www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Not the Two Sides of the Same Coin

Have seen some Catholic intellectuals put forth the idea, that 'traditionalist' (traditional) Catholics commit the 'opposite error' to that of -- or are in the 'opposite extreme' to -- modernist-minded Catholics; that they're 'the two sides of the same coin'. For example:

"How Traditionalists and Modernists Are Alike"
by Ph.-Dr (in Intellectual History) Jeffrey Mirus
CatholicCulture·org | March 2007
https·//www·catholicculture·org/commentary/articles·cfm?id=180

But that's simply not the case, at least from our perspective, and the comparison between these two 'tribes' is misleading. There is no such thing as 'traditionalism' in traditional Catholicy. Because the traditional Catholics' partial disagreement with the decisions and declarations of the 1960s Second Vatican Council (V2) are only in matters concerning of what practices (mostly liturgical practices) are acceptable and what not, -- while the consciously or unconsciously modernist-minded Catholics arrogantly consider themselves to be above the official doctrines and dogmas of the Church, even above the Scriptures, or are ignorant of them (one can only wonder and ponder why those among them who are well-versed in the teachings of the Church, especially the clergymen who despite their knowledge preach other beliefs, still insist on being called 'Catholic Christians' and don't convert to other religions or admit to their atheism).

(When Pope St Pius X and other Catholic clergy wrote about and warned against 'modernism' a century ago, what they meant is the heresy of 'theological modernism' -- or 'theological modernization', 'theological liberalism', 'theological libertarianism', 'theological freethinking'.)

Christ is in our midst!!

Vigilante:

I have two questions for you.

1. What do the problems or arguments of the Latin Catholic Church have to do with the Eastern Catholic and other Eastern Churches?

2. What are you here to accomplish? If it is to learn about the Eastern Churches--their history, liturgical, and spiritual traditions--this is irrelevant to us. If it is to provide a platform to spread arguments in favor of Catholic traditionalists, forgive me, but this, too, is irrelevant to the Eastern Churches.

Bob
Moderator

I have a thought on this (or two) having been the kind of person that Vigilante is now, that is, very strict and doctrinaire with people and allowing no room for God's grace and mercy to operate outside of my personal theological convictions. While I cannot speak to Vigilante's heart, I can speak to my own heart. What I post next is what I discovered about myself.

1. Lack of faith in God's goodness. That is, a lack of beleiving that He does actually love the whole world and all in it. The religious tradition I was in stressed the importance of being 100% correct in theology (i.e., THEIR way of thinking) and that all outside this box were certainly hell bound. This is pretty typical for Fundamentalists of all stripes.

2. Fear of God rather than loving Him and trusting His goodness. I was afraid to think outside the box I was told to think in for fear of going to eternal hell fire. It is quite common with Fundamentalists of all stripes to threaten others with hell. It is equally common for religious leaders of all stripes to do this to keep the massa damnata in line.

3. Lack of understanding the Scriptures properly. If I had known back then what I know now .... well, I would have been a lot less annoying to be around.

4. Belief that God is hate. God is not love. Oh, I might have heard that verse in passing, and I might have even said it, but what really settled in my heart was the constant hammering of people who told me (brainwashed me) into the idea that God is just full of hate. He hates false beliefs. He hates all who are not Christians. He hates everything that isn't 100% true. He hates all those outside of the ______________________ church.

Just a few thoughts of what made me like our visitor when I was much younger. Sadly, this sort of thinking is hard to change. I am, with the help of a wonderful spiritual father whom God has given to me, working on this, but it is slow work indeed.

Pardon, Theophan, but really don't understand how you can ask such a question (the first question). To my knowledge, a Byzantine-rite Catholic is a Catholic, and not a Byzantine Orthodox Christian. What defines a Catholic as Catholic, and an Orthodox as Orthodox, are primarily the churchly doctrines (teachings) that he or she follows, and not the rites. And if one's baptized in the Roman (Latin- or Byzantine-rite) Catholic Church, then he or she is not allowed communion in the Byzantine (or: Eastern, Greek, Graeco-Slavic) Orthodox Church -- the Orthodox clergy don't recognize them as one of their own, a member of their Church. That's how it is, how it has been decided by the high-ranking clergy (pope or patriarch-s, bishops, cardinals); don't shoot the messenger.


By the way, I'm not an adherent of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) or any other similar group, in case you've been worrying about that. I'm a striving-to-be-faithful 'mere' Roman and Latin-rite Catholic Christian, who has sympathy for the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I believe in the sanctity of both 'Western' Catholic and Eastern Orthodox saints, but because the One Church has been cut into two halves a millennium ago, can't be with both pope and patriarch -- and it so happens, that I'm a 'Papist' Catholic. Theophan, aren't you one too?

Irish Ruthenian, almost a decade ago I've considered myself to be something between a Catholic Christian and a Theravada Buddhist. Even now, I could easily lecture to someone about 'the four noble truths', 'the not-self' (anatta, anatman), 'the noble eightfold path', and the practice of 'right mindfulness' (samma sati). Thus so much for my... whatever has been kindly implied by you. -- I've eventually left Buddhism behind.

Vigilante:

Christ is in our midst!!

You miss the point altogether. This is no longer a strictly Catholic forum. Additionally, the problems of the Latin Catholic Church have little to do with the Eastern Churches. That is why I asked what relevance your initiating a thread about the topic you entered above has any relevance to this forum.

There is one more point. We don't, as a rule, encourage linking other fora or arguments from other places.

Bob
Moderator

Alright, so it's not a strictly Catholic forum; I have no problem with that. But does that mean, that it's a strictly 'Eastern Churches' forum? And aren't the owners of this site and forum Byzantine Catholics?

I really don't have much of an interest in discussing about rites, but only about theology. What I've tried to point out in the first post in this thread is that the error of the (theological) modernists is graver than the quasi-error of the (ritual) 'traditionalists'. But I don't belong to either 'tribe'.

Among other things, this is what I wrote in the topic "Erroneous Teachings in a Supposedly Catholic Bulletin":

"Variety and diversity in rites, music, iconography, customs and other externalities (architecture, clothing) is one thing: they're acceptable as long as they're kept within certain humility-imposed boundaries. But diversity and variety in doctrines and dogmas is simply unacceptable. And if new doctrines are promulgated, they shouldn't compete with (contradict) the previous ones, but complete (fulfill) them. A man cannot believe in two contradictory or conflicting statements at the same time; nor can the Church."

Please understand, that I have almost no interest in discussing rites, but only theology. (My almost only concern about rites is that they should be respectable toward God.)

Well, let me ask you a question or two then.

Your posts appear to present the idea that there is but one Church and hence, only one place where the salvation of God is to be found. Would this be an accurate assessment of your position, or are you more nuanced than that?

Your original questioning of the honor given to Orthodox saints makes me get the feeling that you question the ability of God's grace to work outside the boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church. Would that also be true?

As for your first statement, when I converted from a lifetime of Protestantism, I was told that I could be "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." The Union of Brest and the Union of Uzhrod gave to the Slavic Orthodox people certain guarantees of keeping faithful to their Orthodox faith while being in communion with Rome. Unfortunately, as the decades and centuries rolled by, and with the establishment of a new nation - the United States of America - those promises somehow got forgotten and the Ukrainian and Ruthenian churches in this country had to put up with an intoleralbe meddlesomeness from the Vatican and the RC bishops in this country. Some, such as Fr. Alexis Toth, came to a point where they decided that this idea of "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" was not really workable, and left for Orthodoxy.

However, the principle still remains rather firm - we are Orthodox. As His Emminance, Metropolitan Svechuk stated, "We are Orthodox. We are Orthodox in our theology, our praxis, and our rubrics." What we are not is Roman Catholic, and this union and the tensions of being Orthodox and in communion with Rome, has caused some of us major headaches. For me personally, (and I do not say this to denigrate the decisions of others here who are comfortable in their choice), if I had known back in 2001 what I know now when I entered the Ruthenians, I would have instead become Orthodox. It is perhaps more than a little distressing and tiring for me to be Orthodox in my theology and yet have to constantly explain myself to not only the Roman Catholics who insist that I must follow all that the Roman Catholic Magisterium teaches, but the people in my own recension, who have been over the years quite thoroughly Latinzed, to the point they really don't know what they are.

As for the fact that we are not allowed intercommunion, while I understand this from the standpoint of the symbolism of the Communion Table (which is why neither side allows Protestants or cults to the Lord's Table), I nonetheless find it very sad. If I am fully Orthodox in my theology, yet with a desire to honor the Patriarch of Rome and be in union with him as a point of fellowship and brotherhood, I think it is a sad commentary that merely wanting to have the same relationship as the East had with the Chair of Peter for the first 1,000 years of the Church should bar me from Communion in an Orthodox Church. Heresy is certainly one thing, but merely wishing fraternal union while working out our problems....that doesn't strike me as the same.

Please go to Town Hall and read the thread entitled "Who We Are." That might help you.

Thee idea that all that separates the Churches are "rites" is so far from reality that I don't know where to begin to explain it to you. The Eastern Churches have their own history, theology (which is not Latin Catholic), liturgical practice and spiritual life. The Holy Spirit has been alive and well working with many people over the centuries. The analogy is that we are like cousins who have not had a chance to be together for a lifetime and need to sit an listen. Latin Catholics aren't long on that. The Eastern Churches have much to offer and much to teach. It all comes form a life lived out in the Holy Spirit apart from those of us who come from the West.

You also need to understand that much of the relation that these Churches have had with the Latin West has been negative. There have been a lot of things done over the centuries since the various separations between us that have made our finding each other a delicate matter. When you come here, you need to listen more, read more, and ask questions more, rather than introduce matters that as alien as things can be. We are learning from each other, but that does not mean that every topic dear to the heart of a Latin Catholic makes any sense from the perspective of the Eastern Churches.

You also need to remember that Vatican II has urged the Eastern Catholic Churches to reclaim their liturgical, spiritual, and theological heritage. They have been heavily latinized over the centuries and they are discerning what is part of their heritage and what is not. That does not mean that everything needs to be chucked overboard, but it does mean that not everything that concerns a Latin Catholic should necessarily be of great importance to them.

If any of my brethren would like to jump in here, please do.

Bob
Moderator

Where is this quote from? Who made such a statement and how does the maker come to his understanding?

"Rites" are various ceremonies within the liturgical practice of a sui juris Church: i.e., having its own law; practice, etc.

Bob

Sigh.

| To: Irish Ruthenian

So... what stops you from converting to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Nobody is obligated to be a Catholic. If you consider, that Orthodox theology is more correct than Catholic theology, or that Orthodox theology is completely correct while Catholic theology is only partially correct, then you should convert. And I say this as a Catholic who doesn't want to convert (with my limited knowledge, I see no problem with the "Summa Theologiae" of St Thomas Aquinas).

As for who do I believe will find Salvation: those who keep the Ten Commandments, at least in their incomplete Mosaic version; those who follow the Eternal Moral Law that is written in their hearts; the virtuous.


| To: Theophan

First, I know very well that there are also theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a unified group of Christians called the 'Eastern Churches', not as you describe it! Quit speaking about that. To speak about the 'Eastern Churches' -- and to include both the Greek Orthodox and the Byzantine-rite Catholics, and then also the Egyptian Copts and what/who else in this imaginary group --, is almost like saying, that the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Episcopalian Church and the many Reformed/Protestant denominations would form a unified group of Christians called the 'Western Churches'.

(As to where that quotation is from, I've already mentioned it immediately before quoting.)

| To: everyone

Here's what exists:
1) Roman Catholic Church: a) traditional Latin rite, b) 'updated' Latin rite(s), c) Byzantine rite -- all sharing the same theology, the same doctrines and dogmas;
2) Greek (or, Eastern) Orthodox Church: only Byzantine rite.

And here's what doesn't exist: the 'Orthodox Church in communion with the Catholic Church', despite each having its separate theology (that would be simply absurd).

So quit making things up and confusing people! If you want to be an Orthodox, then convert to the Greek (or, Eastern) Orthodox Church. Nobody is obligated to be a Catholic.

But maybe I'm ignorant about this. So with this doubt in mind I say: show me an official Catholic Church document in which it is stated, that the Byzantine-rite Catholics are allowed to have their own separate (Orthodox or whatever) theology, their own separate doctrines and dogmas! The burden of proof in this discussion is on your part.

Vigilante--

No one has ever suggested that either the Western Churches and ecclesial communities are a "unified group" or that the Eastern Churches are a "unified group."

[quote) "Here's what exists 1. Roman Catholic Church: a) traditional Latin rite, b) 'updated' Latin rite(s), c) Byzantine rite -- all sharing the same theology, the same doctrines and dogmas"][/quote]

Sorry this is not the Catholic Communion. The Catholic Communion consists of 21 sui juris Churches who all look to the Bishop of Rome as their head, though many would say that each has its own patriarch or major archbishop. Secondly, the Churches that are not Latin do not necessarily share the same theology and doctrines; they may share more of an emphasis with their Eastern brethren not-in-communion with Rome and that is no longer something that gets Rome all fired up.

Bob

Bob - Something I keep struggling with, and perhaps you have had to address this issue for yourself and have an answer for me. How is "communion" possible between two parties that have very different theology, eclesiology, anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology? I, of course, am speaking of the difference between the Roman Catholic West and the Byzantine East.

Is there a point at which we do have commonality and communion? Could that be the Creed? What do you think?

Irish Ruthenian, what the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church have in common: the Scriptures, the Creed, the Sacraments/Mysteries, the belief in a Holy Living Tradition, the honoring of saints, monasticism, ascetical practices.

After having read through your recent conversation with K.E. ("Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox Saints", Sept. 2019), I understand now your attitude of precaution/reluctance/suspicion toward me, after having mentioned about traditional(ist) Catholics.

Let it be clear: when I speak of 'theological modernism', I do not mean the intellectual interest that some Roman Catholics have for Greek Orthodox teachings ("Let's see what they have to say"); but I mean the more-than-intellectual interest and the unwise openness that some Roman Catholics, even clergymen, have for Protestant and even Non-Christian (Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, whatever) teachings (e.g., sola fide, the belief in reincarnation) and practices (e.g., yoga, sati). Theological modernism is... basically the same as the Baha'i faith, or Hinduism.


Thus I still say, that the error of Catholic ritual traditionalists is less grave (if there's any error at all) than the error of theological modernists. The 'old-school' Catholics -- some of them -- are perhaps narrow-minded, bigoted, even fanatical (that's a problem of hypocrisy), but they still follow or are trying to follow orthodox Catholic Christian beliefs. And I understand their frustration with the theological modernists.



By 'our' I meant my, my own and personal (perspective). I'm not an adherent of any group of 'old-school' Catholics, though I have sympathy for the non-fanatical among them.



Aha. So why didn't you say so (again)? (Though Irish Ruthenian might somewhat disagree with you on the syncretism part.)

Yet, by the way, out of mere curiosity, I would like to know who/what are the owners of this Internet site and forum? And what are Byzantine-rite Catholics officially, that is, what do their/your high-ranking clergymen say, what churchly teachings do they/you have and follow?

To those of you who imagine that the laity can undo the Schism: Dream on! And to those of you who imagine that the Schism can be undone by a few Catholics and Orthodox having conversations on an on-line forum: Sorry to say so, but your overestimation of yourselves is laughable. The high-ranking clergymen are the descendants of the Apostles, and only they have the authority to decide over these things. If you don't believe that, then you might as well join a Protestant denomination. The Catholic Church would be better if those who don't want to be Catholics (or who don't want to at least try and strive to be Catholics) would simply leave, instead of trying to turn it into something that it isn't. The door is open.