www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News "Luther" movie

PaxT,

I last stated to ZoeTheodora that I had nothing more to say about this Purgatory debate. But I feel that I must respond to your charges. You are definitely out of line and a 'hostile guest' on these forums.

Do you wish to declare anathema to the Melkite bishops too? Read the following from Melkite Bishop John Samra (1996):

- - - - - - -

Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

- - - - - - -

What part of the Zoghby statement above do you not understand? (Note: Zoghby attended Vatican II)

Guess who the two other bishops were who didn't go along with their patriarch?

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches has this as Canon 28.1:

"A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui juris."

Which part of that canon do you wish to deny us?

The 5th article of Union (Brest) states:

"We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church."

Of course, we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church. We, as Eastern Catholics, cannot declare Latin Catholics as heretics as easily as PT does against me. We ALL make up that Holy Church. It is not of our theology, but we wish not to declare that it is heresy. In turn, the Latin West, especially in recent declarations will not declare our particular theologies heresy. We still don't teach it in our particular catechisms.

My analogy of the diverse theologies of the Gospel authors only goes to show that the Church CAN accept what seems to be contradictions. Any person who is a serious biblical scholar cannot, without chuckling, declare that contradictions imply errors or falsehood. Those who do do not approach the Scriptures with a biblical mind. The problem with contradictions is a result of the Sola Scriptura mindset that will not permit its sole authoritative source of theology and authority to be self-contradicting. It can't. The source critics and the form critics made the fundamentalists scramble searching for a defense, which in the end, led to Bibliolatry. Luckily, we can go beyond the limited scope and mindset of rigid literalists and radical fundamentalists and approach the Bible in a more biblical sort of way.

Let me say something further on my Gospel/Bible analogy. We can take two extremes in regards to contradictions: (1) We can eliminate all Gospels except for one. Marcion did just that and his actions were rejected by the Church. (2) We can merge all Gospels into one text. Tatian did just that and it was rejected too. So, what is the virtuous way? Accept all four Gospels with all their contradictions. Do we not proclaim the Gospel "according to"? According to whom? A single authoritative Evangelist or according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

Likewise, there are the Marcions and the Tatians of the Church who wish to do to theology what they did to the Gospels, either rid all competitive theologies and accept only one (i.e., the Latin one) or search for a generic theology that ignores the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui juris.

This also reminds me of the issue about the moment of Transubstantiation, that the words, "Take eat ..." and "Take drink ..." (Institution Narrative) were 'consecratory.' Then the Latin West discovered that they had Eastern Christians in their midst that did NOT have an Institution Narrative in their anaphora! After a study was done, the Roman theologians/officials declared that an insertion of an Institution Narrative was not necessary.

Likewise, is it necessary to make Eastern theology acceptable to the Latin palette by forcing them to adopt particular theological doctrines on a particular topic? What exactly is 'catholic' in the Catholic Church? Uniformity or Universality? What exactly, my friend, did the Council Fathers mean by the term "inorganic" ? And why did they view the removal of such "inorganic" things so important?

Yet, you go beyond what was initially agreed between Rome and the bishops of the Unia. You assume episcopal rights to declare members of another sui juris church a heretic or anathema. You cannot do this if you take seriously canon law and norms particular to your church.

At least Luther got a hearing.

I blame my theology on my education at The Pontifical College Josephinum, where I, as a Byzantine Catholic was personally instructed by Bishop Pio Laghi to pursue our patrimony without intimidation. I was also told by my instructors not to keep trying to be like them (theologically). I took my professors and superiors seriously. I began my journey to rid of all inorganic stuff. In turn, I love my Latin Catholic neighbors, one of whom is my darling wife.

I think we have a lot to learn from the message that is found in the recent movie "Luther."

Cantor Joe Thur,
Byzantine Catholic and GGGGGGGGGGGG-grandson of Martin Luther, Der Reformer

Joe: Will you please finish that sentence you are "quoting"?

And no matter how much you don't teach it, it's still objectively real.

I'm not trying to lure you back into the debate, but...can't you see how your reasoning can be applied (devastatingly) to core Christian truths, not just to Latin Catholic distinctives?

The atheist says: "No matter how objectively real you claim God to be, we don't teach Him." With the implication that He's only a reality for Christians...i.e., a figment of Christians' imaginations; not objectively real at all.

There is such a thing as objective reality. It's not so culturally conditioned as to be conditioned right out of existence!

I would submit that God is Objectively Real. I would submit that atheists' denial of His objective reality does not make Him any less objectively Real. He'd be just as real if everyone on earth denied His existence. "Let God be true and every man a liar."

Similarly--analogously--Purgatory is real, no matter what anyone believes to the contrary. Purgatory's existence is not contingent on whether Group X, Y, or Z believes in it.

Blessings,

ZT

Dear Mr. Thur:

I'm confused--I thought the Vatican rejected the Zoghby Initiative?

I was under the distinct impression that Abp. Zoghby sometimes proposed things (in the laudable interests of ecumenical rapprochement) which were later deemed incompatible with Catholic (read: Universal) Teaching...deemed so by the Vatican itself.

The higher authority trumps the lower, right? Rome trumps Zoghby.

Perhaps the Zoghby Statement you cite was one of those overruled by the Vatican. I'm fuzzy on details here...perhaps someone can fill me in?

ZT

God bless this forum!

Am I the only one around here, recent thought my presence is, that is interested in reconciling Eastern and Western theology (without detriment to either)? GEESH, I leave for two days from this thread, and the discussions have degenerated into a sparring match! Sigh! People are seriously simply talking past one another without any attempt to understand each other�s position.

FIRST of all, when the agreement at Brest said �we shall not discuss Purgatory,� this DOES NOT mean that the East did NOT believe in Purgatory. In truth, BOTH east and west believed in Purgatory, it was simply the NATURE of Purgatory that was at odds. BOTH East and West did not think the differences in the nature of Purgatory was sufficient to justify separation --- thus �we shall not discuss Purgatory� --- NOT because one side believed in it, and the other one did not, but because there were issues ABOUT the conception of Purgatory from each side that was different from the other.

Second, in the East, Purgatory is conceived of in a different manner as in the West. In fact, the East does not generally use the name �Purgatory� to designate the place in between heaven and hell where theosis occurs. Thus, Cantor Joe was truthful when he said that the East does NOT have to believe in Purgatory, because he views Purgatory as the WESTERN concept of the place between heaven and hell. But this DOES NOT mean that Cantor Joe, nor the East in general (PaxT, this is addressed to you), DOES NOT believe in a concept that is AKIN to Purgatory, but is simply known by different terms in the East.

Third, I read PaxT�s post of Bishop John�s comments. There is nothing in that post that could cause one to think that Bishop John believed in Purgatory the way the West believes in Purgatory. Bishop John obviously used the term simply to refer to the CONCEPT of a place akin to what the West calls Purgatory. Since the East generally does not have a name for this conceptual place or state called Purgatory, it was totally understandable that Bishop John should use the term. But, to repeat, there is nothing in Bishop John�s statement to indicate that he had acceded to the Western concept of it. Bishop John also used the word �indulgence,� but judging from what I read, he always used it in its most basic sense as a form of �cleansing� towards what the East calls theosis. In fact, I don�t recall Bishop John EVER using the word �payment� in relation to the word �indulgence.� This former notion is indeed purely Western. Instead, I constantly read him using the word �cleansing� in connection with �indulgence,� thus preserving the Eastern belief in theosis. This third point is addressed to PaxT, who cannot use Bishop John�s statements as justification to impose the full Western concept of Purgatory on the East; this third point is also addressed to the person (I forget who it was) who assumed Bishop John was not being faithful to his Eastern patrimony in his statements.

People! We have GOT to get beyond words and terminologies! Thank God East and West was able to get beyond such pettiness with regards to the homoousion. REMEMBER, St. Paul himself commands us not to wrangle over words!

In Christ always for the sake of unity.

One needs to understand the difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma is a statement of Truth. Doctrine is a theological explanation of that truth. Doctrines are neither infallible nor exhaustive. Any Catholic can state that a particular doctrine is poorly expressed. What they cannot state is that it is false. Eastern Christians can state that the Latin doctrine of purgatory is not something we proclaim. Yet we cannot claim it to be false. Likewise, Latin Catholics can state that they don�t adopt or understand our theology regarding original sin, or of the journey of the soul after death. What they cannot claim is that it is false or that the Latin perspective triumphs the Eastern. What is objectively real is the purifying journey of the soul after death and that prayers for those on this journey are helpful.

The only thing that the Vatican rejected was the idea that the Melkites pursue a dialog of reconciliation in addition to the general one led by Rome. It had no problems with the Zoghby statement of faith.

With all due respect your posts do not read as if you wish to reconcile Eastern and Western theology. All you have really done is to restate Eastern theology in a manner that you believe is acceptable to the West and then challenge Easterners to accept your formula. This desire to recast Eastern theology in ways acceptable to the West has been one of the ongoing issues between East and West. In his letter �Orientale Lumen� Pope John Paul II essentially called for the West to learn about the East in order that the West may dialog with the East from the position of equal brothers.

Here�s a challenge (but in another thread please!): take the Eastern concept of original sin (mortality) as it is (and without adding to it) and develop a theology of the Immaculate Conception that does not do violence to Eastern theology and yet is fully complementary to the Western theology that is based upon the Western understanding of original sin.

Dear Admin:
Please show me what part of my post was a disrespect to Eastern theology.

In CHrist always.

The a-theist does teach about God, philosophically speaking. The "a" in atheist/m is affixed to the first affirmation that there is a "theism." Similarily, a Protest-ant cannot be such unlike there is something to "protest" against, namely the Cathlic Church. Both may reject something, theism or Catholicism, but both recieve their identity from them, otherwise what would atheism be if there was not theism, and what would Protestantism be if there was no Catholicism to protest? Analogously, a pure welfare state cannot exist because someone will have to pay the taxes to make it possible. All three rejectories are dependent on that which they reject.

Be careful of mixing up 'reality' with 'interpretation.' Both the followeres of Jesus and the Pharisees/scribes believed that Jesus cured people. What was different was the interpretation of who Jesus was. Son of God or of the Devil? All objective reality is subject (no pun intended) to subjectivity. 'Who do you say that I am?' is not a quest to know the who of Jesus, but who the believer or dis-believer thinks or proclaims Jesus to be or not to be. Who do YOU think he is? Not "Jesus is ..."

The Gospels are an interpretation of Judaism, but especially of Jesus. Its interests are not of historicity, which is a contemporary problem, but of proclamation. It goes beyond the objectivity-subjectivity wars that later philosophies trouble themselves with. What is real in an object itself has travelled over the centuries from the object-itself to the inner constructs of our mind. The history of art and the social sciences have followed in its footsteps.

Cantor Joe Thur,

Francis,

Please re-read and pray over your posts. You have essentially stated �Let�s redefine �X� in Eastern theology to mean �Y�. Then, because it now means �Y� we can make it mesh perfectly with Latin theology and we all know that Latin theology is the true Catholic theology that Easterners must measure their theology against. Do you think it respectful to redefine someone else�s theology?

If you really wish to respect Eastern Christians you must respect our theology and not redefine it in a manner that fits you own perspective. I hope you take my challenge seriously. If you really wish to stick to the issue of the journey of the soul you could actually research and come to an accurate understanding of which elements are dogmatic and which are doctrinal. If you actually study and pray the theology of the Latin Church (and not just grab a catechism to quote from) you might be surprised to find that the dogmatic elements are exactly the same as those professed in the Eastern Church.

If you still do not understand how offensive your posts are to Eastern Christians I suggest that you limit your participation in this Forum to one of asking questions and forgo all attempts to convert others to your personal positions.

Admin

The teaching of the Holy Church breaks the teaching about the journey of the soul upon death into dogmatic and doctrinal statements. The dogmatic portions are proclaimed by the entire Church. Each Church brings to the entire Church a doctrinal theology on these issues, one that is unique to the local tradition of that Particular Church and one that is complementary to the entire Catholic Church. The Latin theologies of purgatory and indulgences fall into the doctrinal category. Eastern Catholics are obliged to state that they constitute an acceptable theological formula. We are not obliged to replace perfectly good Eastern theology with those doctrinal statements.

Mr. Administrator draws attention to a good point regarding text theology. I would also like to add to this what is the real school of theology: worship.

Unless one has shared the same cup with us and drank in the rich theology found in our hymns, celebrations, and the like, one will be forever handicapped in their pursuit of trying to understand the Eastern/Byzantine mind.

Like manuals about love, a text can never convey the real thing of that experience. The rule of belief comes from the rule of prayer. If certain articulations/doctrines about a certain topic are not celebrated, they are not taught as being necessary for belief. What is the purpose of confiding one's faith in a belief not celebrated?

Over the years, certain matters of doctine were imposed on believers even though such matters were not celebrated. Many doctrinal 'supplements' were added to 'enrich' what seemed to be a theology missing a few bricks short of a load. Hymns and rites were added too, thus obscuring a rich theology already present. The original text, hymns, and rites were ignored. We forgot how to pray because we had other agendas to worry about other than the one to share the Gospel as handed down (tradition) to us.

Cantor Joe Thur

Dear Admin:

You probably think I am intransigent for asking this once again: Please show me where in my post I have added anything to Eastern theology, or interpreted �X� to be �Y.� PLEASE, give me a specific instance so I may be able to understand!

Save me from myself, please!

In Christ always.

Admin.,

Maybe I am missing something here, but it seemed to me that Francis' post was an honest attempt to understand and reconcile our traditions. I once had a lengthy discussion with an Eastern Orthodox theologian about this very issue. He told me that when all is said and done, Orthodox Christians and Catholics share the same core beliefs on this topic, although we formulate them differently. It seemed to me that Francis is saying the same thing, or am I missing something in his post? (I'm not being sarcastic here).

Thanks,
Anthony