What am I required to believe when converting to the Latin Rite?

[slh3016]

I have just been made newly aware that not all rites under the Catholic umbrella are required to hold to the exact same theology and are still in communion with each other (Byzantine Rite, etc.) and honestly, I find that in many areas of theology, I much prefer the eastern catholic rites’ adherence to mystery to the rigid, Latin stance of defining every single nuance of the faith. Some specific areas include the theology/definition of original sin, Purgatory, and the Assumption of Mary.

I definitely understand that the minor differences can be complementary, and I definitely do not think the Latin Rite is wrong about anything, I’d just prefer a belief system that wasn’t so inflexible (for lack of a better word).

So, my question is, if the Eastern Rite churches are obliged to be less dogmatic in their beliefs and still be in communion with the Holy See, can an individual Latin Rite Catholic convert have some beliefs of both Rites (IOW, straddle the fence on those issues)? Is this a stumbling block for conversion?

I am sure I have some misunderstanding due to my ignorance so please feel free to clarify the details for me…thanks!

 

[phil19034]

The Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches all believe the same Deposit of Faith.

The theological differences do not affect doctrine and/or dogma. They affect discipline and sometime emphasis.

Also, it’s important to remember that they had different dealings with heresy. The Eastern Churches dealt with lots of heresies during the early days of the Church, which the Latin Church didn’t really have to deal with. Dogmas had to be defined to deal with those Eastern heresies. On the other hand, the Latin Church had to deal with other heresies later, which the Eastern Churches were not affected by.

Dogma is usually defined and/or doctrine usually clarified when dealing with heresy.

Finally, because most Eastern Bishops are monks (because Bishops cannot be married), they tend to be more mystic (as monks tend to be more mystic vs. diocesan priests). While, in the Latin Church, due to the discipline of priestly celibacy, the Latin Church has more Bishops who were diocesan priests and/or theologians instead of mystics. Therefore, the Eastern Churches tend to be more mystic in their approach to theology and content leaving theological matters as mystery, while the Latin Church tends to be more academic & pastoral in their approach to theology, trying to explain as much as possible in concert with divine revelation.

I hope I’m making sense… (it’s 2:50 am my time)

God Bless.

 

[Agnessa]

Eastern Rite Catholics are obliged to believe in every dogma the Latin Rite Catholics do, which certainly holds for Assumption of Mary and so on. From my understanding, some flexibility as for how to approach one or another teaching is allowed, but so it is also in Latin Rite. I am not aware of every teaching, that is obligatory for Latin Catholics, but not for Eastern.

Could you elaborate, which Latin Rite teachings you disagree with, or what definitions do you consider too rigid? The Latin/Eastern definition of the original sin, for example, does not really have to contradict one another, its mostly just the different language used, and emphasis put on different points.

 

[slh3016]

The Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches all believe the same Deposit of Faith.

The theological differences do not affect doctrine and/or dogma. They affect discipline and sometime emphasis.

Also, it’s important to remember that they had different dealings with heresy. The Eastern Churches dealt with lots of heresies during the early days of the Church, which the Latin Church didn’t really have to deal with. Dogmas had to be defined to deal with those Eastern heresies. On the other hand, the Latin Church had to deal with other heresies later, which the Eastern Churches were not affected by.

Dogma is usually defined and/or doctrine usually clarified when dealing with heresy.

Finally, because most Eastern Bishops are monks (because Bishops cannot be married), they tend to be more mystic (as monks tend to be more mystic vs. diocesan priests). While, in the Latin Church, due to the discipline of priestly celibacy, the Latin Church has more Bishops who were diocesan priests and/or theologians instead of mystics. Therefore, the Eastern Churches tend to be more mystic in their approach to theology and content leaving theological matters as mystery, while the Latin Church tends to be more academic & pastoral in their approach to theology, trying to explain as much as possible in concert with divine revelation.

I hope I’m making sense… (it’s 2:50 am my time)

God Bless.

Yes, you are making sense. I guess I should say, it is often their (Eastern Catholics’) approach to theology that I am more at ease with. They (and Eastern Orthodox Christians) seem to be more content to just leave some things as the “mystery of God” than define every nuance. However, being very familiar with the legal system as having worked in it in the past, I do understand that some things inevitably must be “defined” as to leave no ambiguity as to the meaning behind the language, as in the case of squashing heresies.

I just feel that sometimes the Latin church could back itself into a corner with too much definition and that Latin Rite Catholics are much more prone to mistake theological speculation by Latin Rite theologians as the actual dogma/doctrine itself of the Church and then proceed to force that theologian’s OPINION/THEORY on every other Latin Rite Catholic and claim it as doctrine/dogma (i.e., Limbo, details of Purgatory, etc.) because it’s been asserted for such a long time

Some things that come to mind in this regard are the actual legal definitions of Original Sin and what this rigid legal definition also seems to implicate, which consequentially has led many great theologians to then spend an enormous amount of time formulating hypotheses addressing those implications (Limbo, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, details of Purgatory, etc.). I now see well-meaning Catholics spending an enormous amount of time and energy defending one particular view of an issue and claiming that the Church teaches this.

This thread is what got the cogs turning in my brain:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=380779

Specifically, posts 19, 21, and 39.

So, to rephrase and clarify my original questions…

***If I convert to Catholicism (Latin Rite) and I am asked about a particular issue by a Protestant family member, can I approach the answer from an Eastern Catholic’ perspective and assert/claim that as my own belief rather than give them a lengthy (and sometimes counterproductive) history of the development of thought by Latin theologians?

---

 

[slh3016]

Eastern Rite Catholics are obliged to believe in every dogma the Latin Rite Catholics do, which certainly holds for Assumption of Mary and so on. From my understanding, some flexibility as for how to approach one or another teaching is allowed, but so it is also in Latin Rite. I am not aware of every teaching, that is obligatory for Latin Catholics, but not for Eastern.

Could you elaborate, which Latin Rite teachings you disagree with, or what definitions do you consider too rigid? The Latin/Eastern definition of the original sin, for example, does not really have to contradict one another, its mostly just the different language used, and emphasis put on different points.

Yes, the flexibility is what I’m really asking about. I know that their beliefs obviously cannot contradict each other and that most often, they are complementary, but can a Latin Catholic be flexible enough within their own theology to narrow/limit their view or definition of a particular issue (i.e., original sin) to that of the Eastern Catholics?

Basically, can I pick and choose whose definition I’d like to have for my own (knowing full well, they don’t contradict or negate each other, but just for ease of use)?

 

[sirach2v4]

First, good for you that you are taking the tenets of the faith so seriously.

Second, a scholarly reference on the issue is “The Christian Tradition: a History of the Development of Doctrine” by the late Yaroslav Pelikan. 5 Volumes (!)

This bears on your general question of why differences have occurred within and outside of the Catholic Church. The short answer, part a) there is a natural barrier of language which has caused doctrine to develop in different directions; it takes time for ideas to permeate this barrier and be hashed out. This barrier is not totally bad, because it preserves holy traditions which are needed, even seriously, today.

short answer, part b) doctrines have developed in response to crisis, particularly to the crisis of heresy. But, there has been a natural development as particularly church theologians (not just in the ivory towers) have studied scripture and tradition, and challenged them with new questions, like yours.

The Jewish commentaries I’ve seen to reject the idea of original sin and a fall from grace. Both the Orthodox Christian Church and Judaism as a whole do not have a central magisterium, like the Roman Catholic Church.

So, definitions of things like Original Sin get settled and form “doctrine” (“teaching”), on the basis of scripture, tradition (what was handed down, from the beginning), and the magisterium (teaching authority).

I sympathize with your quandry, I’d rather that we were the fourth or fifth century church, without the schisms which later occurred and without these hard-and-fast doctrines which are hard to understand. That’s where I agree with you the most, that the Church does not always explain these confusing doctrines. You have to work at “evangelizing yourself.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church (one of many discussions in their on the subject):

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” — a state and not an act. (360, 50)

 

[sirach2v4]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is described as containing the deposit of faith. This is what we’re all supposed to believe.

The “fall” of Adam and Eve is a pretty significant event. If we don’t accept it, then it’s ***harder ***to understand why God immediately promises to send a savior. This is big stuff and explains a whole lot in the Bible.

The church explains here (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM) why we need the Jewish scriptures (“old testament”) to understand Christ and the New Testament.

 

[OraLabora]

I’ve always been uncomfortable with being “required to believe…” in order to be Catholic.

We are Catholic through our valid baptism. The rest is a faith walk, where we assent to different aspects of Catholic teaching along the way, as we learn about them, study them and pray over them. We may never reach the point where we can intellectually assent to all of them. Indeed, some are too steeped in mystery to accept intellectually; we then either assent through faith, or continue do doubt. Because one doubts over a teaching, one doesn’t cease to be Catholic. He or she is just like the rest of us, sinners blinded all too much by our human foibles.

The most important “doctrine” IMHO is, once we’ve been baptized, to assent to allowing Grace into our lives. Grace, through which when recognized, we grow to know Him and love Him, and through time and prayer, assent to the teachings of His Church either intellectually, or by act of faith.

It’s important not to give up when we feel we can’t assent to this or that. Nobody can take away that one is Catholic. It’s important, instead, to continue to walk in the faith, to pray over which one don’t understand or can’t accept, and to learn to surrender one’s will to Christ on all things, especially those beyond one’s comprehension.

 

[phil19034]

I’ve always been uncomfortable with being “required to believe…” in order to be Catholic.

We are Catholic through our valid baptism. The rest is a faith walk, where we assent to different aspects of Catholic teaching along the way, as we learn about them, study them and pray over them. We may never reach the point where we can intellectually assent to all of them. Indeed, some are too steeped in mystery to accept intellectually; we then either assent through faith, or continue do doubt. Because one doubts over a teaching, one doesn’t cease to be Catholic. He or she is just like the rest of us, sinners blinded all too much by our human foibles.

The most important “doctrine” IMHO is, once we’ve been baptized, to assent to allowing Grace into our lives. Grace, through which when recognized, we grow to know Him and love Him, and through time and prayer, assent to the teachings of His Church either intellectually, or by act of faith.

It’s important not to give up when we feel we can’t assent to this or that. Nobody can take away that one is Catholic. It’s important, instead, to continue to walk in the faith, to pray over which one don’t understand or can’t accept, and to learn to surrender one’s will to Christ on all things, especially those beyond one’s comprehension.

I understand what you are saying. However, there is a difference between struggling with a teaching or belief of the Church vs. being heterodox. Struggling with a belief is exactly that, you are struggling to understand or believe. But being heterodox is to believe something which is not in concordance with the faith and most likely reject the orthodox teaching and/or belief.

I hope this helps.

 

[slh3016]

I understand what you are saying. However, there is a difference between struggling with a teaching or belief of the Church vs. being heterodox. Struggling with a belief is exactly that, you are struggling to understand or believe. But being heterodox is to believe something which is not in concordance with the faith and most likely reject the orthodox teaching and/or belief.

I hope this helps.

Are Eastern Catholic Rites considered heterodox simply because their language has not evolved into the Latin Rite language? Again, I am not saying that they don’t essentially believe the same thing, but it seems that what the Latins explain in a 50 page legal document explaining all the caveats, definitions, and technicalities, the Eastern’s are content with a 2 page document with the general basis:shrug:

I just feel that non-Catholics and/or anti-Catholics aim their arrows at the Latin Catholics because they get hung up in the many nuances that the Latin Catholic theologians created/articulated to begin with and feel that it’s all “too complicated” to sort out. IOW, they are assuming that all the various theological theories orbiting the main truth (Catholic teaching) is actually what the Church teaches as truth, when it’s not. It may or may not be. It may just be the “best guess”.

For instance, I can issue my children a rule and they will constantly try to find a loophole around following that rule because maybe I wasn’t specific enough or I was too specific when I should have generalized. (i.e., “Don’t run in the house with that glass of water” gets translated that they can run in the house as long as they aren’t carrying a glass of water; so, to have covered ALL the bases, I should say, “Don’t run in the house”) KWIM?

I feel like in the case of some of the Church’s doctrines, it’s better to err on the side of being generalized than specific, because when you get specific, people start looking for the loopholes or for ways to make the issue even more complicated than it was ever intended to be… From the albeit limited things I have read concerning the Eastern Catholic theology, this seems to be their approach and in many ways, it seems more explainable to people who don’t have the will, intellect, or time to sort through the Latin theology.

Does this make sense?

 

[slh3016]

I’ve always been uncomfortable with being “required to believe…” in order to be Catholic.

We are Catholic through our valid baptism. The rest is a faith walk, where we assent to different aspects of Catholic teaching along the way, as we learn about them, study them and pray over them. We may never reach the point where we can intellectually assent to all of them. Indeed, some are too steeped in mystery to accept intellectually; we then either assent through faith, or continue do doubt. Because one doubts over a teaching, one doesn’t cease to be Catholic. He or she is just like the rest of us, sinners blinded all too much by our human foibles.

The most important “doctrine” IMHO is, once we’ve been baptized, to assent to allowing Grace into our lives. Grace, through which when recognized, we grow to know Him and love Him, and through time and prayer, assent to the teachings of His Church either intellectually, or by act of faith.

It’s important not to give up when we feel we can’t assent to this or that. Nobody can take away that one is Catholic. It’s important, instead, to continue to walk in the faith, to pray over which one don’t understand or can’t accept, and to learn to surrender one’s will to Christ on all things, especially those beyond one’s comprehension.

 

[slh3016]

I sympathize with your quandry, I’d rather that we were the fourth or fifth century church, without the schisms which later occurred and without these hard-and-fast doctrines which are hard to understand. That’s where I agree with you the most, that the Church does not always explain these confusing doctrines. You have to work at “evangelizing yourself.”

Yes, these are exactly my thoughts…how blessed were those who were able to live and grow in the Church before there was so much controversy and confusion! Although we have been enlightened in many ways regarding the tenets of the faith by great thinkers, in some ways, it would be nice to just “trust and obey”.

“Trust and obey, for there’s no other way, to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.”

Is that hymn sung in Catholic Churches? I’ll be sad if it’s not because the lyrics appear extremely Catholic!

 

[sirach2v4]

No, I’ve never heard the “trust and obey” song in a Catholic church.

But, don’t be discouraged. Regarding Mary, I saw an interview of apologist Tim Staples with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. I’ll tell you, I’m not one to compulsively buy DVD’s of program episodes, but Wednesday night ((1-21-15) is a big exception. This was a lively discussion of Staple’s conversion to the Catholic Faith.

He was drawn to it, he couldn’t escape its attraction. He was a staunch Baptist and Pentacostal, but he had to go through maybe something like you are, hesitantly, and follow the truth where it took him – to the Catholic Church.

The interview was terribly interesting, but regarding the Church’s teaching about Mary, he wrote a book! It’s called “Behold Thy Mother” and it’s supposed to be available on the ewtn.com website, in the religous catalogue and maybe you can get it elsewhere.

But, I recommend (sight unseen) his book because he discusses how essential the teachings of the Church are regarding Mary. I have “deep” theology books on Mary. But, it sounds like this is they type of book that would reassure you, and explain things so that you can turn around and explain it to others.

 

[TimothyH]

Yes, you are making sense. I guess I should say, it is often their (Eastern Catholics’) approach to theology that I am more at ease with. They (and Eastern Orthodox Christians) seem to be more content to just leave some things as the “mystery of God” than define every nuance. However, being very familiar with the legal system as having worked in it in the past, I do understand that some things inevitably must be “defined” as to leave no ambiguity as to the meaning behind the language, as in the case of squashing heresies.

I just feel that sometimes the Latin church could back itself into a corner with too much definition and that Latin Rite Catholics are much more prone to mistake theological speculation by Latin Rite theologians as the actual dogma/doctrine itself of the Church and then proceed to force that theologian’s OPINION/THEORY on every other Latin Rite Catholic and claim it as doctrine/dogma (i.e., Limbo, details of Purgatory, etc.) because it’s been asserted for such a long time

Some things that come to mind in this regard are the actual legal definitions of Original Sin and what this rigid legal definition also seems to implicate, which consequentially has led many great theologians to then spend an enormous amount of time formulating hypotheses addressing those implications (Limbo, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, details of Purgatory, etc.). I now see well-meaning Catholics spending an enormous amount of time and energy defending one particular view of an issue and claiming that the Church teaches this.

This thread is what got the cogs turning in my brain:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=380779

Specifically, posts 19, 21, and 39.

So, to rephrase and clarify my original questions…

***If I convert to Catholicism (Latin Rite) and I am asked about a particular issue by a Protestant family member, can I approach the answer from an Eastern Catholic’ perspective and assert/claim that as my own belief rather than give them a lengthy (and sometimes counterproductive) history of the development of thought by Latin theologians?

---

Yours is a very lucid and well written post.

I share some of your concerns around “too much definition.” There seems to be a need to create a repeatable (formulaic?) explanation for every aspect and detail of the faith which has caused some to overstep the Church’s actual teaching. Social media (CAF included) and the modern apologetics industry doesn’t help. I say this as a Roman Catholic.

My own personal experience is that western monasticism is about as close to Eastern Catholicism as one can get in the Latin Church and I am often surprised at how much the two share - the Jesus Prayer, love of the Early Desert Fathers, an appreciation of mystery and an aversion to the need to explain everything. I can give many examples but I think it boils down to monastic theology vs scholastic theology. Pope Benedict spoke about these two “theological models”.

It is on the basis of these two milieus, monasteries and scholae, that it is possible to speak of the two different theological models: “monastic theology” and “scholastic theology”. The representatives of monastic theology were monks, usually abbots, endowed with wisdom and evangelical zeal, dedicated essentially to inspiring and nourishing God’s loving design. The representatives of Scholastic theology were cultured men, passionate about research; they were magistri anxious to show the reasonableness and soundness of the Mysteries of God and of man, believed with faith, of course, but also understood by reason. Their different finalities explain the differences in their method and in their way of doing theology. More…

My sense is that the need to combat the Protestant reformation in Europe created condition which favored a continued rise of scholasticism in the west to the sometimes extreme levels we see today. My sense is also that the Eastern Churches were less affected. Whatever the reason, the fact is that most Western Catholics in the US and Europe are scholastic - CAF has thread after thread about study bibles but not one thread on lectio divina. I believe that an injection of Eastern/Monastic theology is desperately needed in the Western Church and “lengthy histories of the development of thought by Latin theologians” is part of why the Church struggles in places.

By the way, post 39 in the link you provided - “that they be freed from the servitude (of sin) and may become the sons of God” - is sublime.

-Tim-

 

[phil19034]

Are Eastern Catholic Rites considered heterodox simply because their language has not evolved into the Latin Rite language? Again, I am not saying that they don’t essentially believe the same thing, but it seems that what the Latins explain in a 50 page legal document explaining all the caveats, definitions, and technicalities, the Eastern’s are content with a 2 page document with the general basis:shrug:

No, the Eastern Catholic Rites are not heterodox, they are orthodox, just like the Latin Church. The entire magisterium of the Catholic Church is orthodox. The Latin language has nothing to do with Divine Revelation.

I just feel that non-Catholics and/or anti-Catholics aim their arrows at the Latin Catholics because they get hung up in the many nuances that the Latin Catholic theologians created/articulated to begin with and feel that it’s all “too complicated” to sort out. IOW, they are assuming that all the various theological theories orbiting the main truth (Catholic teaching) is actually what the Church teaches as truth, when it’s not. It may or may not be. It may just be the “best guess”.

For instance, I can issue my children a rule and they will constantly try to find a loophole around following that rule because maybe I wasn’t specific enough or I was too specific when I should have generalized. (i.e., “Don’t run in the house with that glass of water” gets translated that they can run in the house as long as they aren’t carrying a glass of water; so, to have covered ALL the bases, I should say, “Don’t run in the house”) KWIM?

I feel like in the case of some of the Church’s doctrines, it’s better to err on the side of being generalized than specific, because when you get specific, people start looking for the loopholes or for ways to make the issue even more complicated than it was ever intended to be… From the albeit limited things I have read concerning the Eastern Catholic theology, this seems to be their approach and in many ways, it seems more explainable to people who don’t have the will, intellect, or time to sort through the Latin theology.

Does this make sense?

I totally understand what you are saying. But I think you need to understand why the Latin Church had to be more specific. Let’s use your don’t run in the house scenario. As the enlightenment approached in Western Europe, people started asking questions. You say “Don’t run in the house” and the kids ask why? You respond with because I don’t want you to get hurt, kid says “I won’t fall,” you reply “I also don’t want you to break something,” kid says “I won’t.” You then reply with, “I am your father, please do as I tell you,” and the child respond with “why?”

The Latin Church had to deal with a lot of this.

On the other hand, the Eastern Churches didn’t have to deal with this too much after the first few centuries. The Eastern Churches mostly all either part of the Byzantine Empire, Russia, or in Islamic controlled territories. Meanwhile, Latin Christians were part of nations which were all different kingdoms after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The West went into the Dark Ages, were a feudal system took over. The East was still run by Empires.

I personally believe that the feudal system in Western Europe ultimately contributed to questioning authority, while the East took pride in being the successor and continuation of the great Roman Empire. I believe this sense of pride sub-consciously leads to a kind of conservatisms and ritualism where things should remain as they are because we are part of this great and historic Empire…

And then, for the Eastern Churches in Islamic controlled areas, they were willing to face death for their religion… so they were not very likely to question their faith too much - they were already committed to it. This would be the same with the far eastern Christians who would have also been religious minorities.

Anyway, the point is this. The Latin Church didn’t start explaining things because they wanted to and thought the Eastern Christians were foolish. The Latins had to further explain to address rising questions, which people were becoming more free to ask.

If you are drawn to on of the Eastern Catholic Churches, that’s great. If there is an Eastern Rite you like with a Church close by, I say go for it. No one will make you attend a Latin parish. I often have a little jingle I say when people are trying to decide between two Catholic Rites: “No matter the Rite, being Catholics is Right!”

May The Lord bless you and grant you wisdom & understanding during the journey of faith. Amen.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I understand what you are saying. However, there is a difference between struggling with a teaching or belief of the Church vs. being heterodox. Struggling with a belief is exactly that, you are struggling to understand or believe. But being heterodox is to believe something which is not in concordance with the faith and most likely reject the orthodox teaching and/or belief.

I hope this helps.

Can the validly baptized/confirmed heterodox claim to be Catholic? Or do you take that away from them?

 

[phil19034]

Can the validly baptized/confirmed heterodox claim to be Catholic? Or do you take that away from them?

of course they are Catholic. I used to be heterodox (though not by choice, but by lack of education).

I personally feel their are three groups of heterodox and three groups of orthodox.

The three groups of heterodox are:
– heterodox due to lack of proper catechesis and/or evangelization
– heterodox due to incomplete catechesis and/or evangelization
– heterodox despite proper catechesis and evangelization, who are extremely public with their objections and combative.

Personally, I only have “issues” with the last group because they seek to radically change the church (and they can be either progressive or traditional), whether they be pro female ordination or Sedevacantism - both are damaging to the Church.

In regards to the orthodox, I believe there are also three groups of orthodox

The three groups of orthodox are:
– orthodox due to proper catechesis AND evangelization
– orthodox due to proper evangelization BUT lack adequate catechesis
– orthodox due to proper catechesis BUT lack adequate evangelization

I also personally could have some “issues” with the last group here because some might tend too legalistic, lacking mercy.

This is why it’s so important for Parishes to have healthy evangelization and catechesis programs for teens and adults. Programs like Catholic Bible Studies (during hours when working people can actually attend), Christ Life for evangelization, YDisciple for teen discipleship, Symbolon for AFF, men & women’s discipleship groups, etc.

Our goal should be to evangelize and catechesis everyone in our parishes, and then set them loose on evangelizing and catechizing the world.

God Bless.

 

[slh3016]

No, I’ve never heard the “trust and obey” song in a Catholic church.

But, don’t be discouraged. Regarding Mary, I saw an interview of apologist Tim Staples with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. I’ll tell you, I’m not one to compulsively buy DVD’s of program episodes, but Wednesday night ((1-21-15) is a big exception. This was a lively discussion of Staple’s conversion to the Catholic Faith.

He was drawn to it, he couldn’t escape its attraction. He was a staunch Baptist and Pentacostal, but he had to go through maybe something like you are, hesitantly, and follow the truth where it took him – to the Catholic Church.

The interview was terribly interesting, but regarding the Church’s teaching about Mary, he wrote a book! It’s called “Behold Thy Mother” and it’s supposed to be available on the ewtn.com website, in the religous catalogue and maybe you can get it elsewhere.

But, I recommend (sight unseen) his book because he discusses how essential the teachings of the Church are regarding Mary. I have “deep” theology books on Mary. But, it sounds like this is they type of book that would reassure you, and explain things so that you can turn around and explain it to others.

Honestly, I don’t have a problem with Mary I never really have on this road to the Catholic Church. Now, I’ll admit that I am still leery and uncomfortable with as much devotion that SOME people tend to give her, but I know that is a problem within myself and I am hoping to become more comfortable as time goes on I’ve heard Tim Staples and Scott Hahn speak on Mary and it is flabbergasting! I sure wish Protestant churches didn’t turn away from Mary as much as they do

 

[slh3016]

My sense is that the need to combat the Protestant reformation in Europe created condition which favored a continued rise of scholasticism in the west to the sometimes extreme levels we see today. My sense is also that the Eastern Churches were less affected. Whatever the reason, the fact is that most Western Catholics in the US and Europe are scholastic - CAF has thread after thread about study bibles but not one thread on lectio divina. I believe that an injection of Eastern/Monastic theology is desperately needed in the Western Church and “lengthy histories of the development of thought by Latin theologians” is part of why the Church struggles in places.

By the way, post 39 in the link you provided - “that they be freed from the servitude (of sin) and may become the sons of God” - is sublime.

-Tim-

I love that definition and that wording is what prompted this thread

Seems so much easier to comprehend and explain than some of the other wordy definitions out there regarding original sin.

 

[slh3016]

I totally understand what you are saying. But I think you need to understand why the Latin Church had to be more specific. Let’s use your don’t run in the house scenario. As the enlightenment approached in Western Europe, people started asking questions. You say “Don’t run in the house” and the kids ask why? You respond with because I don’t want you to get hurt, kid says “I won’t fall,” you reply “I also don’t want you to break something,” kid says “I won’t.” You then reply with, “I am your -]father/-] (actually, it’s mom in this case ) please do as I tell you,” and the child respond with “why?”

The Latin Church had to deal with a lot of this.

Sounds like the Latin church had a lot of bratty, rebellious kids I would know absolutely nothing about that I envy those moms with the compliant “Yes, ma’am” all the time children

On the other hand, the Eastern Churches didn’t have to deal with this too much after the first few centuries. The Eastern Churches mostly all either part of the Byzantine Empire, Russia, or in Islamic controlled territories. Meanwhile, Latin Christians were part of nations which were all different kingdoms after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The West went into the Dark Ages, were a feudal system took over. The East was still run by Empires.

I personally believe that the feudal system in Western Europe ultimately contributed to questioning authority, while the East took pride in being the successor and continuation of the great Roman Empire. I believe this sense of pride sub-consciously leads to a kind of conservatisms and ritualism where things should remain as they are because we are part of this great and historic Empire…

And then, for the Eastern Churches in Islamic controlled areas, they were willing to face death for their religion… so they were not very likely to question their faith too much - they were already committed to it. This would be the same with the far eastern Christians who would have also been religious minorities.

Anyway, the point is this. The Latin Church didn’t start explaining things because they wanted to and thought the Eastern Christians were foolish. The Latins had to further explain to address rising questions, which people were becoming more free to ask.

This makes a lot of sense, especially since the kids and I are studying medieval history right now in their homeschool studies. Thank you for the explanation.

If you are drawn to on of the Eastern Catholic Churches, that’s great. If there is an Eastern Rite you like with a Church close by, I say go for it. No one will make you attend a Latin parish. I often have a little jingle I say when people are trying to decide between two Catholic Rites: “No matter the Rite, being Catholics is Right!”

May The Lord bless you and grant you wisdom & understanding during the journey of faith. Amen.

Sadly, I live in the Bible Belt where Catholic Churches (Roman) are not even that common and even fewer Eastern Catholic Churches. Therefore, in converting, I would most definitely end up in a Roman Catholic Church.