www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Catechesis

Dear DavidB:


Perhaps because having and disputing such differences is quite Orthodox?


You earlier wrote:
"So if we believe as the Orthodox do, then we must believe that our Chrismation and, sometimes, our Baptisms are invalid". My point is to dispute your argument. It might be said to be entirely consistent with Orthodox belief and communion to assert the validity of our (BC) Mysteries.

djs

[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Dear David, Dan, Alex, all,

Going back to the original question posed on this thread, with regard to catechetical materials, I myself use everything I can get my hands on, with a discerning eye.

In my own teaching and preaching, I will look to the materials produced by our own (Byzantine Catholic) Church, and there is some very good stuff indeed, but it cannot claim to be complete. I will supplement my own teaching with material that is published by Orthodox and Catholic sources.

In particular, when I am trying to emphasize the tradition of the "East", the Orthodox sources are more complete and helpful. I don't think we should be afraid to use Orthodox (or Catholic) sources. I have even used Protestant materials! (Will there be a collective gasp in the internet by this confessions?) Some protestant materials where activities, games, and "involvement" projects have been carefully constructed can be very valuable. Where these teach fundamental Gospel values, they can be used with great profit. Some of these 'protestant' materials are very well thought out, nicely published, and have the advantage of being used with success in Christian youth groups. The financial resources with which some of these are produced are well beyond the reach of our communities.

But everything from every source should be used carefully, and with discretion. This is why the Catechist needs to be well educated and firmly established within our Church tradition. In that way, materials and tools from many sources can be carefully chosen and adapted for our young people.

Much good work is being done preparing a new generation of materials in the Byzantine Catholic Church. More work needs to be done. In the meantime we mustn't be afraid of adapting and modifying for our use, good materials, whatever the source.

Elias

Brendan:
It would be great to read your thoughts on this.
I have read criticisms of the filioque by Orthodox who argue that it undermines the "monarchy" of the Father. The "monarchial" nature of the papacy is seen as problematic (although the Pope is also criticized for not wielding absolute power). Is there an understanding of monarchy within Trinity that is illuminating for the papacy?

djs

Orthoman:
I am sure it will be fascinating to hear about your reading of the Canons. I hope you will compare them with analogous regulations regarding autonomous Orthodox churches, which provide the best parallel. In addition, I hope that rather than mere proof-text analysis your understanding will also be informed by the autonomous actions of our churches.

djs

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]Dear Brian,

Orthodox heritage?

Be careful, Friend, or you'll be sorry . . .


Well, they DO come out and say Orthodox with the big O! :p

[So, from the Orthodox perspective, I guess I'm "Heterodox in union with Rome" and probably suffering from a serious case of papal prelest.]

Works for me my Ukie friend!

[How's your summer been?]

Hot, hot, hot! Too hot my friend! Though my tomatoes, cucumbers, and red peppers love it! I do container gardening (I have a city back yard. All cement). Best crop I've ever had.

Thought of you today after Liturgy. We were in the Church hall eating the Blessed fruit. There was a young girl whose Baba came from Ukraine. I made the statement that a Slav without a head of cabbage, a cucumber, and a glass of sour cream is like an Italian without a tomato, a clove of garlic, and a glass of olive oil.
She told me her Baba puts sour cream in everything. She even mixes it in with the dog food when she feeds the dog! And the dog is so damn fat he can't walk! really cracked me up!

Have a nice day!

OrthoMan

Orthoman,

"You got that partially right Alex! Change it to 'we would then be Orthodox in belief & pratice but not in reality and therefore, should become so' and I will agree. Until you do, you are not kidding anyone but yourselves with the 'Orthodox In Communion with Rome' oxymoron."

I gather then you believe that the real Church did not begin until 1054. What was the Church before then, Chopped liver?

Dan Lauffer

[I gather then you believe that the real Church did not begin until 1054. What was the Church before then, Chopped liver?]

Dan, I'm not quite how you come to that conclusion from what I wrote. Because if I believed that the church was chopped liver before 1054 I would be in fact, saying the Orthodox Catholic Church is chopped liver.
For my church is still the church that was formulated up until 1054. It has neither added, subtracted, or changed any of the doctrines that were formulated up until that time.
You see, contrary to what the Roman Catholic teaches, I don't believe my church ever left that 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' mentioned in the Creed. I believe my church is that 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church' in its original form. Without any additions or changes as in the RCC, nor any deletions as in the thousands of Protestant Churches. That's why my Catholic identity is so important to me and I defend it here and elsewhere as some many people can testify to.

OrthoMan

The Church before 1054 extended communion universally. You do not extend that communion. Ergo, you are not part of the Church. At least that is just as appropriate a conclusion from the mutual schism as you have drawn.

When the two branches of Christianity extend communion to each other then I will believe that the Church is full and complete. Until then the only Church that is full and complete is the Church that has the Apostolic faith and the universal communion.

All...Everyone of them...communions that are apostolic and yet deny communion to other apostolic Churches is not completely true. Therefore, the only logical place to be is in this schizophrenic place we call "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." If that is only a pie in the sky or a wastrals dream it is still the only true place to be.

Dan Lauffer

[The Church before 1054 extended communion universally. You do not extend that communion. Ergo, you are not part of the Church.]

And the Church before 1054 was bascally one and undivided (with the exception of what is now called the Oriental Orthodox). The Church before 1054 shared the 'same faith'. A COMMON UNION -

1 Corinthians 1:10 states "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the SAME THING, and that there be NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, but that YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT."

After 1054 it gradually grew apart until it no longer shared the same doctrines and beliefs. It no longer shared a COMMON UNION.
We no longer share the same faith. How can we share the same Chalice?

[Until then the only Church that is full and complete is the Church that has the Apostolic faith and the universal communion.]

And that would be the Holy Orthodox Catholic faith my friend. Four of the five original Patriarchates still share Universal Communion with each other. The only one that doesn't is Rome.

[All...Everyone of them...communions that are apostolic and yet deny communion to other apostolic Churches is not completely true. Therefore, the only logical place to be is in this schizophrenic place we call "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." If that is only a pie in the sky or a wastrals dream it is still the only true place to be. ]

'schizophrenic place' is a good analogy.

St Paul writes -

Watch those who create divisions and offenses in opposition to the teachings that you have learned, avoid them. (Rom. 16:17)
"Avoid them" does not mean "permit them to receive Holy Communion in your churches.' In Tit. 3:10 he warns,

As for factious man [that is, one who wants to split the church into factions--my insertion], after admonishing him once or twice, avoid him.

St Justin Martyr describes the Eucharist in about A.D. 155 as something -

'of which no one is allowed to partake EXCEPT ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THE THINGS WE TEACH ARE TRUE, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and rebirth. (Apology 1:66)

OrthoMan writes:

And that would be the Holy Orthodox Catholic faith my friend. Four of the five original Patriarchates still share Universal Communion with each other. The only one that doesn't is Rome.

I think that the patriarchate of Alexandria and Antioch left the communion of the patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. They were replaced by Orthodox bishops but the direct line of bishops is claimed by the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria and the Syrian Orthodox patriarch of Antioch (I think).

And while there are four current patriarchates from the Pentarchy in communion - there is no comparison of any of them with Rome. I think it safe to say that the patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and even Jerusalem are greatly diminished from the early centuries.

While the patriarchate of Rome has grown significantly... adding new lands, and cultures, and populations.

That may or may not be of significance. I just mention it here even as you mention your own observations.

Excellent point, Gerard, the Greeks implemented the "original Uniate" church in Alexandria, which of course the venerable and ancient Copts didn't buy...The Greeks erected a separate Patriarch of Alexandria and proceeded to create a separate Hellenic-dominated hierarchy independent of the native church.

So when I hear the old rhetoric about the
"Uniates" this or that from the Orthodox, we can take all of that with a grain of salt. They wrote the first book on this subject. Then there's the "Western Rite of the Orthodox Church" in use by the Antiochians...

Back to the thread issue, I generally use the Mohyilian catechism, approved by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and (Greek Uniate) Patriarch of Alexandria in my own catechetical work. But this is really geared towards junior/high school level and needs supplemented by some other material pertinent to the age level.

The Antiochians, OCA, Greek Archdiocese, and Light and Life (ECDD) all have good stuff for kids. Some individual parishes (St. Demetrius Ukrainian Catholic in Toronto, for example) have also produced some fantastic material. The new Catechetical Directory for the Ukrainian Catholic Church of 2000 prepared by the Patriarchal Catechetical Commission is also a gem.

[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

Right!!

Or some of us might say you left us after you accepted that Chalcedon nonsense. :p :p

Thanks Gerard, Diak, and especially Mor Ephrem, for pointing out the other side of the coin.

That comment of regarding the Orthodox Partriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria has been made here before by Orthoman, and I've wondered what the Oriental Orthodox must think about that!

And for all who wring their hands regarding the Latinization of our church, it's worth reminding ourselves how comparatively successful we've been in holding to our Byzantine heritage. The Orthodox Partiarchates noted above became completely Byzantinized.
djs

[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: djs ]