www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology ORTHODOX BY FAITH, CATHOLIC BY DOGMA

�ORTHODOX BY FAITH, CATHOLIC BY DOGMA�

This phrase was a suggested �bumper sticker� by Mr. John Petrus. On another thread I asked for his explanation on what his �bumper sticker� means but received no answer to date. I am just a curious bystander reading bumper stickers.

Since Mr. Petrus seems to be unavailable lately, I decide to post this example of bumper sticker theology and ask you, the readers of Byzcath.org message board, to comment on it. What do you think it means when someone states they are Orthodox by faith and Catholic by dogma? How is this possible? Can one have the �faith� of one church and the �dogma� of another? I would like to know what dogmas of the Catholic Church (Mr. Petrus doesn�t qualify which of the 22 Particular Catholic Churches he means by �catholic�) are Byzantine Catholic and not Orthodox? I am unaware of any one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches publishing dogmas except the Roman Catholic Church. I guess the Roman Catholic Church is what Mr. Petrus means by �Catholic� and not any of the other 21 Particular Churches. So I would again guess the Byzantine Catholic Church has a somewhat dependent catholicism � a mother/daughter relationship.

Can one have the Orthodox faith (small �o� or big �O�) and not have orthodox dogmas? How can the Byzantine Catholic Church have an orthodox faith while maintaining its �Roman� Catholic dogmas? I already concluded that only the Roman Church proclaimed dogmas and not any of the Eastern ones. Did not the articles of the Union of Brest stipulate that the Unia Church is not to be forced to accept certain Western dogmas like Purgatory and such? But we are �Catholic by Dogma� according to Mr. Petrus. I would like to have a list of Catholic dogmas which make us Byzantine Catholic and uniquely distinct from the Orthodox.


Elias

>>>�ORTHODOX BY FAITH, CATHOLIC BY DOGMA�<<<

Just dumb, a non-sequitur, as though dogma could somehow be isolated from faith.

Stuart,

I thought so.

Elias

Elias,

I don't think Mr. Petrus was thinking very carefully when he wrote that. He was just having a good time writing goofy bumper-stickers. It wasn't meant to be any sort of "statement of belief" or anything.

Nonetheless, it does reflect the unconscious thinking of much of our laity. That is unfortunate, but we cannot blame them for what our own clergy has hammered into them for the past fifty years. Things are getting better, however. Metropolitan Judson is marking a strong effort at teaching our people to be Byzantine again. But it will take time to undue the damage of the past.

We need to do a lot of praying. Also, we should bring as many people as possible to the wonderful Byzantine Spirituality Conference held by the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh this coming October. It is a noble endeavor to teach our laity about what it truly means to be Byzantine.

God bless,
Anthony

Dragani,

Bumper stickers and alcohol make excellent truth serums or, at least, vehicles to give voice to the subconscious. It might not be what Mr. Petrus meant but it is what he wrote.

I haven't heard anything about any spirituality conference. What is this all about?

Elias

Every year the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh holds it's annual spirituality conference usually in October. I've been to several of them. This years conference is on Saturday October 7, 2000 at La Roche college near Pittsburgh, PA. This years conference is being put together in co-operation with the Carpatho Orthodox Diocese of Johnston, PA. The keynote speaker for this years conference will be Fredrica Mathewes-Green. Be there or be square.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

Monk Elias-Greetings!!!

Please lighten up on Petrus.
The only reason I enrolled with the name Sythian, is my fear of being illiterate, and subsequently scorned. With a pseudonym, I can disappear with impunity.

Apparently it is just as well I did.

Also, I read in another thread(?) the discussion regarding how many councils we are required to accept. One commenter stated that as Eastern Catholics we rely on the first seven, but because we are in union with Rome, we have a responsibility to the DOGMA of the following Councils. Perhaps the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a case in point.

Also. bumper stickers and alcohol do not equate---the one can be soul desyroying and life threarening; the other is an opinion which every one has, just like....

Scythian,

I am not a monk. Please do not confuse me with "Monk Elias" of Byzcath.org. I am not scorning Mr. Petrus. If I was a Protestant or nonbeliever who walked by Mr. Petrus' car and read such a bumper sticker, I might ask him what it means. Mr. Petrus owes me an explanation on what "Orthodox by faith, Catholic by dogma" means. I want to know. He has a bumper sticker which confuses me. If he proclaims such a thing, then he should be able to explain it.


Elias,
not the monk

(I have no administrative ties to this message board. I am a sinful ninny.)

Joe,

How does one enroll for the Spirituality conference? Can it be done online?

Dan Lauffer

From the Administrator:

1. Information on the Archieparchial Byzantine Spiritual Conference will be posted on this website sometime during the next week or so (as soon as we receive the electronic version). Contact e-mail will also be provided at that time. In the meantime, the date is set for Saturday, October 7th, 2000.

2. Request to Elias: There is some ongoing confusion between you and "Monk Elias" who moderates the Prayer Forum. Would it be possible for you to use another signature for your posts? Maybe "Elias, Byzantine Layman" or "Elias, not the Monk" or something more creative? Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Administrator,

OK.

Elias, the Ninny

Gee whiz;

I didn't realize how touchy some of you are about every tittle and letter. Yes I am Byzantine Catholic, yes I subscribe to the Catholic dogmas, and I also believe that so do the Orthodox churches. Perhaps those of you who look at the Latin church as being supremely legalistic don't realize that a dogmatic teaching is negative in its teaching. This means that to believe 'this' is not wrong. These statements are not meant to explain the entirety of a concept and they are always open to further discernment and understanding. So, for example, you can reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception if you think it means that Mary was in some way not human; you could reject the concept of Immaculate Conception if you think that it means Mary had no free-will; but you accept the concept of the Immaculate Conception if you believe that Mary had an unusual and perfect closeness to her Son. This is Orthodox and Catholic. You can reject the concept of papal infallibility if you think it means that a 'man' is speaking ex-cathedra. But if you believe it is the voice of Jesus Christ (akin to the decisions made through the ecumenical councils) then you in some fashion hold to this concept. You can also believe it requires further theological expression in order to better capture its essence. This is the way Byzantine Catholics believe. We accept that the Latins are trying to formulate understanding from a different perspective. They are not wrong. In fact, much can be learned by taking their scientific, critical approach to theology in combination with our own mystical approach.
As Byzantine Catholics, we are painfully aware that the separation from our Eastern brothers is artificial. But we also believe that the separation of the East from the West is artificial (man made and not from God) as well. We see unity existing already. We see that what separates us is our limited ability to understand the infinite. We see that we are all struggling to understand. We see that we are Orthodox-true believers, and we are dogmatically Catholic. We see that in you too.

A humble sojourner;

John

P.S. A bumper sticker that evoked such reaction is definitely a keeper. Now where did I park my car.

Interesting.

Remember that many Catholics, of whatever flavor, oftentimes favor "DOGma".

Orthodox seem to favor: "CATma".

You can herd dogs; did 'ya ever try to herd cats?

"Meeow"

(And then there's the question of litter boxes. Oy veh.)

Mr. Petrus,


�I didn't realize how touchy some of you are about every tittle and letter.�

Elias: It is not an issue about being �touchy.� Your Roman Catholic background gives you away. When Eastern Catholics comment on anything, it is called �touchy.� When Roman Catholics comment on anything, it is called �defending the truth� or �teaching the truth.� According to such a double-standard, St. Athanasius was touchy. You fluff off Eastern theology so easily while becoming a martyr for Roman Catholic dogmas later in your post. LOL!

�Yes I am Byzantine Catholic, ��

Elias: Which part?

�� yes I subscribe to the Catholic dogmas, and I also believe that so do the Orthodox churches.�

Elias: You mean Roman Catholic dogmas. As for us Eastern Catholics, these dogmas are not taught in our churches, unless you believe Byzantine Catholics don�t teach what they believe or believe what they teach. If so, please advise me where in our ECF program we must instruct our children to be good Aristotelians and think like Augustine. Give me one hymn sung in the Byzantine Church to the DOGMA of the Immaculate Conception, to the DOGMA of Papal Infallibility, to the DOGMA of Purgatory, to the DOGMA of Transubstantiation. You won�t find any. Check the Byzantine Catholic Typicon and locate for me when we celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. You won�t. If LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI means anything to you Roman Catholics, your dogmas would be enshrined and sung at our Byzantine Catholic liturgies. They are not. The failure to incorporate these dogmas into our liturgies is a tell-tale sign that they are not universal or mandatory. You confuse Rome�s proclamation of dogma with Byzantine acceptance. Where did we accept it other than artificially? In fact, the FILIOQUE was taken out of our Creed, St. Photius was put back on the calendar, and St. Anne�s Conception can now be celebrated on December 9. The Eastern Catholic Church is going the opposite direction (liturgically and theologically) of the way you are going. How about coming home for a change, John? Quit kissing up to others who most of the time reject your kind.

We Eastern Catholics do refer to Mary as �Bride and Maiden Ever-Pure,� but that has nothing to do with the DOGMA of immaculate-ness. We never HAD TO teach transubstantiation because we, unlike the West, never doubted that the bread and wine changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Why make laws for those who never break them? Unless you are intoxicated with the �benefits� theological criticism, the natural conclusion of scholasticism.

�Perhaps those of you who look at the Latin church as being supremely legalistic don't realize that a dogmatic teaching is negative in its teaching.�

Elias: Not so. Western dogmas are not good examples of apophatic theology, if that is what you mean by negative teaching. They inherit the need to define. Define WHEN the bread and wine changes at the eucharist; define HOW Mary by-passed Augustinian/Aristotelian inherent guilt; define HOW the Church operates with precision-like CANONS while giving lip-service to economia and the church�s right and ability to forgive the Prodigal Son without the legalism and red-tape of the State. Why are you so DEFENSIVE of this particular church?

�This means that to believe 'this' is not wrong.�

Elias: Just plain stupid. Sorry.

�These statements are not meant to explain the entirety of a concept and they are always open to further discernment and understanding.�

Elias: They are to solve problems in the Western Church. The East did not take part of such deliberations, therefore they are not universal. The reason why the Uniates accepted them is because someone wrongfully thought they HAD to accept them to prove they were true Catholics. It was a result of the inferiority complex; we almost threw the baby out with the bathwater.

�So, for example, you can reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception if you think it means that Mary was in some way not human; ��

Elias: Mary was 100% human and had free-will to say �yes,� that is why HER Annunciation is celebrated and not Joseph�s Annunciation. Joseph �pondered.� Do you really think the concept of the IC was to combat Marian-Docetism? Actually, it took away Mary�s humanity and made her exempt from it. The West had to overcome its �inherent guilt/sin� problem. So such a dogma became a necessary loophole to help explain why Mary still remained pure from such an inheritance. Western Augustinian thinking paints itself into corners where it needs more dogmas to get out of them. We Eastern Catholics celebrate the Feast of St. Anne�s Conception, which BTW, is being returned ever-so gradually to its rightful day of December 9. You Westerners ignored this and gave Mary a full 9-months in her mother�s womb. Actually, only Christ had a full 9-month term in Mary�s womb (March 25 to Dec 25) because he WAS truly human, our ARCHETYPE. We become �fully human� when we are deified. Theosis is not a dogma but an understanding. Mary was originally given one day less than a full 9-mo term because she, like you and me, needs the Savior to become fully human.

�� you could reject the concept of Immaculate Conception if you think that it means Mary had no free-will; but you accept the concept of the Immaculate Conception if you believe that Mary had an unusual and perfect closeness to her Son. This is Orthodox and Catholic.�

Elias: Mary had free-will; she was a human. I can believe Mary was close to her son without the IC dogma. Mary was the THEOTOKOS. What term can outdo that one? Theotokos is all-encompassing, whereas the IC is loophole for muddled thinking. �Theotokos� points to Christ, not to Mary�s person, like the IC. Easterners don�t speculate on the person of Mary. Mary is understood only in relation to her son, whom she calls �My Lord.�

�You can reject the concept of papal infallibility if you think it means that a 'man' is speaking ex-cathedra. But if you believe it is the voice of Jesus Christ (akin to the decisions made through the ecumenical councils) then you in some fashion hold to this concept.�

Elias: Have you read anything on papal infallibility by Melkite Greek Catholic Arcbishop Elias Zoghby? You blew your Ultra-Montane defense by including �akin to � ecumenical councils.� There is a difference between one bishop defining dogma FOR the Church-at-large and defining dogma WITH the Church-at-large. The catholic-orthodox way has always been WITH.

�You can also believe it requires further theological expression in order to better capture its essence.�

Elias: Hogwash! Maybe at an Ecumenical Council where it may need more than just further theological expressions. It might just get a REJECTION than an EXPRESSION. Then again, dogmas from the Ecumenical Councils have been Christocentric; the CANONS took care of how the church took care of its members. The DOGMA of Papal Infallibility raised a canonical issue to the level of dogma (a necessary belief) while ignoring the need of the rest of the church to participate. The Eastern Churches were NOT involved. That dogma was not by the Ecumenical Church, for the Ecumenical Church or with the Ecumenical Church. Vatican I was a Kangaroo Council, not a parliament of bishops. It wasn't officially 'closed' until Vatican II opened.

�This is the way Byzantine Catholics believe. We accept that the Latins are trying to formulate understanding from a different perspective. They are not wrong.�

Elias: Then why are such dogmas not taught in ECF or sung at liturgy? The Latins can formulate all sorts of dogmas, but why isn�t the Eastern or Byzantine perspective good enough for you? Is a multiplicity of DOGMAS, especially speculative ones, a sign of health? Dogmas were necessary to defend against heresy, a sickness.

�In fact, much can be learned by taking their scientific, critical approach to theology in combination with our own mystical approach.�

Elias: It has led many in the West to a loss of faith. One can still teach theology without necessarily believing in it. Be careful of theological criticism; it doesn�t make a happy bedfellow with apophatic/mystical theology. The East�s mystical approach has preserved many from doubt and agnostic rationalization. Many kept their faith under atheistic Communism (and also died for it) while those in the West succumbed to agnosticism or atheism under the weight of severe theological criticism and materialism. There is much good from a critical approach but criticism focuses too much on the expression of faith than faith in God; more hype on the truth on biblical sources and the historical Jesus than on the Truth to which both leads us to.

�As Byzantine Catholics, we are painfully aware that the separation from our Eastern brothers is artificial.�

Elias: As artificial as adopting dogmas totally unrelated to our equally esteemed theology. Muddled thinking keeps that pain going.

�But we also believe that the separation of the East from the West is artificial (man made and not from God) as well. We see unity existing already. We see that what separates us is our limited ability to understand the infinite.�

Elias: Or to understand Eastern theology.

�We see that we are all struggling to understand. We see that we are Orthodox-true believers, and we are dogmatically Catholic. We see that in you too.�

Elias: �Orthodox-true believers� is redundant. In fact, the Roman translation �orthodox� in the liturgy has been ignored by our bishops and most priests, including yourself. �True Believers� is used instead to protect the guilty. Are the Orthodox not Catholic?

Elias, the Ninny Uniate (not the Monk)




[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 07-28-2000).]

Dr. John (Moderator, not Petrus) ,

Way backalong from my Pagan days I recall a bumper sticker that said "I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma."

Elias,

Not trying to leap into the fray, but here goes anyway.....

While each of us sinful little humans created in the image and likeness of God are alike in many significant ways, we're different, too. One of those differences is in how our brains work to grasp ideas.

Some folks are analytical by nature, some emotional, musical, visual, whatever. If you've ever taught, say, math to a group of people, it becomes evident that not everybody thinks in the same way, and that's perfectly OK. (Tho' some school systems disagree..)

If it's true with respect to concrete topics, it's even more true with respect to the Divine. The Lord is eternal, and the Faith (be it from an Eastern or Western tradition) is unchanging. But we approach it, experience it and describe it from who WE are. I've met some pretty mystically oriented cradle Roman Catholics, and some very analytical cradle Byzantines. Is that a problem? I don't think so - Orthodoxy is quite strong enough to survive the "intellectual assault" of holy people who approach it with an incisively inquiring mind, and phrase their observations in that language. Does that make them Roman Catholic? Don't think so, any more than Teresa of Avila was Ukrainian.

Personally I like hearing from folks like Dr. Petrus. My brain doesn't work that way, so his observations give me a fresh perspective.

And if anybody's keeping track, I've never been Roman Catholic.


In Christ,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

[This message has been edited by Sharon Mech (edited 07-28-2000).]