www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Roman Catholic questions

Whoops. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound opinionated on that. I'm not knowledgeable on the subject at all. I read a basic book about the history of the Roman Catholic church and it struck me that way for some reason. I didn't realize there was an overall opinion on either side. All the things I never learned after all those years of catechism:)

Julia,

What book did you read? Usually, a book written from a Catholic perspective will give the impression that Constantinople broke away, while a book written from an Orthodox perspective will give the impression that it was Rome who broke away.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

It is called "The Everything Catholicism Book" By Keeler and Grimbly. It tracks the history of the church and continues with the Roman church after the split. I'm leaving on vacation today so I'll take it with me and re-read that part when I get a chance.

Dear sister Julia,

Just to let you know, Keeler is normally regarded as a liberal Catholic - i.e., those Catholics who don't adhere to all the teachings of the Catholic Church and have some kind of complaint against the papacy.

If you've ever read the works of other liberal Catholics - e.g. Gary Wills, John Cornwell, Maureen Fiedler, etc. - you will discover they have a definite axe to grind against the historic Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, is there something wrong with being a liberal member of the Catholic or Orthodox Church? Is the implication of your comments that any set of individuals who think for themselves and don't buy the entire party line of a particular church should be faulted? If I have misinterpreted your comments, please feel free to take me to task!

John,

Leaving aside the rather uncharitable and provocatory tone of your comment, I think what Marduk is defining as "liberal" is a person who does not assent to all of the dogmatic teaching of the Church. In that case, there's something quite wrong.

Giving intellectual assent to the dogmatic teachings of Christ's Church doesn't imply that a person doesn't think for himself, just as those who do not "buy the entire part line," as you put it, do not necessarily think for themselves. In fact I've often found the exact opposite is true.

Alexis

I don't think johnzonoras' comments are at all uncharitable. Following something blindly without asking questions is simply not smart.

I have no axe to grind; however, Popes have apologized in the past for actions of the church. What does that in itself lead one to believe?

Dear brother John,

Thanks for the question.

Yes, I believe there is something wrong with being a liberal Catholic or Orthodox. If you do not adhere to the official dogmatic teachings of your Church, which defines the character of that Church, then you should not be going around claiming to represent it. In other words, you should not be calling yourself "Catholic" or "Orthodox." On the other hand, if they honestly presented themselves as "liberal Catholic" or "liberal Orthodox," I wouldn't mind. At least at that point, one can expect that what the person espouses may not truly represent what Catholicism or Orthodoxy teaches.

If you want further clarification, feel free to ask.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, thanks for answering the question. Stormshadow noted, "Following something blindly without asking questions is simply not smart." I agree with this statement. In all honesty, I personally feel that long gone are the days when every member of each church walk in lockstep with their leadership. People think for themselves and do not need the church to think for them. I am thankful for this. This my opinion and only is one person's view. I am of the opinion that Marduk's view does not realistically deal with the fact that there are many different flavors of both faiths among the laity. With this being said, I can agree with Marduk when he says, "On the other hand, if they honestly presented themselves
as "liberal Catholic" or "liberal Orthodox," I wouldn't mind. At least at that point, one can expect that what the person espouses may not truly represent what Catholicism or Orthodoxy teaches.'

I wonder does everyone agree with every single thing their Church espouses or has done? Even Arch conservatives have also been wrong, wrong, wrong-like the priests who told people that women were evil because of original sin resulting in a deepseated blank/madonna complex in some cultures. St. Seraphim of Sarov, true saint that he is, believed that only in the Orthodox church was there salvation. I guess, what I'm saying is that you have to be careful taking anyone's word without doing some studying on your own and running things by a few definitively authoritative people for interpretation. Am I painting myself into a corner here? Marduk, I'm just wondering out loud, not arguing with you.

Logos, remember my previous pm to you, please, it still stands.

Indigo, the answer to the first question you raise is No! If every one agreed with every jot and tittle of dogma, there would be no need for free will. I could expand on the last statement, but I do not want to bring the umbrage of the more dogmatic members around here on my head. Boy, would the world be boring!!! I remember reading some where that Mark Twain once said, when offered the choice of going to heaven or hell, he would chose hell without thinking about it because that was where all the interesting people were. I hate talking to boring people. As for every one being yes men, well...'Nuf said.

Indigo,

I forgot what a little ray of sunshine you are, but a quick perusal of our private message conversations was a needed reminder. My post was not addressed to you.

Alexis

johnzonaras:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

May I propose another way of looking at the dogmatic positions of one's respective Church?

It seems to me that, as with prayer where one begins by memorizing prayers and, with practice, has them sink into one's being and become one's own, dogma is the same in one's pilgrimage.

The first task is to learn the dogmatic positions. It is later that one begins to ask the "Why?" behind the dogmatic positions and allow them to become one's own as one understands the wisdom and inspiration that is behind them. Finally they become one's own. It's well to remember that dogma comes from inspiration by the Holy Spirit, constantly working in the Church.

The two go together, too. As one source I once read put it, theology that is not prayed is the theology of the Enemy.

In Christ,

BOB

C. I. X.

As an Eastern Catholic Forum I will approach this from an Eastern form: �AS WE PRAY SO WE BELIEVE� (or �lex orandi, lex credendi�). Corinthians 14:1-20; prayer simply can be made complicated. In times of trouble... let it be (amen)(P. McCartney). Urgency simplifies and may be why life�s troubles are lessons. Christianity needs to be relevant to us who live it before academia who works it.

Orthodoxy from the Slavic form is true glory. I complained: if God wanted His Liturgy read why did He make song doubly prayerful (St. Augustine), then the silent became audible and the audible chanted and the chanted sung. When it took longer to dress and commute than attend church I complained, now I review speech class 101�s lesson during the sermon, the audience can only retain what their seat can endure. In our time-scheduled lives liturgical starting and ending schedule is now an abstract �God�s time�, a puzzlement many can no longer rationalize with their commitments. In the good old days we prayed in Slavonic, preached in Ukrainian and explained in English, now it doesn�t matter because our mysticism is thought incomprehensible for the (American) peasant. Faith�s relevance is no longer sought as our lives are to reflect the mystics. We now question papal infallibility but not the parish despot.

I sometimes followed the liturgical books like a school primmer, other times I floated from the music to the pealing walls to what side dish I wanted for dinner. Then comes that wonder when the Royal Doors were closing while unaware of their opening, feeling spiritually invigorated. I understand we are not an audience but the cast and crew. Sometimes we have to work at it and other times we simply stand in the presence of the Superstars. We still deserve relevance, when it becomes laborious waning into indifference the Lord�s due praise is diluted not enhanced. He is an audience of One, or Three depending on tandem perspectives.

Sunday we had a substitute due to vacation. Yes a priest is a priest is a priest... Here was a man who�s reputation did not claim being a crooner, just one who simply did his best. If he remembered the Slavonic he sang it, or chanted short reading in Ukrainian and when in doubt used English. The Slavonic choir used their entire English repertoire: �Lord have mercy�, �To You O Lord�, �Amen�, and �Alleluia� whenever they could. Being true and not manipulatively forced the Liturgy naturally flowed. I haven�t heard this choir sing so melodically (they do proficiency regularly) in years. The sermon was simple; �focus on Jesus and trust His way so He can help�, everyone understood its simple reality. Make it relevant, keep it real, do your best and let the people commune with God. Toys and laborious formulas should not replace God�s people. It has taken me a half century to learn this lesson.

John,

A few things here.

1. I question your premise here: "If every one agreed with every jot and tittle of dogma, there would be no need for free will." Freedom is ultimately linked to truth (As Christ taught, "The Truth will set you free.") Assenting to dogmatic truths, therefore, does not somehow limit my freedom (which is limited by many things anyway...the modern idol of "limitless choices") but rather fulfills it since truth ultimately is a Person, that is the Eternal Word spoken definitively by the Father, and the truth of revelation defines much of the form and content of my relationship with God who is love. It is in this context that truth, particularly revealed truth, finds its salvific meaning. Truth delivers souls from the bondage to sin and death because it is full of divine power and is ultimately what is REAL, unlike the idols of the age which are largely based upon the unreal individual passions and fantasy.

2. That said, problems arise in my opinion when people either REDUCE dogmatic truths simply to formulas or REDUCE the Truth to official dogmas that are definitively taught by the Church. Dogmas have a living reality that the formulas can only approximate, infallibly defined but never fully contained. The proclamation of the Truth of the Gospel is also as much a proclamation of the common life of the Church and her "living tradition," rooted as it is on certain dogmatic anchor points, while possessing the full freedom to grow in its full realization in the life of the faithful.

3. This leads to the notion of great diversity of form and content (without violating the principle of non-contradiction) abiding in great unity - an aspect of the Church's life that is an image of the Holy Trinity. As the Gospel has been inculturated historically, wonderful and diverse expressions of the same saving truths of the faith developed. If anyone doubts the importance of diversity to the mind of God, consider the great diversity of the visible created universe! Yet these diverse expressions of Faith must always adhere to certain well defined dogmatic "roots". Where one cuts oneself off from the roots, one severs a lifeline to saving truth.

As to the Mark Twain quote (and I am a fan of Twain), personally I think hell is quite a boring place with very little true creativity. Love alone creates, as a saint once said. Hell, which is the rejection of love, distorts, disfigures and ultimately retards, but never creates. If one reads the great doctors and fathers of the Church you can see the witness of creative love, as the same saving dogmatic truth of Christ's love is proclaimed in a myriad of ways.

Just a few thoughts...

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel