www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A Question About Latinizations

I think a few definitions are in order:

Dogma � A truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed authoritatively by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.

Doctrine - That which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge. Synonymous are catechesis and catechism.

Theologumen � A theological opinion that may be given great weight by individual members of Church but is neither doctrinal nor dogmatic. Theologumen are not binding upon the faithful unless its verified by the Church, based upon Holy Tradition.

---

Dogmas are those theological precepts that have been authoritatively defined by the Church and are binding upon the faithful (�must believe�).

Doctrines are an explanation of dogmas. Doctrines may develop over time just as a person may mature with age. Think of an acorn growing into an oak tree. The seeds within the acorn are the dogmatic elements. The tree at various stages in its life equates to doctrinal development. Each oak tree is the same thing but each is unique and different. Each Particular Church brings to the universal Church a unique method of teaching the faithful (doctrine). Each Particular Church (Latin, Chaldean, Byzantine, etc.) recognizes the doctrine of the other Particular Churches (Latin, Chaldean, Byzantine, etc.) as true. But each Particular Church does not replace its method of catechesis (teaching doctrine) with that of another Church. The doctrinal expressions of each of the Particular Catholic Churches are equal. None is ranked above another.

Theologumenia are theological opinions that the Christian faithful may adopt but are not taught as either an authoritative dogma or doctrine.

---

Limiting the discussion to purgatory for the moment, the dogmatic elements of the Church�s teaching on purgatory are that 1) there is a purifying journey of the souls of the elect upon death and 2) that prayers for those on this journey are good and helpful. The entire imagery of the �purgatorial fire� or �cleansing fire� and the theology of indulgences are part of the doctrine of the Latin Church. Other Catholics must acknowledge this doctrine as true but other Catholics are not bound to use this doctrine exclusively. Byzantine Catholic doctrine keeps its doctrine of the journey of the soul after death in an elemental form but describes it as a purifying journey of ascent to the Father. It does not use an imagery of a fire nor does it attempt to measure forgiveness through the doctrine of indulgences.

[The only possible conclusion, from the ancient lex orandi and orthopraxis of your Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom, is that THERE IS A PURGATORY AND THAT THE SOULS THERE ARE HELPED BY THE SUFFRAGES OF THE FAITHFUL.]

Since, as has been already stated, we have gotten off the subject matter I will answer by opening up a new subject regarding the Orthodox Catholic view of Purgatory and praying for the dead.

OrthoMan

When I wrote this post, the thread was farther back.

LT is making false accusations. I suggest to him that he learn something about Catholic theology and the differences between dogma and doctrine. He keeps raising the doctrinal elements of the Latin Church to dogmatic levels.

I ask all to read the thread and judge.

I cannot imagine what the Admin is so upset about.

In my post on page 7, I stated EXACTLY the same thing that the Admin stated on page 8! Namely that the belief of the whole Church was that there is purification after death and that acts of the faithful can help the souls who are undergoing said purification. And "anathema to all who believe otherwise" was my humorous way of stating that THIS is dogma and not opinion.

I said NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING about "fire" or any other theological explanations. READ MY POSTS, I SAID NOTHING ABOUT FIRE.

Then it was the Admin who got mad. I didn't get mad. He got mad because he THOUGHT I was implying that Latin explanations were part of the dogma, when I never said so. Then he came on and implied that the Pope does not believe in Purgatory. Read his post, that's what he implied on page 7. Not only I, but Logos and Tammy took it that way.

I have no idea how to calm him down now. I feel like he has me pegged and will not actually read the words that I am typing.

I am done with this foolishness.


LatinTrad

In reading through this entire thread (gasp!), I am reminded of the words of our Blessed Lord:

East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.

What's that you say? Oh, silly me, those weren't Our Lord's words, those were Kipling's. Now what was it Our Lord said? Oh yes, here it is:

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

Kyrie eleison! Christe eleison! Kyrie eleison!

In accordance with a private email I have received from the Administrator, I will be signing off the Forum. Doubt very much that I will be back after the one month sanction that has been imposed upon me.

I wish you all Christ's Blessing and a Happy life!

OrthoMan

God bless you Bob.

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear LT,

The whole thread has become rather tiresome as arguments focus on notions that are certainly not clear-cut in Eastern Catholic thinking and tradition by far.

I think the Administrator should be less strident and accusatory.

Alex

Dear Orthoman

I'm sorry, Sir!

While you know I would disagree with you on some points and agree with you on others, we have come to respect each other in Christ.

I don't argue the Administrator's decisions (or attitudes).

But it doesn't mean I have to like them, either.

God bless always!

Alex

I'am almost sorry I started this thread, after seeing how it deteriorated into an array of personal attacks. All I wanted to know was how certain Latin practices and devotions had found there way into the Eastern Rite Churches in recent years, not start a series of polemics over whether or not the Byzantine Rite is a heterodox church. I have to agree with the Administrator, if anyone were to go on a Baptist forum for the sole purpose of telling them how there church has got it wrong, I don't think they'd be very welcome for long.

Lance,

I read your post a couple times now and have decided that its presumptiousness merits a response. Nowhere in the guidelines of this forum do I find that newness is a measure of the appropriateness of one's post. So, your opinion aside, I stand by mine that Dave owed Bob an apology; an assessment with which Dave agreed, as you may have noticed.

I didn't, and won't, judge whether Bob has a history of finding fault with Catholicism and ignoring the possibility of the same with regard to Orthodoxy. Why? Because to do so would presume a longer familiarity with his postings than I have (i.e., that 'newness' which so concerns you). My post related to a specific comment that Dave made with respect to a single topic and my observation was in that context.

Your comparison of Bob's comments on the two articles (i.e., the 'interfaith shrine' at Fatima and the same-sex Russian Orthodox 'marriage'), besides employing a tit-for-tat mentality that is unworthy of one in Holy Orders, lacks any substantive basis for comparison, and is contradicted by the facts.

Review of Bob's initial post of the Fatima article

Fatima To Become INTERFAITH SHRINE!

would show that he posted it verbatim and without comment.

David subsequently asked Bob:

To which Bob replied:

Unsubstantiated article? Sure, I guess you could call it that. But, how would you have a poster substantiate a "news" article that appeared on-line, in a national tabloid, or even in his/her local newspaper? Few of us have the resources at hand to independently verify what we read, nor should we need to do so. We offer articles (and other, less concrete, statements propounded as fact) in forums such as this for one or more reasons, sometimes self-serving, sometimes altruistic, sometimes nothing more than mundane. Such reasons include: to seek verification or repudiation of its content from others more knowledgeable; for the edification of others; to elicit commentary that will help us understand its significance; to rally support for or against a proposition; and, to support our own stance on an issue.

In the case at hand, Bob offered no comment. Alex, on the other hand, threw out a comment invoking the relationship between Fatima and the conversion of Russia, to which Bob replied. In a leap of consciousness, for which there was no nexus, Alex reproved Bob on virtually the identical basis that you offered.

Bob's reply to Alex's (much longer) post focused on issues related to the Fatima apparition, referencing the article only in the final paragraph:

Bob's only other comment relative to the article was to post a link to a seemingly confirmatory news item from Daily Catholic News. Do I consider DCN a source on which to hang my hat? Nope - but many do - and all Bob did was what was asked - provide another source, more than he needed to do - and he again did so without comment; you can impugn his motives, but you do so at the risk of presumptiousness.

In the week following, a second thread was opened and Lawrence posted two citations seemingly substantiating the original news article. The credibility of some of those quoted in the articles was disputed, but no one - you included - offered any documentation to deny the original article. Actually, many of us bemoaned what was, apparently, "fact" in the absence of any clarification or denial of same by the Vatican.

Ultimately, on 22 November, I posted that I had been told that the Vatican had issued a denial, but that I was unable to find a news release to substantiate that the denial was made. Anthony Dragani subsequently posted a link to the denial, dated 21 November; note that it took the Vatican 5 weeks to get around to issuing it (the date on the article in Portuguese was 12 October, I believe).

Now, having beat that subject to death, let's look at Bob's postings on the same-sex marriage in a Russian Orthodox church.

He reported the assessment of it by a respected hierarch, gave his personal opinion in this instance, and quoted an official denial (admittedly, later proven to be erroneous). Bob's assessment of the Russian 'tabloid' press was seconded by Diak:

I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling Bob's comments with your assessment.

"Bob was greatly offended by the posting of an article ..."

Yes, he was offended by the article - I see no reference by him as being offended by its posting.

He triumphantly pronounced the article a lie and product of a tabloid

"triumphantly" ????

and evidence of how willing we are to slander the Orthodox Church.

And where do you see that comment?

a few weeks later it turns out the article was indeed true, but Bob issued no apology or retraction.

Nor did he need to. Did any of the multitude of forum members who thought (and feared) that the Fatima article had credence retract or apologize for their posts? In retrospect, shall we call those posts "gullible"? And, even though the same-sex 'marriage' proved to be fact, can we truthfully say, in retrospect, that such a happening didn't seem far-fetched and unlikely when first posted. Remember,this transpired in the jurisdiction of the MP, not exactly a hotbed of counter-cultural happenings!

Lance, I hold no brief for Bob and I decry the "bashing" of any religious group by its own adherents, let alone by the faithful of another Church who are 'guests' in its house, as it were. But, I have a perhaps stronger aversion to misrepresentation of someone's position, which - in the instance at hand - is what, in my opinion, you have done. I suggest that you, more so than Dave, owe Bob an apology.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

I think you can be a bit caustic in your defence of your own positions which is entirely unnecessary.

As for the "nexus" issue you raise, Bob and I have been discussing the entire Fatima issue for about two years now.

It is precisely, as Deacon Lance said, your "newness" here that does not, and cannot, give you the complete picture of the ideas exchanged here by members who have been posting here for years.

Your (much longer) "analysis" of Lance's point really misses the point of his argument - that point being that Bob had earlier protested against an article that appeared as an attack against Orthodoxy. But the same could be said against the Fatima article with respect to the Catholic Church. However, either actually turned out in reality was NOT the point. If you don't see it, you don't see it.

It is also not up to you to decide who should apologise to which other poster here (you used the term "longer" to describe a post of mine when yours can be the length of short stories).

That is the job of the Administrator/Moderators.

If you would like any of these jobs, you are free to apply.

You can come across as a "know-it-all" where you assume another's position is wrong because you yourself hadn't considered it previously.

I find your disrespect toward Deacon Lance, one of our most senior, deeply spiritual and committed servants of the Church of Christ that we have here (and in our Church) to be rather boorish and unbecoming.

Alex

Neil,

Bob's tactics and abrassiveness are well known to us who have been on this forum for any amount of time. I have been on this forum since 1998 and have seen his antics time and again. My article comparison was but one example and may not have been the best and I do admit I may have confused Bob's post on those subjects here with those on another forum. However, I know I have not misrepresented Bob's position or behavior as those who know both of us will attest to. You will also notice it is Bob, not Dave or I, that got banned for a month, nor is it the first time. And a question, is it now the custom to refer to clergy by the their first name alone? Last time I checked it was not. I would appreciate being addressed as Deacon Lance, as I am in Holy Orders as you duly note.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Maybe it would be beneficial for us all if this thread were locked.

In Christ,
Anthony