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

If we are to recapture our Eastern roots shouldn't we be using Orthodox Catechetical material? I realize that the best teaching is done through the liturgy but we do train converts. Our parish uses the CCC which is fine but shouldn't we also use Orthodox material? What material of this nature exists? Are there some parishes who do use it? If so, what examples can you share of both a positive and negative nature when using these materials?

If it is true that we represent the Church that existed prior to 1054 doesn't it make sense that we use Eastern as well as Western materials for catechizing?

Dan Lauffer

Dan,
No we shouldn't be using the Orthodox Catechetical material. For while our roots are Orthodox, it is not the same Orthdoxy as is practiced today.

We should use the CCC in some form, but not only that. We need to use the CCC as a basis and make our own Catechetical material.

We are not Roman Catholics and we are not Orthodox, we are Byzantine Catholics.


David

David,

Have the Orthodox really changed more than the Catholics? I wouldn't have thought so. We are "in communion with" not "under". Hence, using a combination of materials still seems a good choice.

In what ways would we make it "Byzantine" without using Orthodox materials?

Dan Lauffer

[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Dear Friends,

This is really a great question!

Cantor Joe Thur has had a thing or two to say about the CCC - that it's a Latin document that we should stay away from for that reason.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using Orthodox catechetical material that is published today, or even the historical catechisms like that of Peter Mohyla.

(If anything, Mohyla's catechism is more "Latin" than modern RC ones )

But why don't we use the CCC in conjunction with Orthodox catechetical material?

That way we will be able to develop our own Eastern perspective on our faith held in common.

Alex

Alex,

I think Orthodox and Catholic are closer than what people think. I could well be wrong, but that is my observation.

The two areas in which we serious diverge, and they are interlinked, are the philosophical perspective (rationalistic vs. mystic) and ecclesiology particularly in the view of papal authority.

My limited experience tells me that we tend to hold both antithesis in "creative tension". (I know, I know, that phrase usually lacks serious content). Yet, the East and West tolerated, and often, valued each other in days gone by.

How do we find a catechesis that holds these two in creative tension?

Where might I find this Orthodox material so I can investigate for myself? Is Peter Mohyla's work available?

Dan L

Dan,
First let me say this.

As I said, I believe that we are Byzantine Catholics.

I believe in what the Vatican has to say in response to the Melkite Initiative.

As a refesher, the Melkite Initiative made these two points, "1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. 2. I am 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."

The Vatican responded, "As to the Greek-Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties. Besides, a correct formulation of the faith necessitates a reference not only to a particular Church, but to the whole Church of Christ, which knows no frontiers, neither in space nor in time."

And we must also remember that the Antiochian Orthodox Church also rejected this initiative, saying, "Regarding inter- communion now, our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first."

Now on to the question of Orthodox matierals and Alex's suggestion that we use them in conjuction with the CCC, which is something I could live with, but.....

Do we want to spend our money to promote and assist Orthodox institutions when we have our own groups that, with more money, maybe able to do a better job for us?

Pick up a copy of the God With Us Publications Catalog, there seems to be an abundance of Byzantine Catholic materials out there.

There is the 3 book series Light for Life, if used with the CCC this could be good.

They have books for grades K-8, there is much adult enrichment stuff too.

Have you explored this resource?


Your brother in Christ,
David

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

Goodness, maybe I'm a Melkite.

I teach ECF and try to use our materials which are very dated and of mixed value. Perhaps other age level materials are better than the one with which I'm familiar. I teach 1st - 3rd grade. I've supplement our material, with permission. I've used some RC stuff and some Ukrainian. We Eastern Catholics would all be better off, I would guess, if we combined our efforts in this area. At least we would have enough resources to do some serious work.

I'm not familiar with the adult material at all.

The only thing that really separates us is VCI. That ought to be rethought.

Dan Lauffer

Dan,
Have you seen the Catalog I mentioned? Here is the contact information.

Eastern Catholic diocesean Directors
P.O. Box 99203
Pittsburgh, PA 15233

To ordder Catechetical materials contact God With Us Publications at TBS (Theological Book Service) at 1-877-484-1600

I am sure if you call the number they could send you a copy of the Fall 2002 Catalog.

As for VC I being the only thing that separates us, I respectfully disagree.

As has been noted in another thread, it is the practice of most Orthodox to re-chrismate Catholics who convert, and it is the practice of some Orthodox to re-baptize those same converts.

So much for the "I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

Alex also states in another thread, "If the remaining differences in our faith were not important, we'd have one Church already."

So if this is what you really believe, then how can you promote the use of Orthodox materials in the Catechesis of Byzantine Catholics?


Your brother in Christ,
David

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

David,

Many Eastern Catholics I know have a similar position toward the authority of the Pope as do the Orthodox. He is primary but not supreme. If this question were resolved don't you think, as I do, all other objections to mutual communion would logically be eliminated? I don't suggested that there would be immediate mutual communion. People enjoy their own turfs too much. But only that there would be no logical reason for the conflict. The nature of papal authority, in my opinion, should never have been dogmatically defined.

I agree with you rebaptism is a theological no-no and a grevious insult, but then, VCI is a similar insult to the East.

Anyway, thanks for the leads. I will check on them.

Dan L

Dan,
I know this is now off topic but you asked so I will give you my answer.

No I do not think that if the nature of papal authority changed, as you suggest, that "all other objections to mutual communion would logically be eliminated".

This is why I think that, papal authority came from Vatican I, correct?

Vatican I was opened on 8 December, 1869, and adjourned on 20 October, 1870.

Now, if the nature of papal authority is the only thing holding us back now, then why didn't the Churches re-unite in the time between 1054 and 1869? Eight hundred and fifteen years where the issue of papal authority was not defined.


Your brother in Christ,
David

ps if you do check out God With Us Publications, please let me know what you think of them.

Dear Dan,

Yes, Peter Mohyla's Catechism is on-line and can be found here, I believer, http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy

And yes, with respect to papal authority it is as you say.

I just have a problem with being in communion with the Pope while not believing with his own assessment of what our relationship to him really is.

I think it is wrong for us, as Eastern Catholics, to begin constructing our own image and likeness of what we would like our relationship to Rome to be.

We are entitled to our private views, of course.

But if we accept the Pope's position from an Orthodox standpoint - and everything else from the same standpoint - then who are we kidding?

We are then Orthodox and should formally become Orthodox.

Right, Orthoman?

Alex

Alex,

I suppose you are correct about being Orthodox. But we are already Orthodox in communion with Rome. I have a difficult time thinking of the nature of the authority of the Pope in any other terms but political. I don't understand why it was ever defined dogmatically. Could you help me understand this?

David,

I think that the basic issues that really separate us are political in nature. Do we have any dogmatic differences except that the West tends to define politics in dogmatic terms?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

Yes, "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is the politically correct term, but only for those who accept its premise.

And that premise is that one can be Orthodox spiritually and in every which way, save for two things - holding, in this way or what, to the (RC) theology about the necessity of being in communion with Rome AND being formally out of communion with the Orthodox East since Rome is out of communion with it.

To be Orthodox is to be in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, period. And since Rome is separated, we are what then, "Orthodox separated from Orthodoxy?" Does that make any sense other than in the idealistic, unrealistic way in which we have all come to regard this term and our relationship with Rome?

Right, Orthoman?

Certainly, the times and conditions that led to Rome's definition of papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction are different than today's.

But it would seem that whether or not Rome defined these would have made little difference ecumenically for union with the Orthodox.

Let's remember, of course, that these papal definitions and the Marian definitions were nowhere around at the Council of Florence and the Filioque made the discussions sheer "purgatory."

Your earlier point on philosophy is crucial here. The Filioque and the Papacy are often seen by Orthodox theologians to be part of the same underlying Roman theological system, one begets the other etc.

If the papal definitions define a specific papal governing style, then that style is something that can be adapted or changed.

Meyendorff didn't see a problem with adapting the Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to Orthodox theological "pulses" and RC theologians today concede that what the Immaculate Conception stands or falls on the (not infallibly defined) nature of Original Sin.

If the Immaculate Conception doctrine was put in place to ensure belief in the constant holiness and purity of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Word Incarnate, then Orthodoxy has always believed in the "pith and substance" of this doctrine.

If the papal doctrines were set in place to define a permanent role for the Petrine Ministry as part of the overall way in which the Holy Spirit safeguards the Church of Christ from error, then Orthodoxy has no problems with that, or so I've heard .

The Papacy has ALWAYS considered that it had the right to intervene jurisdictionally in areas of the One Church where heresy or schism threatened to take hold. St John Chrysostom was grateful enough for that!

It is just that this principle should not override the principle of the autocephalous government of the Particular Churches. That is an aspect of the Papacy that needs to be addressed.

As for the infallibility issue, the definition of that isn't the real problem, as I see it. The real issue is context - in what context does the Pope speak infallibly?

The "Ex Cathedra" bit - what does that mean?

When Pope Pius XII defined the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, he asked for the view of the world's RC bishops.

Does not this mean that an Ecumenical Council that best expresses the view of the entire Church is the best and only context in which the infallibility of the entire Church is affirmed through the Petrine Minister?

Again, I think some of us BC's can think they are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" but that means they have created an identity for themselves that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

And when it comes to ecumenism between East and West, that means we have become part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

My view, anyway, Professor!

Alex

Dan,
I think Alex addressed this issue perfectly, as he usually does.

To be Orthodox, one must be in communion with the Orthodox Church and not in communion with Rome.

As Alex said, if we believe that we are Orthodox in everyway, then we should be Orthodox, period.

To say that we believe as the Orthodox do, doesn't that belittle the suffering and sacrifice of our ancestors who felt it so important to return to communion with Rome that they would live out the consequences of that choice?

Your premise, that we believe as the Orthodox does, has been denied by both Rome and the Orthodox, as I have shown above with the Vatican and Antiochian Orthodox responses.

To say that all the separates us are political issues, I do not agree, I do agree that some of it is political in nature, but not all of it.

I do see though, that you have not responded to my comment about what kept the churches from re-uniting in the 815 years that papal authority was not a defined issue.

And to imply that politics is more of a western thing is just wrong, I think that the Orthodox suffer from politics just as much if not more than Rome.

It is hard to believe that there is no real dogmatic issues when it is the practice to re-chrismate and, at times, re-baptize catholics.

So if we believe as the Orthodox do, then we must believe that our Chrismation and, sometimes, our Baptisms are invalid.

The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome and are in communion with each other (most of the time). So to be Orthodox, we must be the same, otherwise we are not Orthodox.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. We are Byzantine Catholic.

I do not mean to be cruel here, but if this is the catechesis we are giving our children, no wonder we are losing them. This tells them that if they want to be catholic, then they should go to Rome, if not then go Orthodox, we don't really give them a choice to stay Byzantine Catholic because the way we teach them, that we are really Orthodox, teaches them that we are truly schizophrenic. That we do not know who we are.


David

But it is also the practise not to re-baptize or re-chrismate. It also the practice not to re-baptise and to chrismate as part of a penetential rite not to be confused with a re-chrismation. Etc. Some of these practices are ascribed to sacramental economy, but others in Orthodoxy say that the idea of sacramental economy is not properly Orthodox.

So is it fair to say that Orthodox belief apparently does not require regarding our Baptism or Chrismation (nor any of our Mysteries)as invalid? And that the belief in the validity of our Mysteries is, moreover, allowable within Orthodoxy, i.e., such belief is not considered a breach of faith that breaks communion?

djs