Originally posted by Edwin:
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.
To quote the CCC (Section 1202):
"1202 The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church's mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture: in the tradition of the "deposit of faith," in liturgical symbolism, in the organization of fraternal communion,
in the theological understanding of the mysteries, and in various forms of holiness. Through the liturgical life of a local church, Christ, the light and salvation of all peoples, is made manifest to the particular people and culture to which that Church is sent and in which she is rooted. The Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures."
This, of course, was echoing Lumen Gentium (23):
"By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage,
and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties. This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church. In like manner the episcopal bodies of today are in a position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance, so that this collegiate feeling may be put into practical application."
The CCC is not an Eastern Catechism. It is a universal Catechism. Does that mean that we can use the CCC to understand the Eastern theological approach? In many ways, no. (Although as I mentioned before there are places where the CCC does present Eastern theological views.) Does that mean the CCC should be rejected by Eastern Catholics? Hardly, unless one believes everything Western is evil (and sadly there are a few Eastern Catholics like that...thankfully, only a few!)
Despite its Eastern deficiencies the CCC is a remarkable document that involved the work and editing of all the world's bishops. I would hope that Eastern Catholics would also rely on other sources as well (particularly those of their patrimony) but one is not led astray by using the CCC.
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.
Surely the CCC can be misused as you state. But, that is not the fault of the CCC, is it? All sort of manner of documents are misused in like manner.
Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]
