RC Church becoming more Eastern?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave_in_Dallas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave_in_Dallas said:
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.
Click to expand...
IMO too much is being made of Latin Catholic vs Eastern Catholic. The operative word here is Catholic, Western AND Eastern. Even though the Latin rite is 98% of Catholicism, ALL rites in Catholicism are of equal dignity. No ONE rite is greater or lesser dignity. No ONE is older or younger.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
No, respectfully, I know the difference between “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic.” But it’s a fact that all members of the Catholic Church worldwide are expected to hold de fide these issues we’ve discussed. The theology behind the filioque is to be believed likewise the other issues…So when an EC is told they don’t have to say the filioque at Divine Liturgy, they are required to believe it. I find that odd, that’s all.
Click to expand...
Re: the filioque
This is a translation issue between Latin and Greek of the word proceeds.

Dual procession is orthodox. Dual source is heretical
  • Latin translates proceed as dual procession (sending) of the HS from Father and Son. It does NOT mean dual source from Father and son…
  • Greek translates proceed as source.
  • Therefore, Eastern Catholics, understand Western Catholics when we use proceeds, and Western Catholics understand Eastern Catholics when they use proceeds.
g:
If I believe it, I have no problem saying it? Or when it comes to the I.C. of Mary, that’s de fide, must be believed…yet with true Orthodox thinking, we don’t retain the guilt for Adam and Eve’s foolish sin. We bear the consequences of a fallen nature. So why would one believe Mary is exempt from something that doesn’t, in one’s mind, exist to begin with? :confused: I think the model for EC you point out is a group of people that believe the same things RC’s believe but RC’s are willing to say it out loud and EC’s are not, they just embed it in liturgy and are quiet about it…?
Click to expand...
The CC doesn’t teach guilt with original sin. Here’s 4 pages of definitions and teaching on OS in the CCC
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=original+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Re: EO and the effects of OS, the question to ask EO is, can a person aspire to God on their own without 1st being influenced by grace.
 
It was chanted/sung all the way through, very difficult to follow as the meter and rhythm of the songs was not regular, incense abounded, the priest chanted really, really, really fast and I could scarcely follow what he said, sermon/homily was actually below the standards in my RC parish, about 1.5 hours, standing the whole time (I probably sat down for about 20 minutes of the whole thing, maybe a little more?), had trouble understanding the Gospel the way it was chanted/sung, I didn’t get a lot out of it. I think the novus ordo liturgy I’m used to is actually more fruitful for me than what I experienced. Lovely building…lovely icons, nice, nice people, very charitable to Catholics (me) and nice fellowship afterward.

I missed the holy water, seeing the Stations of the Cross, the kneeling and bowing, missed the filioque, liked being blessed by the priest in my Catholic parish better than kissing a cross from an Orthodox priest…

I felt out of sorts there but to be fair it was my first time. It felt odd, just can’t put my finger on it…
dcointin said:
Would you share your thoughts about the experience?
Click to expand...
 
I personally am FINE with the filioque. At the Orthodox Divine Liturgy I visited today, I missed hearing it. I’ve always been ok with the filioque.
steve_b said:
Re: the filioque
This is a translation issue between Latin and Greek of the word proceeds.

Dual procession is orthodox. Dual source is heretical
  • Latin translates proceed as dual procession (sending) of the HS from Father and Son. It does NOT mean dual source from Father and son…
  • Greek translates proceed as source.
  • Therefore, Eastern Catholics, understand Western Catholics when we use proceeds, and Western Catholics understand Eastern Catholics when they use proceeds.
The CC doesn’t teach guilt with original sin. Here’s 4 pages of definitions and teaching on OS in the CCC
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=original+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Re: EO and the effects of OS, the question to ask EO is, can a person aspire to God on their own without 1st being influenced by grace.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
It was chanted/sung all the way through, very difficult to follow as the meter and rhythm of the songs was not regular, incense abounded, the priest chanted really, really, really fast and I could scarcely follow what he said, sermon/homily was actually below the standards in my RC parish, about 1.5 hours, standing the whole time (I probably sat down for about 20 minutes of the whole thing, maybe a little more?), had trouble understanding the Gospel the way it was chanted/sung, I didn’t get a lot out of it. I think the novus ordo liturgy I’m used to is actually more fruitful for me than what I experienced. Lovely building…lovely icons, nice, nice people, very charitable to Catholics (me) and nice fellowship afterward.

I missed the holy water, seeing the Stations of the Cross, the kneeling and bowing, missed the filioque, liked being blessed by the priest in my Catholic parish better than kissing a cross from an Orthodox priest…

I felt out of sorts there but to be fair it was my first time. It felt odd, just can’t put my finger on it…
Click to expand...
Chanting can take a bit of getting used to - kind of like seeing Shakespeare performed. Once you get an ear for it though it makes it very easy to remember the texts.
 
It was the sheer volume and high speed of the chanted material, antiphons, prayers, loooong liturgy. I was meditating during it on how little I actually got out of it. I’ve been so zealous for years about ritual, ritual, ritual and have contemplated going to a Tridentine Mass, Orthodox Divine Liturgy, etc. Now that I hear it, I actually longed for a nice, palatable Novus Ordo or Anglican Rite I or II liturgy that I could hear steadily, take in, enjoy, digest, and grow from. It was terribly rushed and garbled and just not meaningful to me. So much bowing and crossing oneself and just heavy heavy ritual that I didn’t get into it…nothing against Orthodox at all. I just left feeling odd…
Bluegoat said:
Chanting can take a bit of getting used to - kind of like seeing Shakespeare performed. Once you get an ear for it though it makes it very easy to remember the texts.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
It was the sheer volume and high speed of the chanted material, antiphons, prayers, loooong liturgy. I was meditating during it on how little I actually got out of it. I’ve been so zealous for years about ritual, ritual, ritual and have contemplated going to a Tridentine Mass, Orthodox Divine Liturgy, etc. Now that I hear it, I actually longed for a nice, palatable Novus Ordo or Anglican Rite I or II liturgy that I could hear steadily, take in, enjoy, digest, and grow from. It was terribly rushed and garbled and just not meaningful to me. So much bowing and crossing oneself and just heavy heavy ritual that I didn’t get into it…nothing against Orthodox at all. I just left feeling odd…
Click to expand...
I know when I visited it seemed like a lot too. After I had a look at a written text of the liturgy and it started to make more sense - I could see the structure which actually included other prayer services besides the DL and so on. The concept behind it was not all that different from what I am used to though so that was probably a big help. I think it also helps not to worry too much about the priest’s part and concentrate more on the choir, but I could be mistaken about that. I am sure people who go straight from a Baptist service or some such must feel like they have really got into something they didn’t expect.
 
Yeah, right now I’m hungry for the Book of Common Prayer or even Novus Ordo! :D:p
Bluegoat said:
I know when I visited it seemed like a lot too. After I had a look at a written text of the liturgy and it started to make more sense - I could see the structure which actually included other prayer services besides the DL and so on. The concept behind it was not all that different from what I am used to though so that was probably a big help. I think it also helps not to worry too much about the priest’s part and concentrate more on the choir, but I could be mistaken about that. I am sure people who go straight from a Baptist service or some such must feel like they have really got into something they didn’t expect.
Click to expand...
 
I sure think us Roman Catholics can benefit from some Eastern elements. First and foremost, what I see as Roman Catholicism’s greatest current setback: a legalistic mentality, inherited from Roman law. All the great Catholic writers and saints have always transcended this legalism, but it is still prevalent in the everyday experience of being Catholic and in the popular manuals.

I also wonder whether the handling of divorce and contraception in the Orthodox Church (and maybe among Eastern Catholics too?) isn’t more reasonable and positive. Of course, this is - especially contraception - tied up with the legalistic mentality of Roman Catholics.
 
Joel_PF said:
I sure think us Roman Catholics can benefit from some Eastern elements. First and foremost, what I see as Roman Catholicism’s greatest current setback: a legalistic mentality, inherited from Roman law. All the great Catholic writers and saints have always transcended this legalism, but it is still prevalent in the everyday experience of being Catholic and in the popular manuals.

I also wonder whether the handling of divorce and contraception in the Orthodox Church (and maybe among Eastern Catholics too?) isn’t more reasonable and positive. Of course, this is - especially contraception - tied up with the legalistic mentality of Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
But there is flexibility in the laws of the Catholic Church, when it does not pertain to Divine Laws. The proper way of reproduction, and the proper covenant of marriage, is of Divine Law and it is grave matter.
 
Vico said:
But there is flexibility in the laws of the Catholic Church, when it does not pertain to Divine Laws. The proper way of reproduction, and the proper covenant of marriage, is of Divine Law and it is grave matter.
Click to expand...
I’m speaking of something deeper: of morality. Far too many Catholics think of Christian morality as following the mandates of God which deserve punishment if infringed. The over-preoccupation with distinguishing mortal from venial sin (which is itself a valid distinction), of knowing what is or what isn’t grave matter,

While this juridical understanding is true as far as it goes (it is even used in the Bible), it is not deep enough. The Easterns, and Catholic thinkers in their better moments, have always the deeper understanding in mind: the soul is either turned towards God or away from Him, in the process of being united to Him or trying (in vain) to run away from His Divine Love in search of happiness in a lesser good, where happiness cannot be found. So the focus is on loving God and turning all that we do to His glory, knowing that our true fulfillment can only be found in our union with Him; and not in a cold exercise of following some strict laws and feeling free to do whatever we want where there is no explicit prescription.
 
Joel_PF said:
I’m speaking of something deeper: of morality. Far too many Catholics think of Christian morality as following the mandates of God which deserve punishment if infringed. The over-preoccupation with distinguishing mortal from venial sin (which is itself a valid distinction), of knowing what is or what isn’t grave matter,

While this juridical understanding is true as far as it goes (it is even used in the Bible), it is not deep enough. The Easterns, and Catholic thinkers in their better moments, have always the deeper understanding in mind: the soul is either turned towards God or away from Him, in the process of being united to Him or trying (in vain) to run away from His Divine Love in search of happiness in a lesser good, where happiness cannot be found. So the focus is on loving God and turning all that we do to His glory, knowing that our true fulfillment can only be found in our union with Him; and not in a cold exercise of following some strict laws and feeling free to do whatever we want where there is no explicit prescription.
Click to expand...
Yes, “a cold exercise of following some strict laws and feeling free to do whatever we want where there is no explicit prescription” may qualify as legalism:

Meriam Webster
legalism: strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>

Yet Divine Law is to be followed strictly and is a matter of morality? One does not put on Christ when intentionally violating Divine Law. When you said “the mandates of God which deserve punishment if infringed” are you not speaking of that which results in not inheriting the kingdom of God? Being without heaven in the end is surely conceivable as a punishment:

Matthew 25:41-46:
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
I Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5-6
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
It was chanted/sung all the way through, very difficult to follow as the meter and rhythm of the songs was not regular, incense abounded, the priest chanted really, really, really fast and I could scarcely follow what he said, sermon/homily was actually below the standards in my RC parish, about 1.5 hours, standing the whole time (I probably sat down for about 20 minutes of the whole thing, maybe a little more?), had trouble understanding the Gospel the way it was chanted/sung, I didn’t get a lot out of it. I think the novus ordo liturgy I’m used to is actually more fruitful for me than what I experienced. Lovely building…lovely icons, nice, **nice people, very charitable to Catholics (me) and nice fellowship afterward.
**
I missed the holy water, seeing the Stations of the Cross, the kneeling and bowing, missed the filioque, liked being blessed by the priest in my Catholic parish better than kissing a cross from an Orthodox priest…

I felt out of sorts there but to be fair it was my first time. It felt odd, just can’t put my finger on it…
Click to expand...
The Divine Liturgy is very clearly not everyone’s cup of tea. I really miss the chanting when I’m in a Roman Rite Mass find that, as normally mostly only spoken, feels very flat and strange to me. 🙂 I go when I’m able to the local Dominican Priory because they chant the hours before and the Magnificat after the Mass and often chant parts of the Mass as well. I feel very uncomfortable sitting during Mass and tend to cross myself when the most Holy Trinity is named in the Mass. I think we are blest to have these liturgical options to choose from because it’s evident different liturgical norms appeal to different people.

I’m really glad to hear you were so well received by this Orthodox parish. I have found the Orthodox very hospitable most places I’ve visited. 👍
 
Joel_PF said:
I’m speaking of something deeper: of morality. Far too many Catholics think of Christian morality as following the mandates of God which deserve punishment if infringed. The over-preoccupation with distinguishing mortal from venial sin (which is itself a valid distinction), of knowing what is or what isn’t grave matter,
Click to expand...
yes, I think this comes out in a practical sense with the numbers of people overly-concerned and confused with what they have to confess or don’t have to, or whether they can receive if they haven’t had a chance yet to confess sin X, or people affected by scrupulosity or sin-counting. It seems that something isn’t being communicated well in the teaching on this subject. It seems to be a specifically Roman Catholic problem.
 
Joel_PF said:
I’m speaking of something deeper: of morality. Far too many Catholics think of Christian morality as following the mandates of God which deserve punishment if infringed. The over-preoccupation with distinguishing mortal from venial sin (which is itself a valid distinction), of knowing what is or what isn’t grave matter,

While this juridical understanding is true as far as it goes (it is even used in the Bible), it is not deep enough. The Easterns, and Catholic thinkers in their better moments, have always the deeper understanding in mind: the soul is either turned towards God or away from Him, in the process of being united to Him or trying (in vain) to run away from His Divine Love in search of happiness in a lesser good, where happiness cannot be found. So the focus is on loving God and turning all that we do to His glory, knowing that our true fulfillment can only be found in our union with Him; andnot in a cold exercise of following some strict laws and feeling free to do whatever we want where there is no explicit prescription.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking as you say that, what Jesus said. “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”[Jn 14:15]

The statement begins with IF, which is a condition. The condition of loving Jesus is obeying Him and all that He taught.

Therefore, Love and obedience to commandments is a package. It’s not an either/or proposition. Obeying Jesus and regarding consequences for disobeying His commandments, is NOT legalism, as some wrongly tag it, It’s love in action.
 
From Archdale A King’s The Liturgy Of The Roman Church.
Code: 
               Right down to the 8th century, even in some measure down to the 11th ,' says Dix, 'Rome is not, properly speaking, a truly "Western" church.... Rome is not only the heart of Western christendom, but the meeting point of East and West. And it's liturgy reflects the fact.' The West borrowed extensively from the East, although what Rome took over from Constantinople or Syria it remodeled to its own mind.

             That was from an appendix titled Byzantine Influence In The Roman Rite
 
Seamus_L said:
From Archdale A King’s The Liturgy Of The Roman Church.
Code: 
               Right down to the 8th century, even in some measure down to the 11th ,' says Dix, 'Rome is not, properly speaking, a truly "Western" church.... Rome is not only the heart of Western christendom, but the meeting point of East and West. And it's liturgy reflects the fact.' The West borrowed extensively from the East, although what Rome took over from Constantinople or Syria it remodeled to its own mind.

             That was from an appendix titled Byzantine Influence In The Roman Rite
Click to expand...
A very important - and very true - point.

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top