www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology CCC and _Light for Life_

From another thread:


The author of the series _Light for Life_ (Fr David Petras) posted this about his work on CINEAST a few years back:

http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/199708/0448.html

Just a couple of notes:
A clarification on the Light for Life reviews by Fr. Slesinski in
Diakonia. It is quite true that his
review of the first volume of this work was slammed by him. Fr.
Slesinski makes the observation
that this was meant as a Byzantine catechism, and, therefore,
"primarily concerned with the
presentation of Catholic dogma." However, I did not write it as a
"catechism," but as "an adult
statement of faith." It was never meant to be a complete catalog of
Catholic dogma, but a
positive explanation of our faith, particularly from the Byzantine
viewpoint, to complement, not
replace the Catholic Catechism. Since the first seven Councils were
fundamental to the
development of the Byzantine theology of the Trinity and the
Incarnation, these were emphasized
in the volume. The value of the others was not denied, but it was
noted that the participation of
the Eastern Church in them was minimal. The feast of the Immaculate
Conception was not
treated, because it is not considered by the Byzantine Church as one
of the twelve major feasts,
though again dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not denied. Fr.
Slesinski mentions, in
passing, that the "...Feast of the Conception of St. Anne on December
9 and not December 8,
accords Mary a singular distinction with respect to the rest of
humanity over the matter of her
gestation in the womb - she required one less day in the womb."
However, the general belief of
Byzantine society was that women were in gestation one less day than
men. Fr. Slesinski
concludes his review by saying, "Two more volumes are expected....For
what is coming we can
only wait and see with some feelings of apprehension." Surprisingly,
his review of Volume II
appeared in Diakonia, XXX, 1 (1997), 65-67, and he could not restrain
his praise. In the first
paragraph, he says, (this volume) is not only informative, but it is
also - and one could argue more
importantly - theologically formative. It breathes with the very
life of the Church's worship and
truly draws the attentive reader into its very spirit. Indeed, the
authors of this text are to be
commended for highlighting the true, theological animus of the
liturgy (leitourgia), the most
sublime work (gr. Ergon) of the believing Christian people (Gr. laos),
as it goes about sanctifying
time and space in the very act of glorification of Almighty God."
*********

Fr Petras stated that the "Light for Life" series was not meant to replace but complement the CCC. The "Light for Life" series are excellent, IMO, but they are not a complete catechism. Just because something is not addressed in "Light for Life" does not mean it is not part of our faith.

From the Apostolic Constitution for the CCC:

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus' disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
*******

The Catechism is for all the particular Churches in communion with the Apostolic See. Yes, it was written primarily with the Bishops in mind but it is for all the faithful.

Using the CCC does not demean the "Light for Life" series. As its author stated, the "Light for Life" series is a complement to the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_. Both go together.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Something about this makes me a bit uneasy.

The reason is this: how closely can language approximate the realities of human life? There is a general assumption that we can use language to codify/describe/regulate the life of a human being. In my experience, this just doesn't jibe with the reality.

Is the joy and excitement that is felt at Paschal Matins really comprehensible in a linguistic description? After 54 days of abstinence and 40 days of fasting, after all the Presanctifieds, the prostrations, the "pre-ter-pi-vie" with poklonie, and the Prayers of St. Ephrem we come to Pascha. And it all busts loose! The Arabs swing the chandeliers! The bells go nuts! We sing, we share food and carry lighted candles around. The little kids are running around, older men pass around ouzo or slivovitz, the babas/yia-yias are slipping eggs into peoples' pockets and incense is everywhere. I challenge ANYONE to encompass this in language.

The same is true of romantic language. Lovers have their own linguistic codes that are specific and meaningful to them -- and them alone -- based upon their common experiences.

There is erotic language that can produce a response in some while not in others. There is invective, which drives emotions. There is diatribe that also elicits emotional response. And political speech, etc.

My point is this: after 12 years of graduate study and research in linguistics, especially trans-language phenomena and affective language, I am not convinced that language can encompass the real "reality". It must be experienced in the totality of a human being.

When some folks come East as pilgrims, they are oftentimes attracted by the multi-physical experience of the Divine Liturgy. But as us Easterns know, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's not reading the Typikon or some theological treatise, nor reading the canon law books or rule books.

It's LIVING the reality of the Eastern Church, doing the complete Lenten fast and then being ripped apart in simultaneous repentance and exuberant joy by the sermon of St. John Chrysostom. Or receiving back flowers from your garden that have been blessed on the Dormition. Etc.

So, the catechism is a nice book; and we appreciate the intention of our Roman brethren in sharing it with us. But I'm not sure that it is the best thing for our peoples.

I'd rather use the organic whole of our Eastern Churches and the people in it and the totality of our "pathway", under the guidance of our pastors and bishops, to make sure we're still on track.

To make a parallel (that I'm sure will cause consternation), it's like using Hallmark Cards and their texts to "make-real" the reality of my love or sympathy. Such is the CCC; trying to use its texts to "make real" the reality of our faith. Unfortunately, it's words, not reality. (Maybe we could chant the catechism in Russian tone 1? Would this help?)

[Side note: as seminarians, on the bus to classes at Boston College, we used to sing the Wall Street Journal in various Roman, Anglican and Russian tones. In harmony, where appropriate. We were, to be sure, nuts, and needed to get a life.]

Blessings!

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Dr John,

I don't think the Catechism gives the whole essence of the Eastern Christian faith. That is one reason our Bishops commissioned the _Light for Life_ series. As the author of the _Light for Life_ series states, however, they are a complement to the CCC. They are not to be viewed as a replacement for it (which some Byzantine Catholics have stated.) BTW, our Bishops were involved in the process of editing the CCC also.

The CCC is not meant to be read like canon law. It is mainly written from a Western perspective. However, there are sections which definitely break the mold of the "juridical" and "legalistic" and "scholastic" stereotypes we often attribute to the Western Church. From what I've heard, the primary author of the last section of the CCC on prayer was a Melkite priest.

I would agree that the best Catechism for our Church would be one that would be based primarily from the liturgy (various tropars, canons of Vespers and Matins, etc.) The CCC actually attempts some of that itself (primarily with quotations from the Roman Missal--with some from Eastern Catholic liturgies).

We are called upon to be ourselves (with our own legitimate traditions and theology) and to erase latinizations that have crept in. Yet, East and West are one Church--one Faith. We should read the CCC in that light.

An aside: The reason I remembered Fr Petras' comments so well is because he was replying to a post I had made on CINEAST stating that the _Light for Light_ Catechism did not teach "distinctively Catholic dogmas." (This from my "rabble-rousing" days.) Fr Petras' comments were a corrective to my post.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Brother David's post has clarified something for me. Yes, Byzantines (of whatever stripe) have participated in the development of the CCC and the subordinate texts that reference it.

However, it only reinforces for me the idea that Christ's words are more instructive than they appear at surface levels: "Come, and see."

Our reality, our pathway, is the "living".

Books, texts, commentaries, etc are merely seductive entities that purport to encapsulate (enshrine?) what the reality of the Eastern Churches is.

By calling upon "documents" to validate or codify who we are, we are buying into a different mindset that is, in some ways, an ecclesiastical idol.

To be really 'bitchy' about this: by what right does someone/anyone demand that we acquiesce to the idea that our reality/legitimacy is encompassable in a book?

I KNOW that our reality exists; I know that it is valuable; and I know that it is in the LIVING of our pathway that we can find salvation. And this is not co-terminus with stating that the realities are encompassable in a "text", no matter how validat-able from whatever perspective.

Put the book on a shelf. And DO IT!

Blessings!

We should recall that Jesus was the Way, the Truth and the Life. Which means we must submit to Him with our heads and our hearts.

The CCC and other catechisms are invaluable for embracing the Lord with our heads. But they don't address the heart; thus is why Liturgies and other aspects of the Eastern Way are equally important.

Dr. John points out the rationalist temptation to reduce faith to the intellectual content of the CCC. But there is a corresponding temptation to reduce faith to matters of the heart. I recall reading a comment on this board some time ago complaining about some seminarians who wanted to forego theology so that they could get to the "mystical" stuff.

In Christ,
Steven

I just came across the article about the section of the CCC which was initially written by a Melkite Catholic priest. I was mistaken in my earlier statement. The section the Fr Carbon worked on was the liturgy section. An interview with him can be found at:

http://rumkatkilise.org/corbon.htm

One particular section of the CCC said to be heavily influenced by this Melkite theologian are sections 1091-1109:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1c1a1.htm#III

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

It would be wonderful if our Church would clarify what they actually believe and where they can turn to get answers. How is the ordinary lay folk supposed to value the complimentary nature of the Light for Life series if they are not skilled in the art of theology. There seems to be a lot of come-ons with no clarifications. Many opt for the easy way out: ignore the "complementary" Light for Life books and keep the CCC handy at all times - since it has the authority of the Pope. The CCC can even be found in the bookstores; whereas the LFL series has to be ordered. Does anyone (the ordinary person) know where to order them? Does the typical lay person know they exist? People are not interested in learning two books. The Latin Catholics use the CCC without "complimentary" texts. Yet the Byzantines are always re-learning.

But like most things in our church, they are published without explanation. And we wonder why everyone is so confused as to their "Catholic" identity. The statement you mention confirms what I stated on another thread, "This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms." Note that it is a REFERENCE to be used to prepare LOCAL catechisms. It is a beautiful text, but still, it is a reference text for the preparation of other catechisms.

If the only "contribution" to the CCC we can make is in the area of liturgy, the it only confirms that we are only ritualist churches with no system of theology of our own. If the only thing that distinguishes us from the Latins is our ritual, then we are Latins wearing Byzantine vestments.

I don't buy quilt-style systems of theology. The Diatesseron was not accepted because it tried to reconcile the four Gospels into one mega-Gospel. Those who can't handle the dissimilarities between the Synoptics and John would welcome the Diatesseron. It makes life easy by making the Gospels nothing but a Life of Jesus story rather than four separate (and sometimes conflicting) theologies/Christologies, which are ALL accepted as canonical. The CCC can fall into the "prooftext" trap that the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. How many Eastern Christians have gotten into debates with the Latins because the Latins were staunchly defensive of their 1913 CE or CCC and the Easterner was simply told that if they didn't accept it (because it was in a text approved by the Catholic Church) they were not Catholic. No room for other theologies that even the Eastern Code grants.

And you better believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because it is the only way to understand Mary's nature. Yes, it is not in your Typicon, but that is because Byzantines are deficient in their theology, no? No need for sophomore theologies or contradictory liturgical practices. It's in the CCC and that is good enough.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Edwin --

Well, ISTM, that is the elephant on the table.

I think there are a few related issues: (1) what, if any, is the tolerance/acceptance of alternative theological systems in the Catholic communion and (2) where does one draw the line between an alternative theological system and a "dogma".

The first problem is that it is very hard to find any formal approval from Rome for the idea of alternative theological systems operating in the same communion. There are gleanings here and there in various Vatican statements about the "doctrinal" aspects of the Eastern Christian tradition, for example, but there isn't much of a public acknowledgement that the Eastern tradition is, itself, a full and complete system that, by necessity, articulates itself in rather different terms than that found in the CCC, for example. The most common context for statements about the Eastern tradition is the liturgical context, where it is less threatening (liturgical diversity now being openly acknowledged and endorsed), and therefore it is not surprising in the slightest that the stronger statements concerning the Eastern tradition and its importance are to be found in the liturgical directives. I think there is some reluctance to admit that this is the case, because of fears (somewhat legitimate ones) of the impact of this recognition on the reception by the Eastern tradition of the dogmatical aspects of the Catholic version of the faith that have developed since the separation with the larger part of the Eastern Church and have done so on the basis, more or less, solely of the Western tradition. That leads to the second problem.

The underlying issue, as I can see it, is the relationship between the second millenium Catholic dogmas and the non-Western theological system. Despite all protests to the contrary, and many clever theological articles, that hasn't really been satisfactorily reconciled at this time. If the Catholic Church moves forward towards some way of reconciling this, in a less opaque and more transparent manner than is currently the case, it runs the risk of prejudicing the discussions with the Orthodox by, in a way, pre-empting what those discussions are trying to achieve. A separate, open, "Catholic" resolution of this issue would greatly narrow the possibilities in the ecumenical discussion, and that's one very good reason to leave things as they are, despite the ambiguities involved.

Brendan

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Brendan ]

The citation I gave was not to show the contribution by the Melkite priest to the CCC was the "only" contribution from the Eastern Church. It was to show that there was involvement of the Eastern Church in the making of the CCC.

As to Eastern theology being present in the CCC. Yes, discipline is mentioned (as in the different viewpoints on celibacy for the ordained). But, so is theology:

Who is the minister of the sacrament of matrimony according to the CCC? West = couple. East = priest. The Sacraments of Initiation for children? West = emphasizes the role of the Bishop in reserving Confirmation to him. East = emphasizes the unity of the Sacraments and administers them all to the newly baptized.

These are a couple I could think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more in the CCC. These two alone (with the admission that our tradition of a married priesthood is "legitimate") show that the CCC is a major departure from the pre-Vatican II approach to Catholic theology.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Brendan,

How does the Eastern Code define a "rite?" Does it state that it is only liturgical (and harmless)? Doing liturgy differently is fine because it doesn't step on anyone's toes. How about "discipline?" Well, this brings into debate the issue of patriarchal roles and the question of 'mandatory' celibacy. If a rite is just a different ritual of doing the Mass, then the Code doesn't say what it means or means what it says. Read: lip service.

I have a difficult time with the idea that our liturgical tradition has no basis besides wanting to be different. Is "rite" nothing but icing and no cake? We see the icing but fail to appreciate the theology that is underneath? A rite goes beyond mere ritual.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

The problem with Eastern Catholicism is that many start with Western presuppositions. Even the approach to theology is dictated by Western table of contents.

And, BTW, "acceptance" and "tolerance" by whom? Is our theology permissable if and only if it is accepted and/or tolerated by others?

Can Eastern theology stand on its own without being considered a mere chart of differentials? Are Eastern Catholics just Catholics who are different? If so, then one is stating that the normative theology to which all lesser theologies are measured by is Western theology.

Can Eastern Catholics omit the Filioque from the Creed only because it is considered a "liturgical" thing and, therefore, Easterners are given an exemption or permission to be different?

Fr. Taft once asked: Is an Eastern Catholic theology possible? I ask you the same question, Brendan. When you sing the Hymn to the Only-Begotten Son, do you run to the CCC to see what it may say on the subject first in order to understand Byzantine theology?

I know a fellow (from the Pittsburgh archeparchy) who will study Augustine (his favorite theologian), Aquinas' Summa, and the CCC first to get a theological understanding of his church on all topics. He never heard of Palamas, the Cappadocians or other Eastern teachers. Don't need to.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Edwin,

Certainly Eastern theology can stand on its own. The Eastern views are not presented as "exceptions." The CCC had to balance being a Catechism for the whole Church--not just West nor East. I feel more could have been said for the Eastern Church in it--but enough was put in that presents another side of the Church (and not just as "toleration.")

For Brendan,

A question: Is there room in modern Orthodox theology for a Western approach to theology? Or, do you agree with our friend Robert who feels that this sort of discussion would be a "waste of time" and all that is needed is for us to "return to Orthodoxy"? <g>

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Edwin --

I'm not an Eastern Catholic, so I don't run to the CCC on these questions.

Dave --

It's a fair point. Some Orthodox are not willing to allow for a different theological system from the Eastern one. It seems that the trend, among the mainstream, runs against that. In any case, in my own opinion, the real issue is distinguishing between dogma and doctrine (ie, are all the "Catholic" "dogmas" of the 2d millenium truly universal) -- I think that the closer we get to answering that question, the more acceptance there will be on both sides of the theological system of the other.

To me, that's what the 1st millenium has to teach us -- namely that we can exist in a church that has some theological diversity in it, even with a certain level of theological *tension* in it. The real issue is what is included in the category of items that can't be divergent (ie, universal dogma) and what is not. That's the rub.

Brendan

Brendan,

Then that explains it.

Brendan,

Is your theoretical analysis of a future union council available on this board still?

anastasios