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

Dear Elias and John,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

First, a moderatorial note. I seem to detect between you a certain personal antipathy. Please be careful not to let that affect the tone of your remarks.

Now, as to substance. John: am I correct in interpreting your stand in the following way. As a Byzantine Catholic I am bound NOT TO DENY what the Roman Church teaches dogmatically, BUT I RESERVE THE RIGHT to reinterpret those dogmas in ways that make sense in my own tradition?

What in practice does this mean for you? How far can this process of reinterpretation take you? And how do you handle the apparent liturgical discontinuity that Elias refers to?

Elias, is your position the following: there is absolutely no way I, as a Byzantine Catholic, can make sense of many of the dogmas of the Roman Church?

If so, what is the appropriate practical response to this situation? Can one remain in communion with a Church that seems to require acceptance of these incomprehensible teachings?

I hope I have distilled the essence of the debate. Any comments?

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

Br. Maximos,


"I seem to detect between you a certain personal antipathy. Please be careful not to let that affect the tone of your remarks."

Elias: Not personal antipathy for Mr. Petrus, but the "apathy" often expressed by some for Eastern Theology, which BTW, includes prayer/worship. A true theologian is one who prays. But if that prayer does not include the 'dogmas' one tries to defend, then we have a dilemna which must be addressed. The logic I read on these threads don't match liturgy. Some people's LEX CREDENDI does not equate with LEX ORANDI. This LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI always places ORANDI before CREDENDI. This is Catholic/Orthodox understanding. If what one believes is not in what one prays, then one is talking thru one's nose. True theology has to past the litmus test of acceptance and incorporation in one's prayer life; otherwise, it is only lip-service.

"Can one remain in communion with a Church that seems to require acceptance of these incomprehensible teachings?"

By the "apparent liturgical discontinuity" you just mentioned. Like a married priesthood, "contradictory but valid" (a phrase from Vatican II) teachings can co-exist.

Both a Chinese restaurant and an Italian restaurant serve food. But don't tell me that to be considered real food it must be Chinese food only or Italian food only. Both are food and both are good. The monolithic either/or thinking in the West takes the position that food served in an Italian restaurant is only good if served Chinese style; no garlic, but lots of soy sauce. BTW, I like both types of food! A true catholic approach recognizes it as a win-win situation unless one is serving garbage (heresy) in place of food.

The fact that these DOGMAS have unsuccessfully made it into our liturgy goes to show that all the hype about being Catholic is at the surface only.


Elias, the Village Idiot (not the Monk)


PS: Where can I find information on those Catholic dogmas Mr. Petrus mentions on this webpage?


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

Sharon,

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

Elias: There are a lot more observations like his. Just pick up any Roman Catholic theology book. Ignore what Byzantine Catholics sing at vespers. Ignore the fact that our ECF material and God With Us material is deficient in its Catholic teachings. Such 'fresh perspectives' is nothing new. It is the same tracts we had to learn by Latinized priests over and over for many years as we had to memorize the Baltimore Catechism. Elko-ism lives on. Why do we continue to give lip-service to equally valid approaches to the same faith? Have we not learned a darn thing? Why are we so scared of ourselves and our faith traditions? Why do we approach the gates of Eastern Theology and Tradition only to get on the Western bus heading elsewhere? It is not a refreshing thing when our valid traditions and liturgies are still kept from us. I am not arguing that the Roman Catholics are heretics. I am only pointing out what is obvious. We have never made an official adoption of such teachings in our liturgy - unless you know where in the General Menaion we sing to such dogmas. The teachings of the Ecumenical Councils is in there as well as in our Byzantine liturgies but not these 'fresh' Western dogmas. Is this not clear? Either I am wrong in my thinking or our bishops are wrong in not incorporating such teachings in their catechetical material, their liturgies, and their stichera. Shame on them! Shame on me! How HAS the church accepted dogma in the past? Can one accept dogma only on paper and not in the heart or in the liturgy? What role did St. Mark of Epesus play in the �equation of acceptance?� Has LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI been proven invalid or illicit with a new faith calculus?

HERE IS MY PERSONAL PLEA: PLEASE HELP ME GET A FRESH PERSPECTIVE LIKE OTHERS WHO HAVE FOUND THE TRUE FAITH. I AM BEGINNING TO GET AN INFERIORITY COMPLEX.


Please explain these formulas:

[Roman Catholic = Roman Catholic Dogmas]

[Byzantine Catholic = Orthodox faith + Roman Catholic Dogmas]

What is the difference between Orthodox faith and Roman Catholic Dogma? Does a divorce exist between the two? Is the Byzantine Rite a rite of the Roman Catholic Church or is it a rite of the Catholic Church?


Why not this:

[Catholic = Roman or Byzantine or Oriental (if orthodox)]

The Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches do not state that a rite is an �Orthodox faith enshrined in Catholic dogmas.�

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

Elias: Me neither, but I often wonder what all the hype is about returning to ancient venerable traditions and reclaiming proper Eastern patrimony? Maybe we're being fooled again like we were back when we were taught that being Catholic meant one had to act, think, believe and worship like Roman Catholics? Toss out those Eastern Traditions! Saw off those other two bars on the Cross! Rid of those vespers and matins and such! Don't want to be too Orthodox; we might blow our cover.


Elias, not the Monk

Elias,

I've just returned from a wonderful weekeend breathing the oxygen of Vespers, Matins, Akathist and Divine Liturgy. Would that it were not just a once in awhile luxury.

The Holy Father speaks of the Church breathing with both lungs. The West needs the "Orientale Lumen". Are we in the East so absolutely self-sufficient that we can gain no benefit from the West? I don't mean by doing violence to our own Traditions. Yes, too many of our parishes suffered from the Latinizations of the past, which need to be remedied. But just as I can gain a greater appreciation of my staple diet of Italian food by occasionally eating Chinese, so do I (**I**. Maybe NOBODY else.) gain a greater appreciation of my own valid Eastern Traditions by occasionally seeing what some holy source in the West has to say. It doesn't hurt me, or the Faith anymore than it hurts Italy that I also enjoy Hot and Sour soup every once in awhile.

Mebbe it would be different if growing up I'd had Won Ton soup forced down my throat, and had never actually tasted lasagna.

God give you peace,


Sharon
(who isn't at all Italian, or Chinese)

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


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

To Brother Maximos:

In my previous reply, I refrained from personal attacks; if inadvertently, a personal denouncement was noted a ask a thousand pardons.

I am attempting to propose an authentic Byzantine Catholic perspective; one that is free from polemics. I believe that polemical argumentation is fruitless. I will now attempt to further elucidate my points:

To Brother Elias (not the monk):

I will try to further explain my points:

1. Dogamatic thinking is not apophatic thinking. Perhaps it would be better to state that "To believe this is not heretical." But this dogmatic statement does not demonstrate the fullness of the theological point.

2. Your point about the epiclesis is a fruitful one for this discussion. I agree that the East never understood why one needed to determine the exact point of Transubstantiation. Much of Western theology is like this however. If you consider theology like a motion picture, a dogmatic statement is like one frame, the frame that highlights the very essence of that scene. It is not the whole scene and at some point in the future (the church continually grows in its understanding of the divine, we continually grow deeper in love as the bride of Christ), it could be replaced by another frame that is more perfect in its essence. The theology is pure, our language and comprehension is not. To further complicate our limitedness, we are separated from each other by language. Theological concepts translate with great difficulty from one language to another. (There are many who would point out that the filioque problem arises from the Easterners arguing from the Greek text, and the Westerners arguing from the Latin text). In addition, words have different meanings, depth, emotion between people. Take for example, you and me. We obviously look to the word DOGMA and arrive at different conclusions.

3. Now, with this construct in mind, let us look at the Immaculate Conception again. You will recall that the concept of the Theotokos was originally rejected since "the Virgin gave birth only to that which is capable of being born to a human." Theotokos however proclaims the birthgiver of God, as well. This resounds in the Liturgy of the Hours:
a. (Conception of St. Anne--"It is fitting that the unique and chosen woman be conceived without sin and the power of Satan is now taken away;for the Mother of God will never bow before him....It is fitting that the Second Eve be created and remain without sin...Before the nativity ofthe Son of God, it was fitting for the Father to bestow the most pure conception upon the Mother of God, who is betrothed to the Holy Spirit...Rejoice O Woman full of grace...Anne now conceives and gives birth to the pure virgin...
b. The concept of Immaculate Conception can be found in the other Marian feasts such as the Annunciation--"Hail, O Bride and Virgin ever-pure!..."
c. The concept of the Immaculate Conception is perhaps even more completely celebrated in the East. For example, the Presentation in the Temple can be construed as presenting the unblemished lamb, the perfect offering, to God. You will recall that this celebration comes from The Protoevangilum of St. James, not exactly part of the accepted Canon of any Christian church.

4. In regard to catechetical teaching: in order to understand the Eastern faith one must turn to its catechism which is The Liturgy of the Hours. (see paragraph 96 of the Liturgical Instructions).

5. Now, let us turn to the Pope. Each Eastern Catholic church (not just the byzantines) commemorate the Pope: the supreme pontiff John Paul II the Pope of Rome in every divine liturgy. Imbedded within this concept of "supreme" is one who has the fullness of authority. This contains both the concept of primacy and infallibility. If the Pope is supreme, he can speak with the voice of Jesus Christ just as if an ecumenical council is supreme, it can speak with the voice of Jesus Christ. (Just an aside, is an ecumenical council supreme? If so, what happened at the Council of Florence?)

6. As a Byzantine Catholic, I accept the Pope as supreme pontiff. If I did not I would not be Catholic. Am I comfortable with the church's understanding of papal primacy/infallibility? No, but neither is the Pope (see Ut Unum Sint).

7. So then:
a. Is the Byzantine Catholic church dogmatic? I would say yes, the dogma is imbedded in the faith the way one frame is imbedded in a movie.

b. Is the dogma of the church found within the catechism of the Byzantine church? It is found in the Catechism (big C) which is the Liturgy of the Hours.

c. Is the dogma of the church taught as the catechism of the church? No. That is not the way we perceive God.

d. Can dogmatic theology be instructive to Eastern Christians? In my mind, any opportunity to look at God from a fresh perspective opens the door for a fuller life in the Trinity. Like the rosary, it may not be for everybody, but it may be joyous for many.

8. What then is unique about Eastern Catholics compared to their Orthodox counterparts? It is simply this: we are bilingual in the language of worship. We attempt to perceive everything that the East teaches, we attempt to perceive everything that the West teaches. We attempt to see "with both eyes" or better yet "to breathe with both lungs." We are very grateful for the fruits of the last 10 years for we are just now beginning to know ourselves.

9. A closing thought: After all of this, I think I need to change my bumper sticker to:

Catholic by Dogma, Orthodox by Faith

This seems more accurate. What do you think?

A humble sojourner;

John

P.S. Sorry for the length of this response

Dear John,

"b. Is the dogma of the church found within the catechism of the Byzantine church? It is found in the Catechism (big C) which is the Liturgy of the Hours."

Are you saying that when we commemorate the pope in the offices we are expressing faith in the doctrine of Vatican I, in the same way that our hymns on August 15 express faith in the Dormition of the Mother of God?

If that is what you are saying, I personally find it difficult to accept. It seems to me that all we do is acknowledge our communion with pope, leaving the question of the content of his ministry to be described outside the liturgical life. If so, I think Elias question still remains: can Eastern Christians legitimately put on the same level those dogmas enshrined in their worship with those proclaimed in some other way?

I agree, by the way, with what you say about what the Latin Church calls the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I have always thought the two theological languages simply use different gramatical devices to point to the same reality: namely the absolute human perfection of the Mother of God, mirroring the more-than-human perfection of her Son.

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

Dear Brother Maximos:

That is exactly what is imprinted on our faith. If you consider the commemorations they are in order of hierarchy; supreme pontiff, patriarch (if there is one), metropolitan, bishop, priests, and deacons. This is more than a hierarchy of honor, it is one of obedience if you will. The supreme pontiff, for example, has the final authority even for the Eastern Catholic churches. Take for example our Code of Canon Law. Despite the fact that it was the work of numerous committees, etc. it was not promulgated until it received the blessing of the Pope.
Many in the East (i.e. non-Catholics)would consider this unacceptable as being a violation of the collegiality that exists among bishops. Catholics would maintain that this is the natural conclusion to this hierarchy of obedience. The dynamic link of the church universal is the papal chair. The Romans, Byzantines, Copts, Melkites, Maronites, etc. are thus linked in this mystical body to each other through the papal chair. This is our faith.
In a sense there is no dissent between the Orthodox and the Catholic on one point. As I mentioned previously, ultimate authority within the church resides at its supreme level; for the Orthodox--the college of bishops, for Catholics--the Pope.

To Elias' (not the monk) defense, I will add that perhaps I have been tainted by Western influence. But it is not the Roman church (at least not directly). Rather, it is the structure of secular society that reflects the greatest strength of this vertical organizational structure. It is the structure of our government and virtually every successful social, and business organization. Even the Patriarchal Orthodox churches seem to defer leadership authority to the Patriarch.

And finally in your defense good brother, all of us are uncomfortable with the concept of papal infallibility. Does infallibility naturally follow from this hierarchy of authority? I tried to put the best spin on this concept in my previous posting. I can offer no other.

A humble sojourner;

John

>>>I agree, by the way, with what you say about what the Latin Church calls

the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I have always thought the two

theological languages simply use different gramatical devices to point

to the same reality: namely the absolute human perfection of the Mother

of God, mirroring the more-than-human perfection of her Son.<<<



I agree entirely with you, Father. Moreover, I believe your statement represents the consensus among both Orthodox and Catholic theologians, including Pope John Paul II, who has consistently emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the underlying truth of doctrine, and the culturally, historically, and linguistically conditioned EXPRESSIONS of doctrine which, though they may appear contradictory, actually bear witness to the same Apostolic faith.



That said, I believe that this approach runs up against the formidable barrier of popular piety and the desire for creedal certitude on the part of sincere, ordinary believers (and a good many of the lower clergy, too). Within the Catholic Church, the most common approach taken by such people (both Romans and many Easterners) is that one is Catholic by professing and believing specific dogmatic formulations precisely as they are "defined" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other so-called magisterial documents. This in turn generates a reciprocal response from ordinary Orthodox believers, who take these assertions at face value, stating that communion with Rome MUST require one to subscribe in the most literal manner to various Latin doctrinal expressions which have been "dogmatically" affirmed. The result is a hardening of hearts which can only be overcome by a dedicated and prolonged effort at catechesis which must go beyond what Father Taft so charitably called "Mickey Mouse theology". I don't see that effort being made today, not in the Roman Church, not in the Orthodox Church, and not in our own Byzantine Catholic Churches.

>>>Take for example our Code of Canon Law. <<<



Yes, please do.



>>>>Despite the fact that it was the work of numerous committees, etc. it

was not promulgated until it received the blessing of the Pope.<<<



>>>Many in the East (i.e. non-Catholics)would consider this unacceptable as

being a violation of the collegiality that exists among bishops.<<<



Many in the East, including Eastern Catholics, agree with our Orthodox bretheren.

I would note that there were numerous Eastern Catholic hierarchs and theologians who objected to the CCEO both in its form, its content, and the manner of its promulgation.



>>>The Romans, Byzantines, Copts, Melkites, Maronites, etc. are thus linked

in this mystical body to each other through the papal chair.<<<



But, strangely, not linked to each other, for it has been a long-standing policy of the Curia Romana to isolate each of the Eastern Catholic Churches from the others of its rite, creating a series of vertical stovepipes without any of the horizontal communion of particular Churches that typifies Orthodox concilliarity. And, it must be pointed out, that until quite recently in our history, that vertical communion was very much one-way, with Eastern Catholics encouraged to receive communion from Latin priests, and Latin Catholics prohibited from receiving communion at the hands of Eastern Catholic ministers. Hmmmmm.



>>>But it is not the Roman church (at least not directly). Rather, it is

the structure of secular society that reflects the greatest strength of

this vertical organizational structure.<<<



Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Modern secular society, its forms and its mindsets, are essentially offshoots of the Medieival Latin Church, its bastard children, so to speak. Which is why I have very little confidence in the ability of Western Christianity to overcome the secular challenge by its own resources.

Dear John and others,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"And finally in your defense good brother, all of us are uncomfortable with the concept of papal infallibility. Does infallibility naturally follow from this hierarchy of authority? I tried to put the best spin on this concept in my previous posting. I can offer no other."

Strangely enough, I actually have far less difficulty wrapping my stupid little head around papal *infallibility* than I do understanding papal *juridsiction* that is "universal" and "ordinary" (especially the "ordinary" bit!). I see more problems there for Church unity, mainly because infallibility is a charism that is invoked hardly at all, whereas jurisdiction is a matter of daily significance.

In Christ,
unworthy monk Maximos

[This message has been edited by Br Maximos (edited 07-30-2000).]

John Petrus,

I apologize to you and others for two reasons:

First, for giving the impression that I have personal antipathy towards you. I have never met you. I only wish to comment on what you write. It is not your person but your words and thoughts I wish to deal with. If we ever meet, I will be honored to buy you your favorite adult beverage and compare notes of our spiritual journeys.

Second, for writing too long of a commentary. I only wish to show respect to your words � even though I don�t agree with much of what you say. I do take your words seriously because I heard all of these arguments before while doing the Baltimore Catechism thang.

Here it goes�����.

�I am attempting to propose an authentic Byzantine Catholic perspective; one that is free from polemics. I believe that polemical argumentation is fruitless.�

Elias: �Authentic� BC perspective? Why is clarifying what Byzantine Catholics really pray is �polemics� but regurgitating Roman Catholic dogmas with a Byzantine �twist� is called �authentic?�

�1. Dogamatic thinking is not apophatic thinking. Perhaps it would be better to state that "To believe this is not heretical." But this dogmatic statement does not demonstrate the fullness of the theological point.�

Elias: Then don�t refer to dogma as �negative� theology. Why believe in it anyways? Is belief in a dogma an option? It is either mandatory or it is not. But you choose to believe in it since it is not �heretical.�

�2. Your point about the epiclesis is a fruitful one for this discussion. I agree that the East never understood why one needed to determine the exact point of Transubstantiation. Much of Western theology is like this however.�

Elias: One didn�t HAVE to understand why, it just wasn�t an issue. Period. Why do you think the West is so hyped up on knowing WHEN and HOW? Should we be concerned? Please not that I never mentioned the epiclesis. You did. Even the Eastern Church Fathers were not in agreement on WHEN the change took place. The Transubstantiation was a Western hype followed by the Easterners picking something else as �consecratory.�

�If you consider theology like a motion picture, a dogmatic statement is like one frame, the frame that highlights the very essence of that scene. It is not the whole scene and at some point in the future (the church continually grows in its understanding of the divine, we continually grow deeper in love as the bride of Christ), it could be replaced by another frame that is more perfect in its essence.�

Elias: This reminds me of the �acorn analogy.�

�The theology is pure, our language and comprehension is not. To further complicate our limitedness, we are separated from each other by language. Theological concepts translate with great difficulty from one language to another.�

Elias: That is why the Latins have dumped the �textus receptus� and why many Western biblical scholars are basing their exegesis on the LXX.

�(There are many who would point out that the filioque problem arises from the Easterners arguing from the Greek text, and the Westerners arguing from the Latin text).�

Elias: What text are you referring to? Please note that your bishop, along with the other Byzantine Catholic bishops, got rid of the filioque clause. It wasn�t supposed to be in the Creed in the first place. Along with the other dogmas you espouse, the Liturgy of the Hours is returning to a happier balance where we don�t pray or sing our theology (LEX ORANDI) discombobulated from our beliefs (LEX CREDENDI). No more May Crownings; no more �Immaculate Mary� songs; no more Filioques; no more falsies.

�In addition, words have different meanings, depth, emotion between people. Take for example, you and me. We obviously look to the word DOGMA and arrive at different conclusions.�

Elias: No. Your predispositions forces you to take Roman Catholic dogmas and work in Eastern thinking � dogmatic eisegesis.

�3. Now, with this construct in mind, let us look at the Immaculate Conception again.�

Elias: You mean �St. Anne�s Conception.� If we are to use the Liturgy of the Hours as our catechism (your rule), I would then advise that you, as a Byzantine Catholic, refer to the Feast by its rightful name along with your bishops who accept the Typicon published by Fr. David Petras. The IC, though, is a �mental construct� just like you stated.

�You will recall that the concept of the Theotokos was originally rejected since "the Virgin gave birth only to that which is capable of being born to a human." Theotokos however proclaims the birthgiver of God, as well. This resounds in the Liturgy of the Hours:�

Elias: The �Theotokos� WAS accepted by the orthodox. Who did the rejecting? �Theotokos� became imbedded in our liturgies. Everywhere! It has to do with our salvation. What exactly does the IC have to do with our salvation? What does the Assumption have to do with our salvation?

�a. (Conception of St. Anne--"It is fitting that the unique and chosen woman be conceived without sin and the power of Satan is now taken away;for the Mother of God will never bow before him....It is fitting that the Second Eve be created and remain without sin...Before the nativity ofthe Son of God, it was fitting for the Father to bestow the most pure conception upon the Mother of God, who is betrothed to the Holy Spirit...Rejoice O Woman full of grace...Anne now conceives and gives birth to the pure virgin...�

Elias: Sin, according to the Easterns is the natural result of the Fall; it is death. Being freed from sin means one will not taste death. Mary did not die, she just �fell asleep.� The Latins, like yourself, concentrate on the person of Mary. Her �body� was immune from inherent guilt and was eventually �bodily� assumed into heaven. The East refrains from making dogmas on Mary�s person unless it is directly related to the person of Christ. The title �Theotokos� was a result of a Christological controversy. For those Uniates who NEED to adopt the Immaculate Conception dogma to feel more Catholic, their church adopted Marian hymns (from the West) to fill the void of missing stichera. The East�s use of �pure� is related to her conception as much as her �virginity.� Every female newborn is a virgin � unless you are a sicko.

�b. The concept of Immaculate Conception can be found in the other Marian feasts such as the Annunciation--"Hail, O Bride and Virgin ever-pure!..."

Elias: Look out! The IC dogma is everywhere! The Ruthenian Catholic Church uses �Maiden� and not �Virgin.� Women who receive communion are referred to as �maidens� too by the cleric giving communion. Does this mean every woman was an Immaculate Conception or a Virgin?

�c. The concept of the Immaculate Conception is perhaps even more completely celebrated in the East. For example, the Presentation in the Temple can be construed as presenting the unblemished lamb, the perfect offering, to God. You will recall that this celebration comes from The Protoevangilum of St. James, not exactly part of the accepted Canon of any Christian church.�

Elias: Completely celebrated? I don�t get it. The Protoevangilium of James WAS part of the Byzantine Canon of scriptures. Where do you think we got the Feast from? How do we know that Joachim and Anna were Mary�s parents? You are reading BACK the Vatican I dogma into everything of the past. The Romans do the same with the dogma of Papal Infallibility!

�4. In regard to catechetical teaching: in order to understand the Eastern faith one must turn to its catechism which is The Liturgy of the Hours. (see paragraph 96 of the Liturgical Instructions).�

Elias: Exactly! So where did the Eastern Catholics adopt the Immaculate Conception dogma it its Hours after the dogma was proclaimed by Rome? Don�t give me that �Ever-pure� stuff; that was there for centuries.

�5. Now, let us turn to the Pope. Each Eastern Catholic church (not just the byzantines) commemorate the Pope: the supreme pontiff John Paul II the Pope of Rome in every divine liturgy.�

Elias: You have never been to a Melkite liturgy. Anyways, we also �commemorate� our Metropolitan and our bishop. The Slavs cover everyone. Do we really use the word �supreme� in our liturgies? If we do, wouldn�t it be redundant when added to �Pontiff?� Like when some say �big huge.�

�Imbedded within this concept of "supreme" is one who has the fullness of authority. This contains both the concept of primacy and infallibility. If the Pope is supreme, he can speak with the voice of Jesus Christ just as if an ecumenical council is supreme, it can speak with the voice of Jesus Christ.�

Elias: It�s getting deep here. Help! I can�t breathe!

�(Just an aside, is an ecumenical council supreme? If so, what happened at the Council of Florence?)�

Elias: Florence was not an Ecumenical Council. It was rejected by the Eastern Christians and the episcopal signatores rescinded their names to the Union when they returned to their homes. Why do we still commemorate the Seven Ecumenical Councils in our liturgy (read: our catechism) and not the other General Councils of the West? Does the �argument from silence� tell you something?

�6. As a Byzantine Catholic, I accept the Pope as supreme pontiff. If I did not I would not be Catholic.�

Elias: Huh? You mean the ONLY thing that makes you a Catholic (your �True-Believer�) is the acceptance of the Pope as supreme pontiff? Why is this NOT in our Creed?

�Am I comfortable with the church's understanding of papal primacy/infallibility? No, but neither is the Pope (see Ut Unum Sint).�

Elias: Huh?

�d. Can dogmatic theology be instructive to Eastern Christians? In my mind, any opportunity to look at God from a fresh perspective opens the door for a fuller life in the Trinity. Like the rosary, it may not be for everybody, but it may be joyous for many.

Elias: You haven�t defined what this �freshness� is all about. Did you know that �Hail, O Bride and MAIDEN Ever-Pure� comes from the Akathist Hymn? O! I forgot. You�ve been too busy praying the rosary to have noticed.

8. What then is unique about Eastern Catholics compared to their Orthodox counterparts? It is simply this: we are bilingual in the language of worship. We attempt to perceive everything that the East teaches, we attempt to perceive everything that the West teaches. We attempt to see "with both eyes" or better yet "to breathe with both lungs." We are very grateful for the fruits of the last 10 years for we are just now beginning to know ourselves.

Elias: Is hybridism what the Pope means? Many Latinizers in the past believed so. Bishop Boulten said our mission as Eastern Catholics is to DISAPPEAR. What does this mean, Mr. Petrus? Disappear into what? Being a uniate-hybrid has perpetuated the myth for too long. Which way should we be going?

9. A closing thought: After all of this, I think I need to change my bumper sticker to:
Catholic by Dogma, Orthodox by Faith
This seems more accurate. What do you think?

Elias: I give up! My head is beginning to hurt.


Elias, the Ninny (not the Monk)

Sharon,

�Mebbe it would be different if growing up I'd had Won Ton soup forced down my throat, and had never actually tasted lasagna.�

Elias: We are still having Won Ton forced down our throat. BTW, I love Won Ton. I eat Chinese food a lot. I have also had my hand in making Thai dishes too. But for the sake of our analogy, I will note this: In the menu selection, we have several choices at the �food-court� of theology. Either we buy and eat Chinese, Italian, American (whatever that is), or have Greek. Yes, we can eat a little of each. But then our presentation looks funny, a complete mess with competing odors. Some try to buy excellent Greek food only to smother it with Italian meatballs and sauce. Mix too much a variety you may get sick; hard for the stomach to comprehend in tandem with the taste buds. I will not say that any food is better or supreme. They all nourish. Now, I just stated earlier in my post that I eat other dishes. This is to �compliment� my Occidental tastes with something more �refreshing.� Maybe this is what our John Petrus and the Pope means? The Pope does mention that there are other theologies which better explains a certain truth. I agree. There is also much in the West which we Easterners have ignored (and sometimes to our detriment).

My point is this: It is not the �complimentary freshness� which I have a �beef� with (no food-pun intended), but it is the need of some to top-off every dish with �Italian meatballs and sauce� (my food analogy for Latin theology). Why supplement every Eastern theology with Augustinian sauce? It�s like those people who have to put ketchup on everything to make it taste �right.� There is absolutely no reason why we can�t retain our dish of theology while remaining in communion with Rome. We do need each other.

Darn! Now you got me hungry!

Elias, a very hungry Ninny (after writing this message)

To Elias:

I still don't understand your disagreement with the Roman church. It seems to be more of an emotional response than a theological one.

You seem to think that I condone the Latin intrusions into our theological tradition. I do not. What I do condone is seeing what is universal in the universal church. When I use the illustration of bilingualism, that does not imply a merging of the two. I am not condoning a hybrid liturgy. We Byzantine Catholics finally understand this point. It was not Rome's fault either. It was the fault of our own bishops and priests.

The Protoevangelium is part of the church's tradition but not its canon.

What makes you think I pray the rosary? I don't but I don't see anything wrong with it either. Believe it or not, I know many orthodox who do. I also know Hindus who pray the psalms, Romans who practice the Jesus prayer. I applaud all of them. I feel closer to them then those who simply go through the motions of the Eastern tradition.

The removal of the filioque from the creed in the Eastern churches was done for traditional and ecumenical reasons, not for theological ones. The theology of the filioque was explained by the West at the Council of Trent (I know, I know you don't recognize this one either.) Most orthodox theologians don't really see the filioque as a significant impediment to unity.

I believe that I have shown how "Catholic dogma" is imbedded in our tradition and even predates the proclamation of these dogmas. The only true impediment to unity is papal primacy and infallibility. Therefore, since I recognize the Pope as supreme, I am Catholic. I believe everything the East teaches, I believe in the relation between the churches as shown in the first millenium. But I also believe that the second thousand years had something to teach. I also believe that there can be deepening of the faith of the church over time. I therefore believe that the liturgy can grow and evolve to make it an even more authentic witness of Mystery. (This last point doesn't mean the simple adoption of another's customs or ideology.)

To Brother Maximos:

Do you believe that a church can function sui iuris? Is it essential for a hierarchy to be able to intervene to preserve authenticity and unity among the various churches? I think the answer is yes to both.

To Stuart:

Do you really see a horizontal relationship among the various Eastern non-Catholic churches? They seem to be very separate and independent to me. This seems strange to me. For me, the orthodox would have a point if there was an American Orthodox church instead of the various ethnic enclaves intermingled throughout the land.

True to the East by trying to understand the West:

A humble sojourner;

John

John Petrus,

I wish to comment further on your words.


You wrote:

�I still don't understand your disagreement with the Roman church. It seems to be more of an emotional response than a theological one.�

Elias: I am a Byzantine �Catholic.� My comments on Roman theology is not a personal attack on the Roman Church. If you haven�t carefully read my recent posts, you will see the issue I raise is the relentless pursuit of some Eastern Catholics to defend a theology (LEX CREDENDI) which is not really practiced (LEX ORANDI). I can appreciate Western Trinitarian theology on its own premises. I cannot appreciate a synthetic or ecclectic system of theological expressions. There is nothing uglier than a good train of thought from true negative or apophatic theology to be finished off with a heavy dose of Augustinian-Aristotelian conclusions. And why is it when someone defends Eastern Theology it is called an �emotional response?� But when a Byzantine Catholic puts on Roman dogmas it is called �theological?� Can Byzantine Christians ever explain their faith without being called a bag of emotions? It is not a matter of �feelings.� If it was, we would all be New Age pantheists touting individualistic orthodoxies subject to our pathetic and limited cognitions. It will take a lot to hurt MY feelings. I have been called everything in the book for my stance on Eastern Theology, but their name-calling is like water that runs down the back of a duck�s feathers.

�You seem to think that I condone the Latin intrusions into our theological tradition. I do not.

Elias: Please explain what you mean by �Catholic by Faith, Orthodox by Dogma?� I don�t know what the bumper sticker is today; you already changed it a few times on me. Maybe it is �Orthodox by Faith, Catholic by Dogma?� Then again, you wrote that it was the Pope thing and the IC which makes you Catholic while you are actually Orthodox in all other areas. What is your position today? We need to clean up what this bumper-sticker is to say.

�What I do condone is seeing what is universal in the universal church. When I use the illustration of bilingualism, that does not imply a merging of the two. I am not condoning a hybrid liturgy. We Byzantine Catholics finally understand this point.�

Elias: I am not sure ALL Byzantine Catholics finally understand this point.

�It was not Rome's fault either. It was the fault of our own bishops and priests.�

Elias: BINGO!!!!!!!! (Sorry for the Latin intrusion) You are darn right!!!

�The Protoevangelium is part of the church's tradition but not its canon.�

Elias: The Apocalypse of John is a part of our canon (they twisted our arm) but not a part of our church�s tradition or lectionary. It is never read in church. If something is officially a part of a canon but never read or chanted at our liturgies, then how does LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI apply hear? The Proto-Gospel of James is not a part of the canon but is sung in our churches and has several feast days to boot! Here, LEX ORANDI applies AND Lex CREDENDI, but is non-canonical. Hmmmm? These things only make sense after having a few brews.

�What makes you think I pray the rosary? I don't but I don't see anything wrong with it either. Believe it or not, I know many orthodox who do. I also know Hindus who pray the psalms, Romans who practice the Jesus prayer. I applaud all of them.�

Elias: I know priests who still refuse to do vespers, matins, etc. or anything else that is a part of their LEX ORANDI. I do NOT applaud them. I know Roman Catholic priests who are bi-ritualists who do EVERYTHING in the book � and then some! I applaud them.

�I feel closer to them then those who simply go through the motions of the Eastern tradition.�

Elias: I believe you mean �emotions.� I know some priests who made it a point that fancy temples were not necessary and that celebrating the eucharist in a garage would be fine. Why are the Hindu people, the Roman Catholic people,, and the Orthodox the only ones who can earn your applause while those Eastern Catholics who do Eastern things in Eastern ways considered only going through the �motions?� How can you judge others whether they are authentically living as o/Orthodox Christians? Is it impossible to be Orthodox as a Byzantine Catholic? Are Byzantine Catholics only fakes, never able to authentically live and teach Orthodox Christianity?

�The removal of the filioque from the creed in the Eastern churches was done for traditional and ecumenical reasons, not for theological ones.�

Elias: So we Byzantines change only for traditional and/or ecumenical reasons? This line of thought suggest that Byzantine Catholics are incapable of changing for theological reasons. So the Unia was not done for theological reasons? It was merely a political/social/economic watershed of a bunch of Orthodox Christians gone mad? It was a result of (e)motions only? We are theologically impotent? Yet many say they, as Byzantine Catholics, �BELIEVE IN THE POPE.� Isn�t �belief� something we give to God and not man? Yet they seemingly believe in the Pope; and this suggest a theological reason behind their being Catholic. So Byzantine Catholics are quite capable of giving theological reasons for doing what they do; though many have grown up on a �us-versus-them� policy. How sad.

�The theology of the filioque was explained by the West at the Council of Trent (I know, I know you don't recognize this one either.) Most orthodox theologians don't really see the filioque as a significant impediment to unity.�

Elias: All that explanation still didn�t prevent the Filioque from being removed from our Creed by our bishops. LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI rules!!!

�I believe that I have shown how "Catholic dogma" is imbedded in our tradition and even predates the proclamation of these dogmas.�

Elias: Acorn theology again? The Protestants also see �sola scriptura� predating the First Ecumenical Council.

�The only true impediment to unity is papal primacy and infallibility.�

Elias: The Pope is an �impediment to unity?� Has anyone told the Pope? You stated earlier that you believe in papal primacy, thus making you an accomplice in keeping that impediment alive. Zoghby did state we are all schismatics.

�Therefore, since I recognize the Pope as supreme, I am Catholic.�

Elias: Where do we as Byzantine Catholics us the word �supreme� in referring to this impediment? Is belief in the Pope a dogma? Why is the role of the Roman bishop always enshrined in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and not in dogma?

�I believe everything the East teaches, I believe in the relation between the churches as shown in the first millenium.

Elias: But this First Millenium church relations does not support your Papal Supremacy Catholicism! You are confusing me. Darn! Are you making a Profession of Faith as did Archbishop Elias Zoghby with conditions on the understanding of the Pope�s role? I can�t follow your logic, John. Help me here. Either you subscribe to a First Millenium papacy or you don't; but not BOTH, including a Vatican I understanding.

�But I also believe that the second thousand years had something to teach.�

Elias: Like what? You mentioned critical theology in one of your other posts. Can you explain this one? I was born and bred on critical theology; I bathed in it and I slept with it. I know its cousins and its pet dogs. Tell me what YOU know. Feel free to start a new thread. I have a lot of shell-shock and battle wounds from those days. But I still kept my faith. Alleluiah!!!

�I also believe that there can be deepening of the faith of the church over time. I therefore believe that the liturgy can grow and evolve to make it an even more authentic witness of Mystery. (This last point doesn't mean the simple adoption of another's customs or ideology.)�

Elias: Oooohhhhh, but your last sentence WAS the heritage of Byzantine Catholicism in America. What can YOU do to prevent non-organic changes?


Elias, the Ninny (not the Monk)



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 08-01-2000).]

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Since dogmatically, on paper, Orthodoxy IS Catholicism in circa-1000, Greek form, maybe it�s redundant to proclaim �Orthodox in faith, Catholic in dogma� (kind of like wearing a T-shirt saying �New Jerseyan by birth, American by law�... what�s the point?), unless one holds that the East is lacking and that you must accept the theological methods of the Roman Church to be really Catholic. (In which case the bumper-sticker slogan means �Eastern on the outside, Roman on the inside�, which is not what the Eastern Catholics are supposed to be about.) The �West is best� mentality is the real reason for the Schism.

http://oldworldrus.com

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 08-01-2000).]