of the same, so why talk to the monkey when you can talk to the organ grinder?
If indeed you wished to read all of the primary sources that went into the Catechism you would have to read the equivalent of the Lord of the Rings trilogy literally every day for the next twenty years.
The CCC is a reflection and compact synthesis by the Catholic Church Herself of Her own teaching across 20 centuries. If you look through the vast footnotes (there are easily more than a thousand, probably several thousand), you will see that it draws from: Scripture (of course); the documents of 21 Church councils (not just Vatican II, although Trent and V2 are quoted more than any others); patristic, medieval and modern theology and philosophy; the spiritual writings of Saints from the East and West from all 20 centuries; the encyclicals of John Paul II and much, much more!
The CCC is made up of four parts:
(1) THE PROFESSION OF FAITH – uses the Apostles’ Creed as a framework.
(2) THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
– the Sacraments and the Sacred Liturgy. This section involves quite a bit of “side by side” of the practices of the Eastern Churches and the Roman Church.
(3) LIFE IN CHRIST – uses th Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes as a framework.
(4) CHRISTIAN PRAYER – uses the Our Father as a framework.
By the way, it’s not quite correct to describe the Catechism as being a popular text, as really it is written at a post-college reading level. That’s not to say that parts of it aren’t accessible to even high school students, but I know doctors and lawyers who struggle with the density (and profundity) of the text. That’s not to say it is written in an unclear or obtusue or deliberately difficult manner. Rather, if it wasn’t written with such density and compactifying vocabulary, it would surely be three to four times its current length.
It’s a bit of a misunderstanding too that the CCC isn’t infallible. Sure, it wasn’t published with a “blanket ex cathedra” declaration in the preface. But there is actually very little in there that would be understood as “debatable” or non-definitive when it comes to doctrine and dogma. Whenever a paragraph or sentence in the CCC is “defining” something it nearly always directly quotes or unambiguously paraphrases a Church document or declaration that does enjoy infallibility. The parts of the Catechism that are “up for grabs” then are usually very easy to recognize and they make up less than 1% of the text (that’s my guess at least).
Finally, let me say that I understand your hesitation to commit your time such a project. But if your primary reason for declining to tackle the CCC is an understanding that going straight to the documents of Vatican II is “better,” then I hope this message will make clear your error. The Vatican II documents are a “piece” of the CCC, which is a grand exposition of every facet of the Catholic Faith as expressed in the Roman Church (the V2 documents themselves are not). And too it includes innumerable insights from the Eastern Fathers and Churches, which are integrated in a truly organic and “both lungs” fashion.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I still prefer the sources rather than the Catechism. It’s always been my way. I imagine that the Catechism may be useful as a reference tool to access the primary sources. I asume it is copiously annotated? Also, I am probably influenced by the fact that Orthodoxy does not have a Catechism per se and we are used to consulting the sources, the Councils, the Church Fathers, etc. One of the great slogans of Vatican II was “ad fontes” - to bypass the mountains of scholastic and medieval material which were obscuring the view and to get back to the sources. This is perfectly in tune with the way the Orthodox approach theology.
As we have seen from the various threads here on Original Sin, the Catechism is creating a pile of confusion in this area because it has all but substituted the Orthodox theology of Ancestral Sin for the pre-Vatican II Augustinian-oriented approach.
This is, from the Orthodox viewpoint, excellent news and bodes well for future dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
This is a test to see if I can get a graphic into a message. It is the icon of Saint Brendan painted by a monk at Holy Cross Hermitage where Whosebob may be visiting.
http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Hermitage_Photos/St_Brenden.jpg
http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Hermitage_Photos/St_Brenden.jpg
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
I cannot imagine why anyone would think it better to read the Catechism than the sources. The advantage of the Catechism, as I see it, is that it is shorter and more condensed, for those who like their “erudition in concentrated form.” Suffice it to say, for those who have the patience to read the original sources, this is the obviously preferable approach.
Incidentally, as an aside, I have been surprised at the number of folks I have met on this board who speak of reading the Catechsim cover-to-cover. I have made frequent use of my copy of the CCC, but only as a reference work. As page-by-page reading I think I would find it insufferably dull (although that may say more about me than about the Catechism).
Incidentally, as an aside, I have been surprised at the number of folks I have met on this board who speak of reading the Catechsim cover-to-cover. I have made frequent use of my copy of the CCC, but only as a reference work. As page-by-page reading I think I would find it insufferably dull (although that may say more about me than about the Catechism).
M
mercygate
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Not only is it copiously annotated, but the Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church from Ignatius Press, is a outstanding set of references.
W
whosebob
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
By the way, in the next 50 to 100 years, the Catechism and its particular presentation of beliefs and positions Catholic is going to be more and more synonymous with the Catholic Faith as it is taught in RCIA in our parishes, in our homes, and in our Catholic schools – resistance to it is already starting to weaken and most younger priests (under 35 probably) and seminarians are beginning to make it a point to know it backwards and forwards.
Now, if any Catholic asked me what he should read to round out his understanding of the Faith, and I thought he was up to it from an intellectual standpoint, I would say “the Catechism” without the slightest hesitation. And I would especially say “the Catechism” if he had read things like the documents of Vatican II. The problem is that there is so much “source material” that makes up the Catechism, it’s not feasible for anyone to acquire a well rounded look at the “big picture” from the Catholic standpoint unless he reads the Catechism first and uses it as a “diving board” to jump into the original sources.
There are of course some other books and catechisms (like those by the late Fr. Hardon, SJ) that could provide a similar comprehensive foundation for understanding the Catholic Faith – but better to use the CCC as it is the official teaching and learning tool of its type within the Catholic Church, if the reader is up to it.
I would make the same recommendation for a Protestant too who wanted to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Catholic Faith, even or especially if he’s not looking to convert – ignorance makes for terrible dialogue, and spotty knowledge is probably worse.
The big problem is how to get a balanced “big picture” of the whole Catholic Faith – I think it’s possible without first reading the CCC (or something equivalent, and there aren’t too many resources that are true modern equivalents), but not easy and prone to error and misunderstanding. It’s surely better, for the serious inquirer or dialogue seeker, to use the CCC as a springboard for diving into the original sources in a directed and coherent manner.
By the way, every day I’m reading just a bit from the 5 volume English translation of the Philokalia – I plan to have it completed in about 20 months. It’s really great! And I’m thankful for the blessing to have been “turned on” to reading it. I can’t imagine though trying to wade through all of the original sources in search of the pearls that St. Nikodimos has strung together. That’s not to say that I don’t plan to read anything from those writers besides what he compiled, but it’s a good starting point and is helping paint me a “big picture” of contemplative spirituality in the Orthodox Churches.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
Wow! Thanks, Fr. Ambrose. Saint Brendan, pray for us! I look forward to my visit to Holy Cross, at some undetermined point in the future when my schedule and my friend’s schedule will allow it – we’re hoping sometime in November, but we’ll see.
By the way, in the next 50 to 100 years, the Catechism and its particular presentation of beliefs and positions Catholic is going to be more and more synonymous with the Catholic Faith as it is taught in RCIA in our parishes, in our homes, and in our Catholic schools – resistance to it is already starting to weaken and most younger priests (under 35 probably) and seminarians are beginning to make it a point to know it backwards and forwards.
Now, if any Catholic asked me what he should read to round out his understanding of the Faith, and I thought he was up to it from an intellectual standpoint, I would say “the Catechism” without the slightest hesitation. And I would especially say “the Catechism” if he had read things like the documents of Vatican II. The problem is that there is so much “source material” that makes up the Catechism, it’s not feasible for anyone to acquire a well rounded look at the “big picture” from the Catholic standpoint unless he reads the Catechism first and uses it as a “diving board” to jump into the original sources.
There are of course some other books and catechisms (like those by the late Fr. Hardon, SJ) that could provide a similar comprehensive foundation for understanding the Catholic Faith – but better to use the CCC as it is the official teaching and learning tool of its type within the Catholic Church, if the reader is up to it.
I would make the same recommendation for a Protestant too who wanted to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Catholic Faith, even or especially if he’s not looking to convert – ignorance makes for terrible dialogue, and spotty knowledge is probably worse.
The big problem is how to get a balanced “big picture” of the whole Catholic Faith – I think it’s possible without first reading the CCC (or something equivalent, and there aren’t too many resources that are true modern equivalents), but not easy and prone to error and misunderstanding. It’s surely better, for the serious inquirer or dialogue seeker, to use the CCC as a springboard for diving into the original sources in a directed and coherent manner.
By the way, every day I’m reading just a bit from the 5 volume English translation of the Philokalia – I plan to have it completed in about 20 months. It’s really great! And I’m thankful for the blessing to have been “turned on” to reading it. I can’t imagine though trying to wade through all of the original sources in search of the pearls that St. Nikodimos has strung together. That’s not to say that I don’t plan to read anything from those writers besides what he compiled, but it’s a good starting point and is helping paint me a “big picture” of contemplative spirituality in the Orthodox Churches.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
M
mark_a
Guest
Man! I proofread that one too.The Polish National Catholic Church stole the name Orthodox!?!
Come to think of it, I’d better double check my resume. Might explain a few things.
- Status