www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Dogmas???

Please provide evidence that the Church discourages "transritualism".


As said above, I used to feel that way, but I think that is a little relativistic. There are some real differences between Byzantines and Latins that need to be addressed. For instance, is God simple essence or essence/energy, did Jesus die to "satisfy" divine justice (St. Anselm), did we inherit "original sin" (St. Augustine), etc. etc. etc.

anastasios

I've posted the Church's statement on the intergrity of ritual patrimony here before the crash. I will try to do so again

Dustin, let me try my best to clarify.

1. By Roman Church I meant the latin rite. Sorry for being unclear.

2. Of course we cannot be taught all of Catholicism, that was poor use of words on my part.

3. It might be better said, once you have been brought to a particular understanding of an aspect of the faith, one is not at liberty to discard that aspect because one beings participating in a different particular church.

4. Adapt to the fullness of of the Byzantine patrimony is a difficult concept. Some Byzantine Catholics will (with no spiritual disadvantage) have no exposure to the Latin patrimony and therefore certain exclusively Latin concepts will make no sense to them. Others have will have comprehensive or partial exposure to the Latin patrimony, either by academic study, exposure to the Latin community, or prior membership in the Latin Church. It cannot be said they are acting with integrity to say on the last day they were juridically a Latin they beleived certain aspects of the faith but on the first day they juridically became a Byzantine Catholic, they no longer did.

To give an example, if I person stood before me and recited the Creed (let not bring up the filoque here!) in Swedish and demanded to know if I accepted their profession of faith, I (since I do not sepak Swedish) would have to say no, I could not make that assertion as I do not understand what you are asking me to assent to. If I were a Swede, I would be expected to. If I said I did not, I would not be orthodox in my Christian beliefs. So too, if I had learend Swedish but not a Swedish citizen.

Am I being sensible?

K.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

What is a nous?

"nous" is a Greek word; it has the meaning of 'spirit of the soul' as opposed to 'pnevma', (actually the word for 'wind') which is a much broader meaning of 'spirit'. The Holy Ghost is 'pnevma'.

Hearkening back to the question of how each church 'understands' its role and authority, I still think that the mosaic image is the best. Asking Romans about 'toll-houses' as the progress of the soul after death is unfair to them. They just never heard of this. Same for Easterns confronted with 'purgatory'. Why is it necessary to say that each has to accept the other's formulation? That seems rather coercive -- and that's a theological and canonical no-no.

I suspect that the difficulty lies in seeing the "CHURCH!" as a unified entity of the monolithic variety -- one big rock. (No pun intended.) But rather we are the mountain: Romans are granite; Greeks are marble; Syrians are opals, etc. -- all part of the mountain and without any of us 'rocks' the mountain would be deficient.

As for 'transritualism', I'm not sure what precisely is meant, but as far as the Canons are concerned: CCEO CAn 40, #1 "Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protections and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians."

That is: do what your own particular church does. Don't mix and match. By the way, in the low-numbered preliminary canons, a rite is considered the "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people...." (Canon 28)

Thus, "toll-houses" for us Byzantines; 'purgatory' for Romans, etc. If a Roman brother or sister says prayers for the release of my soul from 'purgatory', I'm not going to reject their prayers (I'd be a fool!) but I think I'll take their prayers -- by ekonomia -- and apply them as we understand.

So, let's not get so exorcised about the theology. Anastasios writes some good questions/inquiries from a theological perspective. "For instance, is God simple essence or essence/energy, did Jesus die to "satisfy" divine justice (St. Anselm), did we inherit "original sin" (St. Augustine), etc. etc. etc."

All very good questions, and the stuff of which ecumenical dialogue is made. But we must realize that there is not "one final answer" in theology. We are dealing with "concepts", and concepts by their very nature are not empirically provable, just demonstrable to be internally consistent within the theological frameworks.

And we should NEVER allow theological systematic theology to divide Christ's people. Christ established a community of loving people, not a debating society.

Blessings!

Dr.John I was wondering how you view the churches that are not in full communion with the catholic faith.

I may not be in the majority in this, but I actually and honestly believed that when our holy fathers Athenagoras and Paul VI mutually lifted the excommunications of 1054 in Jerusalem, then I thought: Hallelujah! The schism is ended. As far as I am concerned, this is the truth.

Unfortunately, the bureaucracies still lingered and never acted upon the actions of the Patriarchs. (I work in Washington DC and know better than most about the prime rule of bureaucracies: preserve thyself!)

So, as far as I am concerned, the schism is over. The stupid bureaucrats are still playing games. (E.g.: "THEY are on an equal footing with US?!?!?!") It is the province of God's people to make real what the Patriarchs have made real (and THEY, Paul VI and Athenagoras, as Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople, are the ONLY ones who could lift the excommunications -- they were patriarchally personal.)

So, in this regard, just call me Pollyanna. For me, the ecclesiastical bureaucrats are just spiritual tax-collectors. Avoid 'em like the plague.

For the Oriental Orthodox, there has been very limited contact up until the last 20 years or so. Now, with the internet (and phones), we can interact with the mainly rural churches of the East. We can even read their websites; and learn what is going on in their communities. Just because our interactions for the last millenium were limited to parchments carried on camels, now we have a real chance to be present to our brothers and sisters. As Christians, we have a moral obligation to be with them; if we do not extend our hands to them, then it is to our spiritual peril.

On another (unfortunately closed) thread, there was discussion of Abouna Paoulos' statements about the prevention of HIV in his country, where the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is trying to regain its footing after 30 years of Marxist rule. The Patriarch is apparently concerned about his people's well-being, and yes: survival.

Many countries in Africa now have about 20% of their people infected with HIV. The year's supply of medicines cost about $1,900 US. The annual income of many people is about $300 US. So, people just get sick, get no treatment -- so they suffer very cruelly --, and then die. And then there are several million orphans across the continent -- and the Church, willing as it might be, just cannot handle the care and nuturing of these children. (The money we give to Israel and Egypt for military assistance could enhance and prolong the lives of most of these people; but I guess automatic weapons are more important than gancyclovir to prevent AIDS blindness.)

So, I can see where Abouna Paoulos is coming from. In the West there is a 'title': "abbas nullius" (i.e.: abbot of nowhere). I guess Abouna Paoulos doesn't want to become the "Patriarchos Nullius".

Are they part of the Church? Yup. Are they in communion with the Roman See? Insofar as the Roman See is part of Universal Church, yes. We really should be supporting these people.]

Were I afforded the opportunity to attend liturgy with either the Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox, I would do so. If I were invited (for specific reasons) to partake of Eucharist with them? Sure.

Sometimes baptized (and praying) Christians have got to have the guts to take the lead. Not stupidly or for fluffy reasons. Not to flout authority or to make a point. Nor to show how "liberal" one is. It is there only as an opportunity to show how loving we are to each other and how much we truly, truly want to be real brothers and sisters in Christ. May He give us His grace and show us the way!

Blessings!

Dr. John,

Toll-houses for Byzantines? Is this some new construct?

Dr. John- what about the protestant churches, how do they fit your view?

Kurt- As a Roman attending a Byzantine church now, I must admit the things you mentioned about what I learned in the Latin church can not just be forgotten now. I am trying to absorb the eastern philosophy, but I can not abandon all that I learned before.

Thank God we never stop learning. Thank you for that thought provoking post.


Michael

Hello:

> I would say there are Roman dogmas.

If they are Roman-only then they cannot be dogmas.

> So please don't tell me that *I* am not
> Catholic since I don't believe
> in "purgatory",

So is if immediate Heaven or Hell after physical death? I think you just said it wasn't. So if there is a temporary state between death and Heaven, a "place" or "time" for a final purification/perfection. You've just discovered you believe in purgatory.

> "the absolute simplicity of the divine
> nature"

Oh, I am not sure about this one. Could you please post the parts or components of the divine nature you believe in?

> "that Jesus died to satisfy the Father's
> Justice",

He probably died as a symbol of total donation of self, right? Or maybe He didn't really die, he really sneaked out and went to India to study Budhism.

> that we have "original sin", etc.

Which sin did your Baptism get rid of?

> Also, I am no longer willing to be so
> relativistic to say that all Byzantine
> and Latin theological POV's can be
> completely reconciled. I am beginning
> to think that is not true.

Good for you.

And they don't need to. The same dogma can have multiple theological elaborations around it, as long as the core doctrine is kept intact.

Take for instance the Asumption/Dormition. The core dogma is that the Mother of God is in Heaven in body and soul. The issue of whether she actually experienced death is open and there are good arguments for both sides.

As long as we all share the core, we can each one pronounce "tomato" in slightly different ways.

Shalom,
Memo.