www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, & Papal Infallibility

Dear Joe,

It is true what you say, but the truth behind the Immaculate Conception, that the Mother of the Word was conceived in holiness, is strewn throughout our liturgical heritage.

Faith and worship come together in the Typicon, our faith is evidenced by our worship, which is something that isn't as developed in other traditions.

For example, if I was a Roman Catholic who believed, before the nineteenth century, that the Mother of God was conceived in Original Sin, as understood by Augustinianism, then I could not really pray the Byzantine Office meaningfully.

That there even is a Feast of the Conception of St Anne points to the holiness of the Virgin from the very beginning. More telling is the fact that we celebrate Her Nativity, since only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated.

Alex

So you don't think that praying springs from at least an already implicit belief? Interesting.

By the way, my question also address NON-liturgical prayer.

Prayer and belief are one and the same. Neither precedes the other. If you don't pray, then you have no belief. If you don't believe, then you have no prayer.

Where did the idea of dichotomy come from?

Seems like some silly adolescent's perspective on 'scholastic theology' that completely ignores theological method.

I have a headache.

Blessings!

Regarding episcopal elections, my understanding is that, as a face-saving measure, the local Eastern Catholic Churches are permitted to "vet" a rolling list of candidates for episcopal appointments with the Vatican ahead of time. Once that list has been vetted by the Roman regulatory bodies, the local church then can pick from among the vetted persons to fill a vacancy that arises in the episcopate. There is a major exception to this in the case of episcopal appointments "outside the home territory" of Eastern Catholic Churches, where the Bishops are directly appointed by Rome (for example, Melkite Bishop John (Elya) of Newton was directly appointed by Rome.

Ignatius,

I am sorry. You were right all along. Byzantine Catholics are a confused bunch of people who need your guidance to set them straight. We are actually Roman Catholic wannabees who adhere to all dogmas defined by papal infallibility. Lex orandi, lex credendi does not apply because we have so many implied dogmatic beliefs in our liturgical hymns, both public and private. If any of our hymns do not reflect 19th or 20th century Latin theology, then we should force them to reflect it.

You are correct and welcomed to come here anytime to admonish us in our tendency to Orthodox drift. We have ignored Vatican II, the Papal encyclicals, and the Instructions given to us and we have failed to look and feel and smell Catholic enough for you.

We Byzantine Catholics need to toe the line with an occasional lashing or two. We are inferior Catholics who have no right to our own liturgy, theology, spirituality or discipline. We are unequal to the Latin rite and feel unworthy to call ourselves Catholics in communion with Rome. We are under the direct jurisdictional authority of the Pope and have no need to protect the make-believe rights of our Patriarchs. Such things are myths.

Ridding the Filioque from the Creed was wrong and re-introducing St. Photius back into our liturgical calendar was, as Dr. Carroll put it once, a �mistake.� I am embarrassed by the actions of our bishops and the fact that our catechism fails to mention or teach the doctrines you mention. Infant communion has only introduced confusion and the suggestion of a married priesthood is an innovation. Vatican I was not �narrow� as Fr. Taft recently stated in one of his talks, but actually reflective of true Catholicism. Shame on those hundreds of bishops who left the council in protest, especially our own bishop!


Please forgive.


Joe



[This message has been edited by Joe Thur (edited 07-06-2001).]

>>>In what Churches does the inverse Rule of Faith "lex credendi, lex orandi" apply?<<<

The argument has been made, by Latin as well as Eastern theologians, that far from being the source and touchstone of theology, liturgy has for the last 900 years been distinct from and to an extent subordinate to an abstract, academic theology within Western Christianity. This can be seen today in how Eastern and Western Christians inculcate the faith, and the sources to which they turn in order to resolve questions. In the West, the tendency is to fall back upon formal catechisms, papal encyclicals, canon law, and various works of formal theology (e.g., Thomas' Summa). Very rarely, if at all, do you hear an argument made from the perspective of liturgy. And it has been so for some time. Schmemman notes in his "Introduction to Liturgical Theology" that divorce of theology from liturgy in the West began in the Middle Ages and proceeded apace, and that this trend can be seen in how Western theologians deal with the sacraments. Thus, in tenth or eleventh centuries, discussions of the sacraments invariably go back to the liturgical texts for their administration. Go forward several centuries to any medieval De Sacramentis, and you will be hard pressed to find any discussion of the liturgical setting of the sacraments at all--they are discussed through a series of abstract propositions using a structured analytical methodology mainly concerned with philosophical categories.

In the East, despite a 400 year intellectual captivity, the tendency is still to turn to liturgy first in any theological discussion: how does the Liturgy handle a particular subject? What to the Troparia and Kontakia say? What is the significance of the symbolism used in the administration of the sacraments? After liturgy, the Christian East tends to look to the Fathers, and the Fathers in their turn would look to Scripture and Liturgy, and interestingly enough, usually evaluate Scripture from a liturgical perspective, so that ultimately liturgy really is at the center of our life, the source and touchstone of our faith, the highest expression of that which the Church is and what the Church believes.

Wow, Joe Thur is obviously upset with me when he writes:
Ignatius,
I am sorry. You were right all along. Byzantine Catholics are a confused bunch of people who need your guidance to set them straight. We are actually Roman Catholic wannabees who adhere to all dogmas defined by papal infallibility.

I�m sorry, where did I state, let alone even imply that Byzantine Catholics are �a confused bunch of people� who need to be �set straight�? Or, even better, �Roman Catholic wannabees�?

I want citations from my posts, Joe. I seriously take this as an insult.

You better be able to back things up when you post such allegations.

Lex orandi, lex credendi does not apply because we have so many implied dogmatic beliefs in our liturgical hymns, both public and private. If any of our hymns do not reflect 19th or 20th century Latin theology, then we should force them to reflect it.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

I certainly didn�t say, or even infer, this position. I merely asked a question about the relationship between prayer and belief. You have yet to answer it. Don�t you think prayer comes from something already believed? The most obvious example I can think of is there would be no prayer if there weren�t at least an implicit belief in God.

Now if you want to go on record for the whole of Eastern Christendom and state the contrary that is fine. I would never do so for the Latin Church, but hey that�s your prerogative. Thanks for setting me straight on this.

You are correct and welcomed to come here anytime to admonish us in our tendency to Orthodox drift.

Again, I want examples!

You are obviously saying these things to insult me and show how unfeeling I am towards Eastern Catholics so you had better be prepared to back up this drivel you�re spouting with examples.

In all seriousness, Joe, if I had a glove I'd be smacking you across the face with it right now. Pistols at 40 paces.

We have ignored Vatican II, the Papal encyclicals, and the Instructions given to us and we have failed to look and feel and smell Catholic enough for you.

Joe, your ridiculous reaction to my very simple questions has only shown me that you somehow feel that communion with the Latin Church is bad for Eastern Catholics. So be it, I can�t change your opinion (although I certainly do not share it, nor do I think it has been bad for the Latin Church).

Perhaps you are actually thinking that you no longer �look and feel and smell� Eastern enough for yourself?

We Byzantine Catholics need to toe the line with an occasional lashing or two. We are inferior Catholics who have no right to our own liturgy, theology, spirituality or discipline. We are unequal to the Latin rite and feel unworthy to call ourselves Catholics in communion with Rome. We are under the direct jurisdictional authority of the Pope and have no need to protect the make-believe rights of our Patriarchs. Such things are myths.

Joe, this reaction is simply pathetic. Again, I want examples where I have even implied any such thing!

I guess it�s not OK for some stupid Latin to even ask a question about Eastern Theology (God forbid that they should request a clarification on something they don�t immediately understand) but you can go ahead and insult Latins at your whim. That certainly seems fair to me. Shall we now bring up how evil the Latin Church is for the Sack of Constantinople? That would have almost as much bearing on the conversation as your extended tantrum.

Ridding the Filioque from the Creed was wrong and re-introducing St. Photius back into our liturgical calendar was, as Dr. Carroll put it once, a �mistake.�

Thank God we have shuffled out the Evil Dr. Carroll for all the world to see as an example of how horrible the Latin Church is. My God, this man is a veritable monster! Let�s take Joe�s problems with one man and then psychologically project them onto every one who doesn�t believe exactly the same thing the good Mr. Thur does.

I am embarrassed by the actions of our bishops and the fact that our catechism fails to mention or teach the doctrines you mention.

I�m embarrassed for you Joe. You obviously have an axe to grind with me for some reason, but I have failed to give me any reason why. Curse my stupid Latin mind for needing a reason for things.

Infant communion has only introduced confusion and the suggestion of a married priesthood is an innovation.

Straw men that have no bearing whatsoever to these postings. Nor have I ever even insinuated such things in any of my postings (although apparently such a reality is immaterial to you).

I would so appreciate it if you would actually answer my original but I am not holding my breath.

Vatican I was not �narrow� as Fr. Taft recently stated in one of his talks, but actually reflective of true Catholicism. Shame on those hundreds of bishops who left the council in protest, especially our own bishop!

Ahh, the problem is becoming clearer. Your real problem is with your own bishops who have �sold out� once again to the Latin Church. They didn�t have the kidney to break communion over Papal Infallibility and you�ve been suffering ever since. Yes, those spineless cowards have really done a number on your Church, as has the Pope. I say hangings too good for the lot of them! The Pope and the bishops who remain in communion with him should all be burned at the stake. That way Joe could get a good night's sleep.

Please forgive.

Joe

Such an easy way to end a posting after denigrating me and, I would hazard to say, many of the members of the Latin Church. And obviously so heartfelt. No matter that you never addressed the issue at hand.

Yes we forgive you Joe, and I weep and gnash my teeth at ever even thinking you could answer my simple question.

Ignatius,

My post was also meant for Greg.

You definitely have no taste for satire. But your statement about slapping people and about pistols concerns me.

Joe


[This message has been edited by Joe Thur (edited 07-06-2001).]

No Joe, your post was addressed solely to me.

I take what you said as a serious insult. What is more, you can't even address a simple question I had, instead you go on a tirade about how bad the Latin Church is and how cowardly your own bishops are. Pathetic.

Joe states: "We are under the direct jurisdictional authority of the Pope and have no need to protect the make-believe rights of our Patriarchs. Such things are myths."

Actually, this is the truth. Byzantine Catholics are under the direct jurisdictional authority of the Pope. Eastern patriarchs are not on equal footing with the Pope.

This is what I don't understand: There are many BC's on this Forum who want to be in union with Rome, yet reject papal infallibility with all their might. Why? Why not become Orthodox and pray for unity someday? This "type" of Byzantine Catholicism is really Byzantine Protestantism: I can pick and choose which dogmas I will adhere to. Or, a Mr. Potato Head Byzantine Catholicism.

Greg

Joe states: "We are under the direct jurisdictional authority of the Pope and have no need to protect the make-believe rights of our Patriarchs. Such things are myths."

Actually, this is the truth. Byzantine Catholics are under the direct jurisdictional authority of the Pope. Eastern patriarchs are not on equal footing with the Pope.

Eastern Patriarchs aren't one an equal footing with the Pope. But they ARE on an equal footing with the Western Patriarch. They have as much authority over their Churches as the Pope has over the Latin Church. But the Pope is the visible head of the universal Church and, as such, "outranks" any Patriarch of a particular Church.

"Regarding episcopal elections, my understanding is that, as a face-saving measure, the local Eastern Catholic Churches are ..."

Actually, you misunderstand. The description is not accruate.

Olga

Olga --

Here's what the applicable canon law provides:

Canon 181

1. Bishops inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal
Church are nominated to a vacant see or to fulfill another func-
tion by canonical election according to the norms of cann.
947-957, unless otherwise provided in common law. 2. Other
bishops are appointed by the Roman Pontiff without prejudice to
cann. 149 and 168.

Canon 182

1. Candidates suitable for the episcopate can be proposed only
by members of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church who
can, according to the norm of particular law, collect information
and documents which are necessary to establish the suitability of
the candidates, hearing, if they think it appropriate, secretly
and individually, certain presbyters or also other Christian
faithful outstanding in prudence and Christian life. 2. The
bishops are to report their findings to the patriarch at a suit-
able time prior to the convocation of the synod of bishops of the
patriarchal Church. The patriarch, if the case warrants it, ad-
ding his own additional information, transmits the matter to all
the members of the synod. 3. Unless particular law approved by
the Roman Pontiff states otherwise, the synod of bishops of the
patriarchal Church is to examine the names of the candidates and
compile a list of the candidates by secret ballot, which is to be
transmitted through the patriarch to the Apostolic See to obtain
the assent of the Roman Pontiff. 4. The assent of the Roman
Pontiff once given for an individual candidate is valid until it
has been explicitly revoked, in which case the name of the candi-
date is to be removed from the list.

Brendan

Stuart,

You are correct. I just listened to a tape of Fr. Taft's talk on Eastern Theology and he states the rhetorical question (not in the exact words): how often do we hear the West quoting their liturgical texts in theology? Yes, there is a totally different approach. It is no wonder why some may search in vain for "implied" dogmas and philosophical categories in our liturgy. Lex orandi, lex credendi is quite foreign to some in the West.

The approach to our papers in our deacon Sacraments class is to be based on lex orandi, lex credendi. Why not? How can one do liturgical theology if that theology is not present in the liturgy? I like this approach; it is Eastern and keeps one sober.

Our Twelve major feasts are tied to the scriptures - even the non-canonical ones. The feasts in the West have become more dogmatic in nature. The East bases its approach on salvation history; the West emphasises the ontology of one's person. No wonder why feasts of Our Lord can become less important than feasts of dogmas defined by papal infallibility.

Joe

Brendan,

Exactly. Nothing in canon law about "face-saving", nothing to suggest is it a procedure that is "permitted" rather than normal and standard. Nothing which states it is a "vetting", nothing which suggest the appointment is by the Vatican rather than the Synod. In esssnse quite a different story.

And lastly, considering some of the regretable methods Catholic and Orthodox bishops have been selected by in the past, nothing that is a point of that need to obstruct ecumenism except for those looking for ways to obstruct ecumenism.


Olga


[This message has been edited by Olga Nimchek (edited 07-06-2001).]