RC Church becoming more Eastern?

[Dave_in_Dallas]

It seems to me that perhaps the RC church is becoming more Eastern or at least expressing the eastern view of items such as confession/penance, purgatory, and sin, etc I have viewed these from a popular lay catechism, articles, radio shows, and homilies.
I wonder if this a deliberate attempt to attract converts or a natural growth from the influence of the EC’s.
Another possibility is that it’s always been there and the RC has never really held any one-single position on these issues and have always allowed a plurality of positions on these doctrines – and I am just recognizing when I see them since visiting sites like this and learning more of the “eastern” distinctives?
I am speaking only of America here – can’t speak for rest of world that may be on an entirely different trajectory.

 

[CB_Catholic]

It seems to me that perhaps the RC church is becoming more Eastern or at least expressing the eastern view of items such as confession/penance, purgatory, and sin, etc I have viewed these from a popular lay catechism, articles, radio shows, and homilies.
I wonder if this a deliberate attempt to attract converts or a natural growth from the influence of the EC’s.
Another possibility is that it’s always been there and the RC has never really held any one-single position on these issues and have always allowed a plurality of positions on these doctrines – and I am just recognizing when I see them since visiting sites like this and learning more of the “eastern” distinctives?
I am speaking only of America here – can’t speak for rest of world that may be on an entirely different trajectory.

Don’t you think the “Easternization” of the Latin Church should be discouraged just as much as the “Latinization” of the Eastern Church? We have our own noble and worthy and spiritual traditions that should be encouraged and appreciated, but sometimes I get the feeling that when people start to explore Eastern Christianity on these forums, they somehow see the Eastern traditions as somehow superior to the Western. Why is that?

While I appreciate and have learned much from Eastern thought and praxis, I thnk we Latins ought to learn to appreciate and promote our heritage and try to restore anything that was lost, just as the Eastern Christians are struggling to do. We have nothing to be ashamed of, and everything to be grateful for. Our theology and practice and devotions are just as profound and spiritual and beautiful as anything in the East.

Don’t get me wrong–I think Eastern Christianity is beautiful and just as legitimate as Latin Christianity, and I appreciate it very much, but I think the East should keep their traditions, and the West theirs. Come to my house and visit, and make yourself at home, but don’t try to redecorate it.

 

[hazcompat]

they are both flames from the same candle.

Come Holy Spirit

peace

 

[Hesychios]

It seems to me that perhaps the RC church is becoming more Eastern or at least expressing the eastern view of items such as confession/penance, purgatory, and sin, etc I have viewed these from a popular lay catechism, articles, radio shows, and homilies.
I wonder if this a deliberate attempt to attract converts or a natural growth from the influence of the EC’s.
Another possibility is that it’s always been there and the RC has never really held any one-single position on these issues and have always allowed a plurality of positions on these doctrines – and I am just recognizing when I see them since visiting sites like this and learning more of the “eastern” distinctives?
I am speaking only of America here – can’t speak for rest of world that may be on an entirely different trajectory.

You may be on to something. When my grandson was baptized this year the deacon gave a homily on the nature of original sin and the reason for baptism that even I could agree with.

I think some parts of the church may be gravitating toward it’s ancient roots, like a moth to a flame.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

You may be on to something. When my grandson was baptized this year the deacon gave a homily on the nature of original sin and the reason for baptism that even I could agree with.

I think some parts of the church may be gravitating toward it’s ancient roots, like a moth to a flame.

Nice to know I’m not imagining things … lol.

 

[Barbkw]

Last year our priest worked on getting in the 14 Icons of the Resurrection. He offers instruction on them on Fridays after Easter (just as we had Friday Stations of the Cross). He also presents them during RCIA classes.

google.com/search?q=icons+of+the+resurrection&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

During the class we read excerpts from St. John Chrysostom’s homilies.

 

[smad0142]

I think this is a great example of breathing with both lungs. RC that find something beautiful and meaningful within EC theology or praxis are willing to incorporate these discoveries. This allows them to have an RC identity that is enriched by EC contributions. It is great to see this!

 

[Barbkw]

The Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom (Read Each Year at Pascha)

Is there anyone who is a devout lover of God? Let them enjoy this beautiful bright festival! Is there anyone who is a grateful servant? Let them rejoice and enter into the joy of their Lord!

Are there any weary with fasting? Let them now receive their wages!

If any have toiled from the first hour, let them receive their due reward; If any have come after the third hour, let him with gratitude join in the Feast! And he that arrived after the sixth hour, let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss. And if any delayed until the ninth hour, let him not hesitate; but let him come too. And he who arrived only at the eleventh hour, let him not be afraid by reason of his delay.

For the Lord is gracious and receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, as well as to him that toiled from the first. To this one He gives, and upon another He bestows. He accepts the works as He greets the endeavor. The deed He honors and the intention He commends.

Let us all enter into the joy of the Lord! First and last alike receive your reward; rich and poor, rejoice together! Sober and slothful, celebrate the day!

You that have kept the fast, and you that have not, rejoice today for the Table is richly laden! Feast royally on it, the calf is a fatted one. Let no one go away hungry. Partake, all, of the cup of faith. Enjoy all the riches of His goodness!

Let no one grieve at his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it. He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh. Isaiah foretold this when he said, “You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below.”

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with. It was in an uproar because it is mocked. It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed. It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated. It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive. Hell took a body, and discovered God. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.

O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated! Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down! Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is Risen, and life is liberated! Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead; for Christ having risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!

orthodoxinfo.com/death/resurrection_icon.aspx

 

[ConstantineTG]

It seems to me that perhaps the RC church is becoming more Eastern or at least expressing the eastern view of items such as confession/penance, purgatory, and sin, etc I have viewed these from a popular lay catechism, articles, radio shows, and homilies.
I wonder if this a deliberate attempt to attract converts or a natural growth from the influence of the EC’s.
Another possibility is that it’s always been there and the RC has never really held any one-single position on these issues and have always allowed a plurality of positions on these doctrines – and I am just recognizing when I see them since visiting sites like this and learning more of the “eastern” distinctives?
I am speaking only of America here – can’t speak for rest of world that may be on an entirely different trajectory.

When I started becoming more Eastern, I realized a lot of what Eastern Christians do has already been a part of the spirituality of the Filipino culture for ages, even though we’ve been RC only for almost 500 years. I think that the diversity in people themselves tend to express spirituality closer to Eastern than Western. I have no doubt in my mind that many people who are in the RC Church today will be better off being Eastern Catholics, just because the spirituality would suit them more than the Western spirituality. Of course there are still those who would remain RC and life a good spiritual life as a RC. I think, as I read somewhere that someone made this comment, that God is just correcting an injustice in the balance of the spirituality of the Church. As the Eastern faith is now being brought to many lands and more people are becoming more aware of it, I can forsee more Eastern Catholics in the future, even from those who already left the Catholic faith and drawn back by it. Its up to the respective Eastern Churches to reach out now and open up their evangelization and ministry beyond their own ethnic group.

 

[Celticnovice]

You may be on to something. When my grandson was baptized this year the deacon gave a homily on the nature of original sin and the reason for baptism that even I could agree with.

I think some parts of the church may be gravitating toward it’s ancient roots, like a moth to a flame.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Deo gratia!

 

[hazcompat]

yes, and the flame loves the moth.

peace

 

[Bluegoat]

You may be on to something. When my grandson was baptized this year the deacon gave a homily on the nature of original sin and the reason for baptism that even I could agree with.

I think some parts of the church may be gravitating toward it’s ancient roots, like a moth to a flame.

Yes I have particularly noticed this with relation to original sin, as well as ideas about the Atonement.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

You may be on to something. When my grandson was baptized this year the deacon gave a homily on the nature of original sin and the reason for baptism that even I could agree with.

I think some parts of the church may be gravitating toward it’s ancient roots, like a moth to a flame.

To my knowledge the Roman/Latin views on Original Sin were never really set in stone and many theories floated around, and continue to do so. St. Augustine has never been the final word on Original Sin in the West, despite what many Catholics and Orthodox seem to think. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly rejects the notion that we somehow inherit Adam’s guilt for the original sin, which seems to be the chief difficulty the Orthodox that I’ve spoken with, listened to and read seem to have. What is upheld is that, because of Adam’s fall, we are born into a fallen state and are often drawn to evil instead of good.

 

[twf]

To my knowledge the Roman/Latin views on Original Sin were never really set in stone and many theories floated around, and continue to do so. St. Augustine has never been the final word on Original Sin in the West, despite what many Catholics and Orthodox seem to think. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly rejects the notion that we somehow inherit Adam’s guilt for the original sin, which seems to be the chief difficulty the Orthodox that I’ve spoken with, listened to and read seem to have. What is upheld is that, because of Adam’s fall, we are born into a fallen state and are often drawn to evil instead of good.

I totally agree. Polemics often paints the “Latin” or the “Eastern” perspective on any given topic with one brush. In reality, the Latin Church is so vast and spread across so many cultures, that there have always been, as you say, many theological perspectives floating around on a number of doctrinal issues. I’ve never come across a Latin Catholic who believes we are actually “guilty” of our First Parents’ sin in any personal sense of the word…just that we suffer the consequences. I think sometimes the East has misunderstood the intent behind the wording of certain Latin theologians, and vice versa, as our theological constructs are so distinct at times. This reminds me of the recent deification thread…as I elaborated in that thread, it really frustrates me when people present deification as a strictly “Eastern’ concept. I’ve heard very Latin homilies on deification rooted in St. Thomas Aquinas, who taught that men, in Christ, become gods; the current Catechism of course quotes St. Athanasius’ famous “God became man so that man might become God”, and the Roman liturgy (both the mass and the divine office) reiterates the concept of the deification of man in Christ again and again and again…”…may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity…"

 

[Vico]

It seems to me that perhaps the RC church is becoming more Eastern or at least expressing the eastern view of items such as confession/penance, purgatory, and sin, etc I have viewed these from a popular lay catechism, articles, radio shows, and homilies.
I wonder if this a deliberate attempt to attract converts or a natural growth from the influence of the EC’s.
Another possibility is that it’s always been there and the RC has never really held any one-single position on these issues and have always allowed a plurality of positions on these doctrines – and I am just recognizing when I see them since visiting sites like this and learning more of the “eastern” distinctives?
I am speaking only of America here – can’t speak for rest of world that may be on an entirely different trajectory.

I was raised learning from the Baltimore Catechism and see no difference in the theology regarding sin, penance, or purgatory as expressed by the Church today.

Some people never understood that the guilt of original sin means guilt-debt rather than guilt-fault.

In Roman law to be reatus means to be liable to or under an indictment or a sentence, or the state that occurs from a wrongdoing whereas culpa refers to actual guilt for wrongdoing or the actual act of wrongdoing, and both these words get translated into the word guilt in English. (The concept from the law of Justinian, used by the Catholic Church.)

We also read in Psalm 51:7 (1970 New American Bible):
Indeed in guilt I was born, and in sin my mother conceived me.

 

[Bluegoat]

To my knowledge the Roman/Latin views on Original Sin were never really set in stone and many theories floated around, and continue to do so. St. Augustine has never been the final word on Original Sin in the West, despite what many Catholics and Orthodox seem to think. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly rejects the notion that we somehow inherit Adam’s guilt for the original sin, which seems to be the chief difficulty the Orthodox that I’ve spoken with, listened to and read seem to have. What is upheld is that, because of Adam’s fall, we are born into a fallen state and are often drawn to evil instead of good.

And yet, when the Catholic Church talks about the fate of those who die unbaptized, including infants, they say they can only trust them to God’s mercy. And of course at one time it was common to say, among theologians, priests etc as well as among the laity, than unbaptized infants went to Limbo because of the effects of original sin.

The East doesn’t seem to have a problem saying that unbaptized infants go to Heaven.

To me this speaks to a difference in understanding of original sin. And at the same time as, it seems to me, the Eastern explanation is being used as much as or more more than the Augustinian explanation, we have ideas like Limbo becoming very unpopular.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

And yet, when the Catholic Church talks about the fate of those who die unbaptized, including infants, they say they can only trust them to God’s mercy. And of course at one time it was common to say, among theologians, priests etc as well as among the laity, than unbaptized infants went to Limbo because of the effects of original sin.

The East doesn’t seem to have a problem saying that unbaptized infants go to Heaven.

To me this speaks to a difference in understanding of original sin. And at the same time as, it seems to me, the Eastern explanation is being used as much as or more more than the Augustinian explanation, we have ideas like Limbo becoming very unpopular.

But the notion of Limbo was NEVER a universal tradition of the Catholic Church, it was only a theory that floated around and had some popularity in the Latin West for a time. In our own times it has been rejected, like many other theological notions and opinions that had some popularity at one point.

As far as the fate of the unbaptized go, the East likewise simply entrusts them to God’s mercy. There is a saying in Orthdoxy/Eastern Catholicism, “We know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not.” Eastern Christianity, both Catholic and Orthodox, simply have an easier time believing that unbaptized infants go to heaven because they have never committed actual sin. The West has always more or less struggled to understand the fate of unbaptized infants, and ultimately has simply said what you stated above, that we entrust them to God’s mercy… In other words, we don’t know.

Again, however, just because Roman/Latin Catholicism says something doesn’t mean that it is the universal tradition of the Catholic Church. Although the theories surrounding limbo and the fate of unbaptized infants may have enjoyed a certain popularity in the Latin Catholic West, they were simply unheard of in the Catholic East.

One more thing, aren’t we all ultimately entrusted to the mercy of God? We do not even know our own fates. We hope to one day stand in the presence of Almighty God, being ever transformed in the Divine Light, rising eternally from glory to glory, but such a fate is far from certain. Even the great saints, particularly the Carmelite mystics of the West, claimed that should one lead a perfect life one could not rest assured in the guarantee of attaining beatitude in the next. Ultimately it is a “mercy of peace” that God bestows upon us out of his goodness and love for mankind. So just as we hope for our own salvation, so too do we hope for the salvation of all the unbaptized. Dare we hope, therefore, that all mankind be saved? The tradition seems to be a resounding “yes.”

 

[Bluegoat]

But the notion of Limbo was NEVER a universal tradition of the Catholic Church, it was only a theory that floated around and had some popularity in the Latin West for a time. In our own times it has been rejected, like many other theological notions and opinions that had some popularity at one point.

As far as the fate of the unbaptized go, the East likewise simply entrusts them to God’s mercy. There is a saying in Orthdoxy/Eastern Catholicism, “We know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not.” Eastern Christianity, both Catholic and Orthodox, simply have an easier time believing that unbaptized infants go to heaven because they have never committed actual sin. The West has always more or less struggled to understand the fate of unbaptized infants, and ultimately has simply said what you stated above, that we entrust them to God’s mercy… In other words, we don’t know.

Again, however, just because Roman/Latin Catholicism says something doesn’t mean that it is the universal tradition of the Catholic Church. Although the theories surrounding limbo and the fate of unbaptized infants may have enjoyed a certain popularity in the Latin Catholic West, they were simply unheard of in the Catholic East.

One more thing, aren’t we all ultimately entrusted to the mercy of God? We do not even know our own fates. We hope to one day stand in the presence of Almighty God, being ever transformed in the Divine Light, rising eternally from glory to glory, but such a fate is far from certain. Even the great saints, particularly the Carmelite mystics of the West, claimed that should one lead a perfect life one could not rest assured in the guarantee of attaining beatitude in the next. Ultimately it is a “mercy of peace” that God bestows upon us out of his goodness and love for mankind. So just as we hope for our own salvation, so too do we hope for the salvation of all the unbaptized. Dare we hope, therefore, that all mankind be saved? The tradition seems to be a resounding “yes.”

I understand that it was never an official teaching, but it was very common, including among theologians. (It also hasn’t been totally rejected - the CC has said that it doesn’t think it is a great theory, but a Catholic can still believe it.)

But I think that what it speaks to is the spirit in which many people used to understand the idea of original sin. While it isn’t a common understanding now, it used to be the dominant view.(In fact, in Quebec I know it was common for them to refuse to bury unbaptized infants in the Catholic cemetery. No one would stand for that now - they would be utterly horrified.) Which to me is a clear indication that people are somehow understanding original sin differently.

 

[Vico]

I understand that it was never an official teaching, but it was very common, including among theologians. (It also hasn’t been totally rejected - the CC has said that it doesn’t think it is a great theory, but a Catholic can still believe it.)

But I think that what it speaks to is the spirit in which many people used to understand the idea of original sin. While it isn’t a common understanding now, it used to be the dominant view.(In fact, in Quebec I know it was common for them to refuse to bury unbaptized infants in the Catholic cemetery. No one would stand for that now - they would be utterly horrified.) Which to me is a clear indication that people are somehow understanding original sin differently.

Regardless of peoples belief in original sin (which may in fact be flawed) the teaching of the Church on infant baptism and the speculative nature of Limbo has remained constant.

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (1891 version):
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

This is the document from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which makes the statement:

1. …The later scholastics thereby envisaged three possible destinies (at least in practice, though in principle they might have accepted only two destinies: heaven and hell), and understood, against Augustine, that it was by the grace of Christ that the numerous infants in Limbo were there and not in hell!
2. …
   “Though some medieval theologians maintained the possibility of an intermediate, natural, destiny, gained by the grace of Christ (gratia sanans), namely Limbo,[see paragraph 90] we consider such a solution problematic and wish to indicate that other approaches are possible, based on hope for a redemptive grace given to unbaptised infants who die which opens for them the way to heaven. We believe that, in the development of doctrine, the solution in terms of Limbo can be surpassed in view of a greater theological hope.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

And it has been a constant teaching the infants should be baptised for salvation.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINFAN.htm