Melkites

[musturde]

I find it sad that I know way more about the latin rite than about my own rite. Any suggested books to start learning about this rite (or other eastern rites/the Orthodox Church)?

Edited June 15, 2009 by musturde

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='musturde' post='1891213' date='Jun 15 2009, 02:20 AM']I find it sad that I know way more about the latin rite than about my own. Any suggested books to start learning about this rite (or other eastern rites/the Orthodox Church)?[/quote]
A good theological book to start with is Fr. John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which is available (in a slightly excerpted form) on the internet for free. Click the link below to peruse that text:

[url="http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/byzantine_theology_j_meyendorf.htm"][b][u]Byzantine Theology[/u][/b][/url]

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

Apotheoun, I have a question regarding your Eastern Catholic Church's relations to Rome and the Orthodox.
If your Church were to de-Latinize to the point that it was 'acceptable' to parts of the Orthodox community, and the Orthodox were to move towards communion with your Eastern Church, what would that mean for the relations between the Orthodox and Rome? Or the relations between the Orthodox and Catholicism as a whole? Does my scenario even make sense?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891212' date='Jun 15 2009, 04:08 AM']By its very nature liturgical de-Latinization will bring about spiritual, theological, and doctrinal de-Latinization, because the life of faith experienced in the divine liturgy is a holistic reality, i.e., the liturgy is the spiritual and doctrinal expression of the tradition that it embodies and makes manifest. In other words, one cannot isolate the divine liturgy from the Byzantine theological tradition, i.e., unless one wants a dead liturgy.

Finally, as far as Resurrexi's assertion that theological de-Latinization is actually "de-Catholicization" is concerned, this would only follow if one were to accept the proposition that Latin / Scholastic formulations and expressions in connection with the one faith are somehow normative within Christianity, which -- as I see it -- is a false proposition. The formulations and expressions used in the Eastern Catholic Churches are by and large 200 to 500 or more years older than those used in the Latin West, and certainly one cannot simply accuse all the Eastern Fathers of theological heresy because they failed to use Aristotelian concepts and terminology when speaking about the Orthodox faith. Diversity in theological expression -- to paraphrase a comment made by Ukrainian Catholic Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar -- does not of its nature involve a difference in faith.[/quote]

I disgree with you. The Catholic faith, which was taught by the Councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I, is expressed both in the Roman Rite and in the Eastern Rites. De-Latinized correctly, the Eastern liturgies will still manifest this faith. The Eastern liturgies will manifest the dogma of papal primacy by the way in which the priest prays for the Pope; they will manifest Transubstantiation by the way in which Christ our God under the appearances of bread and wine is adored; they will manifest the dogma of original sin by infants being baptized as soon as possible.

I would also like to add that what you call "Scholastic formulations" are no less Catholic than the philosophical terms used by the first seven ecumenical councils. Both in the first seven councils, and in the later councils, terms from pagan philosophy were taken and used to more clearly express what the Church believes. "Transubstantiation" is no less Catholic that "homoousion."; for both words were baptized from pagan philosophy by an ecumenical council of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891636' date='Jun 15 2009, 02:45 PM']I disgree with you. The Catholic faith, which was taught by the Councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I, is expressed both in the Roman Rite and in the Eastern Rites. De-Latinized correctly, the Eastern liturgies will still manifest this faith. The Eastern liturgies will manifest the dogma of papal primacy by the way in which the priest prays for the Pope; they will manifest Transubstantiation by the way in which Christ our God under the appearances of bread and wine is adored; they will manifest the dogma of original sin by infants being baptized as soon as possible.[/quote]
The local Western synods that you mentioned in your post have had absolutely no impact on the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the influence that they have had on the Eastern Catholic Churches is in the process of being expunged as foreign to our tradition.

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891636' date='Jun 15 2009, 02:45 PM']I would also like to add that what you call "Scholastic formulations" are no less Catholic than the philosophical terms used by the first seven ecumenical councils. Both in the first seven councils, and in the later councils, terms from pagan philosophy were taken and used to more clearly express what the Church believes. "Transubstantiation" is no less Catholic that "homoousion."; for both words were baptized from pagan philosophy by an ecumenical council of the Church.[/quote]
As I have mentioned in other threads on this topic, you are quite simply wrong, because although the Eastern Fathers (as Greek speaking individuals) used Greek terminology (sometimes even philosophical terminology) they radically altered the meanings of the words that they used. For example the Greek words [i]ousia[/i] and [i]hypostasis[/i] in pagan Greek philosophy are used synonymously, while in Eastern Orthodox theology they are used to stand for two very different things. The word [i]ousia[/i] by the middle of the 4th century came to stand for the unknowable aspect of God's being, while the word [i]hypostasis[/i] came to stand for the unique subsistent reality (i.e., the individual personal characteristics) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The medieval Scholastics, unlike the Eastern Fathers, uncritically accepted not only the pagan philosophical terms used by Aristotle, but the meanings of those terms as well, and that is why the Scholastics were unable to properly understand texts written by the Eastern Fathers on both Triadology and Christology.

Finally, if you were to accept the term [i]homoousian[/i] as it was understood by the Greek pagan philosophers I would have no other option but to refer to you as a heretic, because for the pagan Greeks [i]ousia[/i] was the knowable substrate of a thing, while for the Church Fathers [i]ousia[/i] (whether uncreated or created) was an unknowable and incommunicable reality that transcends anything that man can conceive, for a being is only known through its [i]energeiai[/i] (cf. St. Basil, [i]Letters 234[/i] and [i]235[/i]).

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891636' date='Jun 15 2009, 02:45 PM']I would also like to add that what you call "Scholastic formulations" are no less Catholic than the philosophical terms used by the first seven ecumenical councils. Both in the first seven councils, and in the later councils, terms from pagan philosophy were taken and used to more clearly express what the Church believes. "Transubstantiation" is no less Catholic that "homoousion."; for both words were baptized from pagan philosophy by an ecumenical council of the Church.[/quote]

For what it's worth, from the Orthodox point of view, the objection to Scholasticism isn't found in its usage of previously pagan terms to describe theological concepts. I'm guessing that Apotheoun agrees with me.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891675' date='Jun 15 2009, 03:07 PM']For what it's worth, from the Orthodox point of view, the objection to Scholasticism isn't found in its usage of previously pagan terms to describe theological concepts. I'm guessing that Apotheoun agrees with me.[/quote]
It is the philosophical theories of Aristotle that are problematic, and not the specific words that he used. Had the Scholastics used Aristotle's terminology, while simultaneously recognizing that his metaphysical theories could not transcend the [i]diastemic[/i] and [i]kinetic[/i] gap between the uncreated and the created (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa's [i]Seventh Homily on Ecclesiastes[/i]), there would have been no real problem. Scholastic metaphysics posits the idea that by reason alone a man can come to know something about the divine essence, but this idea is universally rejected by the Eastern Fathers, because created reason cannot transcend itself, and to say that it can is quasi-Pelagian.

[Resurrexi]

Apotheoun, are you saying that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason?

[StColette]

[Apotheoun]

There is a great book, called "Theology of the Gap," which explains the Cappadocian Fathers response to the philosophical theology of Eunomius, who proposed the false idea that one can come to know something about the divine essence. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in this topic.

[Resurrexi]

I would recommend St. Thomas' [i]Summa[/i] and the decrees of Vatican I to anyone interested in the subject.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891698' date='Jun 15 2009, 03:19 PM']Apotheoun, are you saying that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason?[/quote]
That would only follow if I believed the false idea that God is simply "essence," but as a Catholic who holds the Orthodox faith I believe that: "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis" (St. Gregory Palamas, "Capita Physica," no. 75). God can be known only through His energies, and I referred to this truth in an earlier thread that I linked to in this topic.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"][u][b]God as Unknowable[/b][/u][/url]

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891714' date='Jun 15 2009, 03:27 PM']I would recommend St. Thomas' [i]Summa[/i] and the decrees of Vatican I to anyone interested in the subject.[/quote]
I would recommend the "Capita Physica" and "The Triads" by St. Gregory Palamas. I would also recommend reading pretty much anything written by St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximos the Confessor.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891698' date='Jun 15 2009, 03:19 PM']Apotheoun, are you saying that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason?[/quote]

Just in case you're confounding the two, "in essence" isn't the same as "with certitude".

But, um... doesn't it stand to reason that you can only get so far with reason? Reason is only a subset of [i]human[/i] experience and interrelationship, let alone experience of God. That portion of God that you would come to know would be only a teeny subset of God, and being so heady about it might get in the way of the relationship. At least, it can play out that way in human relationships....

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891723' date='Jun 15 2009, 05:32 PM']Just in case you're confounding the two, "in essence" isn't the same as "with certitude".[/quote]

According to Catholic teaching, the Divine Attributes are really identical with the Divine Essence.