www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Fundamentalism

On the matter of Scripture scholarship, I don't think most Eastern Catholics approach it as something firmly distinct of our patrimony. I have found that general Catholic scripture scholarship would be used by both the eastern and western Catholic church. I don't think we have much to offer that is unique.

K.

Robert, Roman traditionalism doesn't invariably lead to wackiness like the vagante world ("churches' with long funny names, loads of clergy and few if any layfolk). I can name off the top of my head the Benedictines at La Barroux in France (around for 30 years!), St Joseph's Cistercian (?) abbey at Flavigny in France, the Institute of Christ the King in Italy and the better known new orders like the Fraternity of St Peter and Society of St John. All Tridentine, all the time, and integral parts of the Roman Catholic Church.

Edwin, thanks. The Orthodox-minded Byzantine Catholics I know happen to like Fr Alexander Schmemann's books a lot. They share similar views but are addressing different situations. The former want to restore Orthodox practices while the latter warned of pitfalls where those practices already are. His complaints were similar to yours about our tradition. I think he has to be read very carefully lest one draw the wrong conclusion and attempt a modernization of our rite. It can be really profound, though, like how Christianity isn't a "religion' but the end of religion as it usually is humanly understood. Reminds me of the joke about jurisdictional chaos and loose administration: "I don't believe in organized religion; I'm Orthodox.'

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Slava Isusu Christu!

The normative Ordo promulagated by Pope Paul VI is the law for the Latin Church in regard to her liturgy. The previous legislation has been superceded by the current and in regard to indult liturgies, the FSSP et al, most of them are former SSPX members, many of which still hold the same ideas as the Society. The Holy Father has done a very wise thing to allow Catholics who feel attached to previous liturgical forms prior to the New Revised Sacramentary to have personal parishes and indults as well as Communities of Apostolic life established to perpetuate the tradition of the 1962 Missal Romanum. But, again the normative Rites are those of Pope Paul VI's legislation and of course the revisions up until just recently. There could possibly be a Ritual Church established in the future for Catholics who follow the 1962 Missal, but that would be pushing it. Of course if that does not happen then I would see a regularization of those parishes that use the 1962 Missal maybe in the next 100 years and of Course by then there would of probably been another Council to make an official decree regarding the carry over of the old liturgy. It all depends on the next couple Pontiffs. But, in my opinion Latin Catholics should push for a well done normative Mass and to not seek after the 1962 Rite of Mass, it only leads to problems and takes people out of mainstream Latin Catholicism. It is a reverent liturgy, but the legislation of Pope Paul VI cannot be ignored as THE LAW for the Latin Church in all areas from liturgy to discipline. To do so is unwise and imprudent as well as out of character for Catholics who acknowledge the Supreme Authority of the Pontiff, I have heard all the obedience arguments of the SSPX et al, but essentially you have to take a black and white position - either Paul VI was the Pope and therefore all Catholics of the Roman Rite had to under pain of penalty obey His New Law or He was an anti-Pope and a heretic and could not legislate for the Catholic Church aka the sedevacatist position. Now obviously we believe that His Holiness Paul VI was operating as Pope of Rome when He issued the New Law for the Latin Church, so that means that the normative Rite of Mass and Sacraments as well as Divine Office et al is that which was promulagated by Him in 1969. So all indults notwithstanding all Latin Catholics belong to the reforms of Vatican II as well as the Catholics of the East and Orient where the decrees applied to them in the area of reform.

We must hold and believe that the Order of Mass revised by Pope Paul VI is just as Catholic as our Eastern Liturgies as well as the Mass of Pope Pius V. They are all different modalities of the same Catholic Church.

In Christ,

Robert

Robert and Serge,

Both of you make interesting points about liturgy, but how does all of this relate to the issue of fundamentalism, or better yet, literalism? :rolleyes:

Does the emphasis on LAW not speak of a rigid fundamentalism/literalism?

Glory be to Jesus Christ!


Dear Edwin:

The 1949 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding Creation:

"In accordance with the 1st chapter of the book of Genesis, Catholics are bound to believe that the universe and everything in it was created by God; that it was created in time and not from eternity; that all things were created by God alone; and that all things created were good. Nothing is defined as to the order or period of creation."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the symbolic interpretation of the 6 days of creation, the Sabbath Day, and the eighth day of the New Creation. But again a literalist position is not verboten, it is just not popular, since there is immense revelation derived from viewing the creation days as symbolic or as ikons of the continuing creative process of the Holy Trinity at work in the Universe.

In Christ,


Robert Horwath

Slava Isusu Christu!

Law in the context of my previous posts'usage means a "norm of action."

Again using illustrations or examples of either fundamentalist groups or groups that began with the intention of remaining true to so-called "purer forms" , but became mere shells of formalism. The Novus Ordo illustration was a response to Tridentine movements in the Latin Church.

And of course literal 6 day creation theory, well it is again a less used theological position, but one that is not anathematized or on the other hand popular, of course the current Magisterium has full authority to take a position and make it the position of the Catholic Church, but until then room is open for disagreement et al.

In Christ,


Robert

Robert,

My initial question was about 'Eastern' Christians being fundamentalists or literalists.

Your last two posts quote texts that are not publications of the Eastern Churches.

Thank you for your attempt. You are quite resourceful nonetheless.

Edwin,

I think the reason you ask a difficult question is that there is no "Eastern Christian" biblical school. We who are Catholics (Eastern & Western) have a certain Bibilical theological sources. Many would say our sources are compatable with Orthodoxy and distinct from fundementalism.

Sometimes, we leave a misimpression with our Latin brothers we have a distinct view on every matter of religion. In fact, we often don't. The Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are quite useful sources for eastern Catholics on this question.


K.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Sorry, kiddies, but I don't buy the basic premise of this 'discussion'.

I was baptized. And, I was taught by my family and community what the Gospel required -- maybe ethnically interpreted -- but the Gospel nonetheless.

Fundamentalist? I don't think that that term even applies to Eastern Christians. Some of us are "legalists", some are "laissez faire" Christians, others are "I need to pray about this without a mandate" folks. But, all in all, our identity is both personal/spiritual and communitarian.

I think that the amorphous nature of Eastern Christianity drives the heterogeneity-oriented folks nuts. We just don't do the "all for one; one for all" thing. But, remarkably, we Easterns all hang together when we -- as a community -- are assailed for being out of step with the Western paradigm.

My personal response: Deal with it.

Blessings!