0 members (),
238
guests, and
46
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373 |
This question seems to be popular lately. For those who are canonically Eastern Catholic of what ever Partricular Church tradition, do you feel the need to accept all Roman Catholic Dogma to exist? Feel free to explain you answer in detail.
Ung
Last edited by Ung-Certez; 04/16/08 12:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi,
Since dogma is divinely revealed doctrine, considered essential for salvation, the answer would be:
All Catholics, regardless of their liturgical tradition, are obliged to accept all which the Catholic Church teaches to be dogma.
Therefore, there is no such thing as Roman Catholic Dogma. Catholic Dogma is simply Catholic (sans the Roman qualifier).
The real difference is not about which dogma to accept, rather, it is about which doctrines are actually dogmatic in nature.
Shalom, Memo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,045
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,045 |
yes, I have thought about this matter myself. if Eastern Catholics in communion with the Holy See have our own theology as well as our canon law and Liturgy, how and why does accepting Roman theology work for us? Much Love, Jonn
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727 Likes: 23
John Member
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727 Likes: 23 |
Hi,
Since dogma is divinely revealed doctrine, considered essential for salvation, the answer would be:
All Catholics, regardless of their liturgical tradition, are obliged to accept all which the Catholic Church teaches to be dogma.
Therefore, there is no such thing as Roman Catholic Dogma. Catholic Dogma is simply Catholic (sans the Roman qualifier).
The real difference is not about which dogma to accept, rather, it is about which doctrines are actually dogmatic in nature.
Shalom, Memo Memo has offered a very good explanation. It has always seemed to me that East / West issues regarding dogma and doctrine are sometimes problematic simply because of poor communication. For some Eastern Catholics accepting Catholic dogma means also accepting the (what I call the) �Latin language of doctrine� as either superior to the �Greek language of doctrine� or as the measuring stick for all Catholic theology. And, of course, the Catholic Church does not require this (and has, indeed, many times spoken to this). Eastern Catholics must accept the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. They must also accept that the Latin way of doing theology (the �Latin language of doctrine�) is valid. But there is no call or insistence that Eastern Catholics reject the �Greek language of doctrine� and replace it with the Latin formula. I will go so far as to say that the fact that we (as Eastern Catholics) have not really strived to find ways to study and digest the Latin formula and attempt to synthesize it with the �Greek language of doctrine� is an opportunity lost. Since the Vatican II Council we can see that Rome has been striving to speak to Catholic theology from the �Greek language of doctrine� as well as the �Latin language of doctrine�. The Melkites have taken some bold steps (and a few missteps) in trying to speak to some of the issues. This is an issue that cuts right to the heart of the real problem of identity among Eastern Catholics. Some insist that we are Catholic first, and only then Eastern. But this is incorrect as it (among other things) leads to an identity crisis since many (but not all) of those who believe that the �Catholic first� approach means that the �Latin language of doctrine� is superior to the �Greek language of doctrine�. That is why I always firmly put forth as foundational that �Byzantine = Catholic� just as equally as �Latin = Catholic�.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
John,
Your post is excellent. I simply could not agree more.
Our liturgical traditions and the employment of both the referential language of Scripture and the auxiliary language of tradition used in those texts offer tremendous opportunities to make those connections...especially since we as Easterns assert that these texts have great magisterial weight within our tradition.
In ICXC,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
Hi,
Since dogma is divinely revealed doctrine, considered essential for salvation, the answer would be:
All Catholics, regardless of their liturgical tradition, are obliged to accept all which the Catholic Church teaches to be dogma.
Therefore, there is no such thing as Roman Catholic Dogma. Catholic Dogma is simply Catholic (sans the Roman qualifier).
The real difference is not about which dogma to accept, rather, it is about which doctrines are actually dogmatic in nature.
Shalom, Memo Memo has offered a very good explanation. It has always seemed to me that East / West issues regarding dogma and doctrine are sometimes problematic simply because of poor communication. For some Eastern Catholics accepting Catholic dogma means also accepting the (what I call the) �Latin language of doctrine� as either superior to the �Greek language of doctrine� or as the measuring stick for all Catholic theology. And, of course, the Catholic Church does not require this (and has, indeed, many times spoken to this). Eastern Catholics must accept the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. They must also accept that the Latin way of doing theology (the �Latin language of doctrine�) is valid. But there is no call or insistence that Eastern Catholics reject the �Greek language of doctrine� and replace it with the Latin formula. I will go so far as to say that the fact that we (as Eastern Catholics) have not really strived to find ways to study and digest the Latin formula and attempt to synthesize it with the �Greek language of doctrine� is an opportunity lost. Since the Vatican II Council we can see that Rome has been striving to speak to Catholic theology from the �Greek language of doctrine� as well as the �Latin language of doctrine�. The Melkites have taken some bold steps (and a few missteps) in trying to speak to some of the issues. This is an issue that cuts right to the heart of the real problem of identity among Eastern Catholics. Some insist that we are Catholic first, and only then Eastern. But this is incorrect as it (among other things) leads to an identity crisis since many (but not all) of those who believe that the �Catholic first� approach means that the �Latin language of doctrine� is superior to the �Greek language of doctrine�. That is why I always firmly put forth as foundational that �Byzantine = Catholic� just as equally as �Latin = Catholic�. Definitely a superior post! God bless!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695 |
hmmm... What Eastern Catholics need to hold to be Catholic? I would say: 1. believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. 2. be in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
Herb agreeing with Vladyka Elias Z
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373 |
hmmm... What Eastern Catholics need to hold to be Catholic? I would say: 1. believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. 2. be in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
Herb
I would agree. This isuse of just what Eastern Catholics have to accept has never been spelled out. Not now, nor at the different times the various Particular Churches came in Union with Rome.
Ung agreeing with Vladyka Elias Z
Last edited by Ung-Certez; 04/18/08 01:10 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695 |
or to put it another way,
the only difference between the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox should being in Communion with Rome
Herb agreeing with Archimandrite Robert (Taft sj)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
Hi,
Since dogma is divinely revealed doctrine, considered essential for salvation, the answer would be:
All Catholics, regardless of their liturgical tradition, are obliged to accept all which the Catholic Church teaches to be dogma.
Therefore, there is no such thing as Roman Catholic Dogma. Catholic Dogma is simply Catholic (sans the Roman qualifier).
The real difference is not about which dogma to accept, rather, it is about which doctrines are actually dogmatic in nature.
Shalom, Memo Memo has offered a very good explanation. It has always seemed to me that East / West issues regarding dogma and doctrine are sometimes problematic simply because of poor communication. For some Eastern Catholics accepting Catholic dogma means also accepting the (what I call the) �Latin language of doctrine� as either superior to the �Greek language of doctrine� or as the measuring stick for all Catholic theology. And, of course, the Catholic Church does not require this (and has, indeed, many times spoken to this). Eastern Catholics must accept the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. They must also accept that the Latin way of doing theology (the �Latin language of doctrine�) is valid. But there is no call or insistence that Eastern Catholics reject the �Greek language of doctrine� and replace it with the Latin formula. I will go so far as to say that the fact that we (as Eastern Catholics) have not really strived to find ways to study and digest the Latin formula and attempt to synthesize it with the �Greek language of doctrine� is an opportunity lost. Since the Vatican II Council we can see that Rome has been striving to speak to Catholic theology from the �Greek language of doctrine� as well as the �Latin language of doctrine�. The Melkites have taken some bold steps (and a few missteps) in trying to speak to some of the issues. This is an issue that cuts right to the heart of the real problem of identity among Eastern Catholics. Some insist that we are Catholic first, and only then Eastern. But this is incorrect as it (among other things) leads to an identity crisis since many (but not all) of those who believe that the �Catholic first� approach means that the �Latin language of doctrine� is superior to the �Greek language of doctrine�. That is why I always firmly put forth as foundational that �Byzantine = Catholic� just as equally as �Latin = Catholic�. While we Catholics do think that Byzantine = Catholic, I don't think we have done a good job of actually demonstrating that this equivalence is indeed so. In other words, we haven't done a good job of demonstrating that the Latin and Byzantine traditions do in fact teach and express the same thing. My impression is that the equivalence has been taken more or less as is it were an article of faith. It is merely assumed to "be there". I believe that, if dialogue with the Orthodox is indeed to go forward, then we must honestly discuss the relation between the Byzantine and Latin traditions. I think that the Orthodox find it patronizing for us Catholics to basically just keep patting them on the head and say "oh, dears, don't worry, we actually believe the same thing!" My obervation is that the Orthodox take that as assuming too much, to say the least, and as implying an incomprehension of the actual Orthodox position. It also lies behind their critical attitude towards the "Unia", which they consider precisely as implying an unwarranted theological "sameness" between the Latin and Byzantine traditions.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
Now, please don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that Byzantine is not equal to Catholic. What I am saying is that we should take care to demonstrate this equivalence, instead of merely assuming that there is indeed an equivalence. Only by doing that can the Orthodox rest assured that we do take their tradition seriously.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi,
I would suggest that, since I believe that Byzantine Catholics (to take just one of the non-Latin Catholic traditions) are both serious in their Catholicism and mature believers, it befalls on them to express Catholic dogma in their own "theological dialect".
Just as unfortunate that nowadays Catholic dogma is first expressed almost exclusively in Latin dialect, in the olden days Catholic dogma used to be first expressed almost exclusively in Greek dialect and we did a good job (I think) in translating that and making it our own.
Nobody needs to be disenfranchised by this. Our thelogical diversity is a gift we cherish. It comes with a cost, of course, but it is a cost that is beneficial (and even fun!) to pay: Diversity comes with the cost of having to talk to each other as equals.
Are we ready for that yet? Or are we still interested in counting angels on a pin head?
Shalom, Memo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Now, now. We must be kind to angels and tolerant of their hobbies. If they like to sit on the head of a pin, who are we to argue? I'm sure there are lots of things that we do that the angels find strange.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218 |
The angels on the head of a pin thing was really just an intellectual exercise, and that is all it was intended to be originally.
In other words, given the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin," a student must first determine a few givens.
The first scholastic assumption was that angels do not have material bodies, but are pure intelligences.
Therefore there are 'present' wherever their attention is focused.
Therefore, the answer to the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is...
all of them.
I believe that the Orthodox understanding of angels is that they are not pure intelligences, but have material bodies, but not of a matter like men. This because only God is considered "Pure Spirit."
At least, that's what I heard...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Prester John,
Killjoy! Why would you deprive the poor angels of the pleasure of dancing on the head of a pin?
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|