off topic on some muggle matters!
my husband loves to point out that tangents are my friends! staying 'on topic' definately doesn't come naturally to me.
so i am happy to give space here for some of those tangents that may have come up discussing some other muggle type matters!
in particular the history of different streams of the latin rites catholic churches.
if time and/or inclination allow i would love to continue that conversation here......
so i am happy to give space here for some of those tangents that may have come up discussing some other muggle type matters!
in particular the history of different streams of the latin rites catholic churches.
if time and/or inclination allow i would love to continue that conversation here......
posted by jkr2 | 12:18 pm
16 Comments:
Well, where to begin - I suppose I will try to give a synopsis pf the "rites" in their major categories.
The Term "Rite"
This term generally means a liturgical rite or ritual. Within the diucussion of Catholic/Orthodox "rites" it refers to the fact that each group of churches has its own traditional rite, or traditional form of the liturgy (containing the major elements of the liturgy of the Word and the central Eucharistic prayer, although I believe in the East it is still refered to as the "Anaphora," which means "lifting up" in Greek[in the Latin Rite, in the English translation, it begins with the Epiclesis, or calling down of the Holy Spirit by the Priest, and the invocation, "Lift up your hearts to the LORD" - "We have lifted them up] and was the was the original overall prayer which, in the West, developed into the "Eucharistic prayer," as well as other standard elements such as the Creed and the "Our Father" - each Rite has its own formulation of these basic elements). These rites usually go back to an original Saint and/or Apostle. The Byzantine Catholic rite has the main "eastern" liturgy of St John Chrysostom. the "st Thomas Christians near India have a liturgical rite comeing from St Thomas.
In the case of many of the rites they have been an integral part of particular cultural heritage, often along ethnic/national lines. but there are other classifications of "rites" involving communion with Rome (the two I listed in the last paragraph are of different statuses in this regards), and that is the heading under which I will discuss the rites as they differ from each other.
Different Rites
As I said, outside of the ethnic/national connections, there is the major issue of communion with Rome. But also, each "church" which gets refered to as a rite has its own hierarchy of bishops/Metropolitan bishops/Patriarchs.
In preface to this I should explain that in the very early days of the Church there were, I think, 4 major Patirarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem - and usually nowadays the Russian Patriarch is consider one of the major ones, although historically it stemmed from the "Eastern"/Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople.
In Eastern Orthodoxy the Arch-Bishop of those 4/5 classical sees is still called the "Patriarch" and even on the level of diocese worldwide, Eastern Rites and the Orthodox have their own system Bishops and "Metropolitans" that roughly correspond to the Latin system of Bishops and Arch Bishops
One of the major differences between Catholocism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the view of the Roman Ponitff. In Eastern thought he is the first among equals, mainly in respect - but all of the major Patriarchs remain equal with regards to jurdictional authority. In Catholic Theology the Pope is not only this but also the Bishop of the Universal Church in the full capacity of Bishop, including jurisdictional authority.
The major difference between Eastern Rite Catholic Churches and "Eastern Orthodox" Churches and what defines the former as "in communion with Rome" and the latter as not such, is that the former, while having their own hierarchy, do submit to the Jurisdiction of Rome, and the latter do not (there are also a couple of key doctinal issues in which the divisions, or "schisms" have been focussed but that is a whole other set thoughts that would take a great deal to discuss in and of themselves - related for sure, but the scope of this comment will not go there just because it is rather lengthy as it is ... also, I will discuss below where Protestantism fits into all of this and which groups/churches are considered "validly sacramental" from the standpoint of Catholic and Orthodox theology)
The Eastern Orthodox
I think I have already outlined the basic identity of the "Eastern Orthodox and so I'll just breifly give the major breakdowns that usually get lumped together as "Eastern Orhtodox."
"Eastern Orthodox"
"Eastern Orthodox" generally refers to the group of Eastern Churches that largely fall under the Constantinople Patriach and remained "in union" with the Latin Church of the West up through the first 7 ecumenical councils.
"Oriental Orthodox"
"The Oriental Orthodox" refers to a smaller group of Churches that remained in union with Rome only up through the first 5 ecumenical councils (of course, the term "Oriental" means simply the same thing as "Eastern" - this is just the nomenclature of the thing for the two different groups). Among them are the Assyrian Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church and either the St Thomas Christians or the Syro-Malabar Church (of these last two I believe one is Eastern Rite Catholic and one is Oriental Orthodox - but I cannot remember which is which, since it has been a while since I took these course and I am pretty much writing this from memory).
Of particular interest here (on a side note) is the Coptic Orthodox Church in Ethiopia. An author named Graham Hancock wrote a book called The Sign and the Seal about his two year quest to find the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant that left the Jerusalem Temple long before the time of Christ. his main cluse were centered around the Holy Grail, of Aurturian Legend, and were a document from the near east (coming to Europe circa beginning of 12th century) of the legend of the Queen of Sheba having a son with Solomin who became the first Ethiopian king and later took the arc from Israel, The North porch of the the Cathedral in Chartres France (also completed around the beginning of the 12th century - It is odd for Catholocism that there be a statue of Sheba in a church since she is not counted among the OT saints, although the version the document paints is taht she did convert to Judaism and would thus be an OT saint), and the Aurthurian grail quest Poem "Parzival" by Wolfram (also early 12th century). I have read most of Hancock's book and think he is materially right and have heard from others that it is a commonly accepted fact that the Ark does indeed rest in a sanctuary attached to a Coptic Church in northern Ethipia, seen by only one person in a lifetime, a Coptic priest who see little else his whole life because he is the "gaurdian" whose sole role it is to pray before and offer incense before the Ark. Like I said, I think Hancock is materially right, it is the meaning he is wrong about. The Ark is a very holy relect and to be honored as such, but it is ony the forshadowing of the full truth of the Incarnation/Eucharist which is symbolized by the grail in the legends. Hancock has the thing the wrong way round: the point of the connection is not that the grail legends serve as a cypher for the secret physical resting place of the Ark (which is basically what wolfram made out of his Aurthurian poem - which of course did make it a very good map/cypher) but that the ark is fulfilled in the Incarnation.
Eastern Rite Catholic Churches
Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are simply Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome. These can have two sources. The first is that the Rite existed almost from the beginning, and is not really schismatic. There is a Church, I believe in the Carpatho-Russina Mountian range (although I may be THOROUGHLY confused)
The Latin Rite
The Latin Rite is the is the right of the Western World. Since I am a westerner of broadly western/northern European extraction, this was the natural rite for me when converting ... had I been Easrten European (even living the USA at the end of a long line from immigrant ancestors) the case might have been different.
In reagrds to what was said above about the term "rite" being a primarily liturgical term ... the "rite" of the Latin Rite is the Tridentine Mass formalized universally at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. this was the rite celebrated in all Latin Rite Churches from then until the Novus Ordo was introduced by Paul VI in the 1960s.
"Schismatics"
So, technically the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are in union with Rome and the "Orthodox" are not. But there are "schismatics" within the West too. I am not as knowledgable on these but the two that come to mind are a group of Churches refered to as the "Old Catholics" and the "Soceitey of Saint Pius X" who broke away from Rome after the Second Vatican Council under Arch Bishop Martin Lefabre from France and believe that that council was not a valid council and that there has not been a valid Pope in Rome since either Pius X or XII (I forget which - I am not of this camp - when I do attentd Tridentine Mass it is at an "Indult community" Mass that is sanctioned by the Latin Rite diocese it is in). As with the Orthodox Churches (as I'll describe in the next section) these schismatic churches still have all 7 sacraments valid and a valid hierarchy.
Protestantism
Now, of course, this is a delicate subject, and I am not trying to be offnesive, just mainly trying to explain how Protestantism fits into the framwork that has been being discussed, from a Catholic standpoint.
The term employed in catholic theology to speak of protestants is "separated brethren." from the Catholic standpoint there are 7 sacrements and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have all of these validly (although they are not in communion in Rome, which is why "inter-communion" is generally not licit although it is valid - if I were in danger of death and the only priest around was Orthodox, there would be no problem with me receiving confession and communion from that priest, it would even be lcit then, and would definitely be valid - but in any other case I should seek out a priest from a Catholic rite).
With regards to Protestantism the Catholic Church teaches that protestants have two valid sacraments - and it is not the same two that my parents Presbyterian Church means when they say they have 2 sacraments, only 1 is the same: that Presby church means Baptism and Lord's Supper - the Catholic Church means Baptism and marriage. In catholic theology anyone who is not being say mocking or feigning can be the minister of valid Baptism as long as they intend to do what the Church does, as long as they intend to administer "traditional Christian Baptism." (again, there are questions of licitness versus validity - if a catchumenate were dying isolated with an atheist and said "I was on my way to getting Baptism and now I will die before I can, would you baptize me?" the atheist can do it validly as long as the atheist has the modicum of repsect and intent necessary to do it, in other words he/she might say "listen I don't really believe in this stuff, but out of respect for your dying wishes I'll do this thing called 'Christian Baptism' for you" - one cannot baptize themself).
With marriage the Catholic Church teaches that any two baptized peolpe can have a validly sacramental marriage if they have full intention and basic undrstanding when they take their wedding vows. "Basic Understanding" means that they think of their marriage as sacramental even if they would not use that term, or may even have a cultural aversion to it. If they are baptized and see their marriage as a path in which the otehr is a, for them, a doorway of God working in their lives in a concrete way (in short, a doorway for what we Catholics refer to as sacramental Grace) - particularly if thay have a strong concept of their marriage as a doorway to the transcendant AND see the church community as a big part of that.
Beyond this the Church does not hold that, say, Protestant "ordinations" are validly what the NT speaks of as ordination of clergy because in their very own statment of what is is that ordination is, there is usually not the concept of "priest" as core and essential to the definition. The big exceptions to this in Protestantism are usually the Anglican/Espicopal and the Lutheran. The Catholic Church does not hold these ordinations to be valid like they do the Orthodox because of serious shifts in theology and particularly in liturgy - breaks that broke the line of sacramental grace in conference of holy orders down through the ages.
Eastern Orthodoxy and Literature
This is just sort of an interesting tidbit added on. In a course I took on "Historical Foundations" of Christianity and Catholocism we had an auxilairy book with a shorter chapter on each mejor element, and each member of the class picked a chapter and took a Friday "seminar discussion" to lead on that particular topic, and I chose the class on Eastern Orthodoxy. Interestingly, the author chose to open that chapter with a quote from Charle's Williams' Aurthurian Poetry. (The Aurturian legends being among the image sources for some of the stuff in Harry Potter ... eg the fact that Harry is revealed to be a true Griffyndor by pulling the sword from the hat much as Aurthur is revealed in pulling the sword from the stone). The autor's point was that Williams development and discussion of the figure as Aurtur as both king of Brittain (the political kingdom) and the Pendragon of Logres 9the mythic/religious kingdom) is the most apt description that could be founf of the Eastern view of the Emperor at Constantinople before the Eastern Roman Empire known as "The Byzantine Empire" fell to the Turks. This view of the Emperor as a sort of "national father" working closely together with the "spiritual father," the Patriarch of Constantinople, is known as "Ceasero-Papism" ... a number of the ecumenical councils up through the fall of the Eastern Empire were actually called by the Emperor.
CS Lewis uses the image of the two Kingdoms that are Brittain (Logres and Brittain)being in conflict down through history in that Hideous Strength when Ransom is revealed to be the Pendragon of Logres.
(For the record, one of my main avenues for knowing these things was another class, an undergaduate class in "Ecclesiology" or "Theology of the Church," as it was called. the professor for that class was very into the study of Eastern Christendom, and hence we had a 25 pp journal to do on different aspects of Eastern Cotholocism and Orthodoxy.)
THE END
Anyway, I hope this has been informative/helpful/interesting. Like I said, the part on Protestantism is not meant to be combative, just trying to explain the Catholic understanding of the matters because I really appreciate that you are interested. There are always differences but to me it is really cool that you are interested in hearing the history and understanding what others really think ... I consider it a sign of respect that you ask, and something that I respect a lot.
I appologize for the verbosity ... I just copied this out to see how long it is and it was about 5 pp single spaced, which means 10 double spaced - a standard undergad term paper LOL
thanks so much, merlin. i appreciate the thoroughness with which you answered my questions.
not verbose! thorough!
(however i am wondering if you had another thought to complete in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches paragraph?)
tell me if i have the 'gist'....
there are 3 elements to consider.
observing the 7 sacraments
valid heirarchy
communion with rome.
to veer off even further (but there's kind of a reason. bear with me - i hope i remember to bring it back on course)
i went to a retreat last year run by a catholic church on the gold coast (south of where i live) centred on using the enneagram as a tool of spiritual growth.
i have taken a stab at placing my daughter at a '1'. this type is looking for perfection, the exact correct answer, doing life 'right'.
in conversations with her she will focus in on what is 'wrong' or missing from someone's point of view. (she sees herself through the same lens which is a whole other issue).
my challenge as i see it in parenting her is, in relating to others,to help her to look for a place of agreemnent. the common ground to build on etc. also to seek to understand the essence of what she is hearing and iron out problems from there, as opposed to getting everything exact before agreeing/disagreeing.
i think i take the same stance in conversations like this.
if i can understand what is truly being said, then i can more honestly discern where i am in agreement or otherwise, and then challenge my own position.
does that make sense? (not holding 'my opinions' up as any kind of authority or anything)
probably everyone does that, but just doesn't rabbit on about it like i do....
(ftr i am a '5')
what draws me to the catholic church is the rich sense of history and continuity - particularly with the latin element being so ancient - and the way it embraces the mystery as a whole valid element.
however i sense a similar thing with the messianic jewish churches that i have known of. there is a depth of understanding of the old testament and ways of god that resonate so deeply. (i have a lot of jewish blood, so it draws me on this level as well).
with the protestant church as *i* have known it (ie not much to do with the anglican, church of england and even presbyterian faces) well.....i found god for a start. (or he found me ) i don't underestimate this for a second. it was such a profound and life altering conversion. i don't doubt it's validity.
what 'won me' was coming face to face (or is it heart to heart?) with god become flesh. become man. i had never understood this even in a superficial way when taking part in any catholic services, or in conversation with catholics about their faith.
this is not to say of course that the catholic church lacks this, more that, for whatever reason, i had never encountered it there.
the incarnation and then, of course, the sacrificial death of christ were what differed from the philosophies etc that i had explored up to this point.
what i have felt lacking in the 20 years since then (YIKES!) is a sense of the mystery and rich symbolism within theology etc and an understanding of (i'm not sure how to explain this) how suffering plays into everyday existence, but in a spiritual way. the only extremes i have heard of are the 'hyperfaith' type 'suffering is a sign of lack of faith' and 'life is a vale of tears'.
the closest was 'mans' search for meaning' by victor frankl (i think that's right).
i think that is why discovering the backstory to HP and stumbling on your site and the conversations that have been ignited (really just exploded) have just opened the lid on this thirst for understanding this stuff that has been periferal and a bit shoved out of mind for a long time.
......
did i mention that i can go off on tangents?????
cheers,
jo
Jo,
yeah, as far as concerns the Eastern Rites and Eastern Orthodoxy as fitting what Catholic church would mean as a "church" in the technical sense, those 3 elements are a very good summary (much more succinct than my own ... I believe it was GK Chesterton who said, "brevity is the soul of wit" LOL)
The main difference would be
Then as far as concerns the "church" in the broader sense of the universal church, Baptism is one of the most important considerations, and then beyond this what the CC refers to as "insurmountable ignorance" - for instance, a person who has not had the opportunity to hear the gospel or be baptized etc, and whether or not they have a "baptism of desire" in their will do do what is true and right, or maybe an atheist who became such because he/she was so mistreated by Christians/Catholics - to the extent that is was effectually impossible to think straight on the matter due to prevailing emotions/psychological factors (not that all atheists and agnostics are in this "innocent" of a state - just to say that it is a possibility).
In short, "the higher the leap the harder the ground" or to quote Uncle Ben in Spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility" - in other words, on the assumption that we Catholics are "correct" about the unique identity of hte Roman Catholic Church (meaning both the larger body and the specific diocese of Rome/Vatican - since this is a defining characteric of the Roman Catholocism, the belief in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff), we cannot assume that we as individuals, or as larger groups, are always acting rightly. One of my profs for my MA, Dr Scott Hahn (some of whose works have been found on Amazon, but if you ever decide to read them let me know, I would have a prefatory note on his writings), often mentions different places where Christ criticizes the Phairsees, why - because Judaism was wrong (as opposed to simply incomplete)? No, he says "do not do what they DO ...BUT do follow what they teach (for now), for they sit in the seat of Moses". He criticized their actions and that seat of Moses is much like the seat of Peter in Rome sometimes - although I have been very thankful for the two Popes I have been Catholic under thus far, JP II and Benedict XVI . But the point is that being "correct" and having valid authority is etc does not mean one will necessarily act rightly ... Ciaphus spoke valid prophecy becuase of his valid authority as High Priest taht year - but he did it in the midst of conspiring a murder that very well may have damned his soul.
Anyway, all of that was from a perspective of Catholic thinking and just meant to admit that even from that perspective, "correctness" is not the same as "sanctity" - Dante was a devout Catholic, but he had popes in hell.
There is a lot in your response that I'll come back to (including the lost thought on Eastern Rite Churches you mention ... I laughed when I went back and saw this after you said it, picturing a reader sitting there saying "oh really ... a Church extisted in the mountains? well ... you're right, that is a terribly interesting fact simply all by itself *sarcasm on the part of reader here LOL*")
It was very interesting - and much to respond to and discuss.
For right now I have to run and get cleaned up for a student coming over for RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation in Adults) - and I spent all day yesterday channging the distributor cap and spark plugs ets in my car in an attempt to get it running (to no avail) and just sort of crashed on the couch last night after finishing tha post and a half hour conversation with a housemate smoking a smoke, so I am definitely in need of cleaning up before he (said student) gets here LOL
Merlin
Sorry, did it again ... jumped ahead to make sure not to forget some stuff and then forgot to come back and finish the thought (must have gotten some of that ether in my brain that I was spraying into my engine to try to get it started yesterday LOL)
The difference between the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodoxy would be that third one, communion with Rome.
Jo, there is a lot to touch in in your response and I'm sure it could go on at great length (IE I could ramble profusely LOL)
but I just thought I would touch on a few points:
1. The thing on knowledge of Jewish hisory and past and particularly Jewish Religious life and cult etc is really important. In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy then Jospeh Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote "It is precisely when we read the New Testament in terms of cultic theology that we see how much it is bound up, in its deepest implications, with the Old. The New Testament corresponds to the inner drama of the Old" (p. 37). This is a greatly overlooked facet of the NT by a large percentage of Christianity, on boths sides of all the different fences, unfortunately
2. On what is refered to in Catholic "society" (for lack of a better term for the larger cultural phenomenon/spiritual side, beyond simply formulated doctrine/theology etc) as "the redemptive role of suffering." Amen.
3. On the Incarnation - I personally have found that the best song ever to come out is "Hoist that Rag" by Tom Waits (bear with me, I know this seems a bit wierd LOL ... is your DH into Tom Waits at all? from the way you describe him as liking Green's The Power and the Glory I supsect he might like some of Waits' material)
This song also connects with the thing on suffering as part of being distinctly human and the Incarnation (it seems like so many times it gets broken down as two different things, but really it is the Incarnation that is salvific because it is the suffering death and Resurrection which define the Incarnation as its pinacle - it's all one package)
Anyway, the song "Hoist that Rag" has, at least as I hear it, one basic message - being human is an awfully raw deal sometimes (ie suffering) but somehow mysteriously it is the most amazingly sublime thing going - hence lines like:
"the sun is up the world is flat, damn good address for a rat"
and it is often a VERY gritty experience:
"The smell of blood the drone of flies, you know what to do when the bay cries ... hoist that rag"
the "rag" is a flag and it is, simultaneously,the white flag of surrender and the red flag of fighting the war hard in the flesh and blood of our lives:
"Well, we stick our fingers in the ground,
Heave and turn the World around
Smoke is blacking out the sun
At night I pray and clean my gun"
And it is a song that does not claim to make "doctrinal statements" about God, but simply expressing how the experience feels some days:
"God used me as a hammer, boys, to beat his weary drum today"
the drum could be "weary" as in "tired and useless arguments" but I think it is "weary" in the sense of having worked so hard, kind of like "I really don't understand what He is doing, but maybe there is a point to it"
I think that that (above) is the matter of "God" with a capital "g" - and then there is the matter of the "gods" with lowercase "g" - those Greek gods who play dice with the fates of humanity - and in truth, when it comes to earth and human life they are at a disadvantage: this is the human turf divinely protected by God, and (from a Christian perspective, which is really only latent in Waits song, I'm just making the point I think his song is highly congruous and thus a really good of expression of what is at the heart of the thing) is such an amazingly mystical reality that He came down to be fully human himself and thereby raise humanity to its supernatural mysterious potential of love ("no greater has any man than to lay down his life for his friends" ... no body ever quite "hoisted that rag" of simultaneous surrender and battle in the form of death the way Christ did)
These "gods" are, I think, contrasted to the idea of true human liberty in the form of the "cracked bell" (ie the american liberty bell in Philladelphia):
The Cracked bell rings and the ghost bird sings,
And the gods go begging here
So just open fire when you hit that shore
All is fair in love and war
Hoist that rag"
In the end I think the song is really/veiled about abandoning one's self to fighting the good fight of being human ... even when it feels like all you're doing is beating your head off a brick wall till you're completely bloody and bruised and broken (or almost there - "I'm not broken but you can see the cracks," to quote Bono)
some see the song as only an "anti-war" song - and there may be some of those meanings in it as part of the larger meaning, but I'm gonna give Waits the benefit of the doubt that he is able to write a multi-valent song that has a very rich deeper meaning.
Finally, one additinal thing the song has is the most killer rhumba-beat (or maybe salsa - I am not incredibly versed in the different types of latin rhythm) electric (gritty old style hollow body sound - like the Gretsch guitars used to have) latin guitar interludes (and hence back to some of the things we have talked about as far as music and melody - music being a distinctly human phenomenon and therefore very tied to the Incarnation)
I am listening to it as I type (that and "Love and Peace or Else" from Atomic Bomb)- you don't need to buy the whole album, maybe just spend the 1 dollar to download it from i-tunes or something like that.
Oh yeah, on the unfinished section on
Eastern rite Catholic Churches
That church in the mountains existed from a very early time, long before the major divisions between Easte and West, basically in isolation with their own valid rite - so naturally when they came into contact with rome, it was natural for them to maintian their rite.
Like I said, the rites/churches are often married to a naturally good and unique national or ethnic identity and the Roman Church wishes to respect that. For a Pope to try to force a rite to be assimilated into the Latin rite would probably be an abuse of the jurisdiction of his office
(this is basically the considerations and ideas behind John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen, "The Light of the East" from 1995 - and not just that the Roman Church needs to be careful lest she "gets in trouble," but that she really needs the East - the Church needs to be "breathing with both lungs" - and much the same is true with regards to some Protestant thought - Martin Luther had some ral legit gripes about some very real abuses in the Church, although I don't agree with where he went with it - but it must also be admitted that Protestants have produced some very real insights - in all things ... true dialogue is essential to all of our survival)
Anyway "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches" can be of that order of things like that mountain range church, simply isolated but not in schism - or they can also be the result of an Eastern Orthodox church/rite coming back into union with Rome etc
I think that was all I was going to say on that one :)
Merlin
Here are the lyrics (in a simple format of the song ... not admixed with my commentary LOL) to
Hoist that Rag
Well, I learned the trade
from Piggy Knowles and
Sing Sing Tomy shay Boys
God used me as a hammer boys
To beat his weary drum today
Hoist that Rag
The sun is up the world is flat
Damn good address for a rat
The smell of blood
The drone of flies
You know what to do if
The baby cries
Hoist that rag
Well we stick our fingers in
The Ground, heave and
Turn the world around
Smoke is blacking out the sun
At night I pray and clean my gun
The cracked bell rings as
The ghost bird sings and the gods
Go begging here
So just open fire
When you hit the shore
All is fair in Love and War
Hoist that Rag
so, to broaden this just a touch, where do protestants stand, in the view of catholic theology, so far as being in (for want of a better term) a state of grace before god?
so, in terms of eternity and heaven and stuff?
(again, i am totally not being combative etc etc)
this is relating slightly to a conversation i am having with an acquaintance on an alternative parenting board. her in laws are greek orthodox and she converted when she married (genuinely) but now has lots of misgivings because of the expections for children to take part in the rites in ways she's not comfortable with.
oh, and by the way, i hope you get your car going. we have btdt too many times. with the 3rd baby i actually got a reliable car. just *had* to happen!
On Protestants and the "state of Grace," as I understand it it is "judge not lest ye be judged"
even with Catholics, etc, and in general with humanity - the Church will not proclaim on any individual until after death and then only in the positive - in other words there is no process for canonizing anyone as "damned" taht corresponds to the process for canonizing a saint (in other words, "based on this evidence of answers to intercessory prayer etc, we are 'sure' with the unique kind of surety the Church has on such things [not meaning unique in the sense of a higher degree of "accuracy" but firmly sure in a way that has a lot more to do with faith than we usually think of when speaking of "surety") that this person has made it to the other side and is praying for more effectively over there than we can over here - and there is no corresponding discernment concerning whether somebody went to hell or to purgatory)
So, you are left with general principles of "this is a mortal sin and will remove you from a state of Grace." And here the case is the same with Protestants as with Catholics, if the Protestant is baptized with water and the Classic Trinitarian formula - it is a matter of understanding and intention. There are probably many Catholic kids in America growing up having no clue taht Sunday Mass is an obligation outside of serious emergency (if I was on my way to Mass and saw a wreck and had an opportunity to help save somebodies life but it would mean missing Mass and so I missed Mass, in the confessinal a good priest would say "good ... it would have probably been a mortal sin if you let that person die) - but once one knows and has some basis for understanding, then the situation changes ... and with a religious tradtition like Protestantism many "factors" of knowledge/understanding change.
Likewise, like I was saying elsehwere, a Protestant marriage can be validly sacramental - it is possible for a protestant to basically understand and believe what the Church teaches about the sacramentality of marriage without using those terms, or maybe even having an aversion to them.
Take for instance a Catholic I know who got married without a priest present ... and his marriage was considered null "pro-forma" because was Catholic - the situation is different for somebody who is Protestant - a Catholic has generally been confirmed (the specific sacrament of Confirmation) well before being eligable and as part of that process of full sacramental initiation in the Church was chatechized - and either that catechesis as involved marriage was in sufficient enough that they could not have a full understanding of marriage (not understanding the role of the Clergy as chief witness for the larger community of the Church, the larger communal sacramental life within which the marriage will be sacramental) or they did know enough and they were rebelling etc (which is a form of non-compliance of the will, a compliance which is necessary for validity)
(unfortunately this worked to his advantage when it became evident that certain differences really did seem to be irreconcilable)
As far as your firend and the Eastern Orthodox and particular rites, I'd have to know more, but probably best not to discuss the details with a person your friend does not know and Iam not sure all of those types of details CAN be explained in this format - although if you told me the exact rite/ritual/ceremony in question(deleting details that reveal too much of yoru friends situation and concerns ect) I might know something about it, but I also might not - I do know some things about the "Divine Liturgy," which is the Orthodox and generally Eastern term for what we Catholics call Mass or Eucharist - but there are probably many other types of Rites in their various liturgies that I do not know much about.
I hope that explains somehwat at least
-and I hope my car gets better too - but right now it's a mystery LOL
i only discuss my friend's situation because she has given me leave to do so. :)
specifically her mother in law is worried that the baby isn't taking communion often enough and will not go to heaven. unfortunately they had a very unpleasant experience with the baptism and the child is very wary of church all together.
she doesn't feel that god would really judge a child on that basis.
i don't know what to say to her, as in our 'tradition' all of those things are done at an age of choosing, and aren't directly related to how close or otherwise you are to god.
that's the main focal point of the problem anyway.
Jo,
Intersting ... the particulars of the situation do give me a better picture of what issues are concerned, and I think I can take a stab at a few comments and considertions that might be helpful (or might now, depending on how well I execute the discussion of them :) )
I know that it is often the practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church to administer all 3 "sacraments of initiation" (Baptism, First Communion and Confrimation) at the time at which we Catholics administer only Baptism (IE within the first mont or so after birth) - in Western Catholicsm (the Latin Rite) generally first communion is connected with first confession and both are given at around 7 or 8 years old (the commonly accepted "age of reason"), with confirmation being given either at the 8th grade level or the 11th grade level (which, at least in the US, varies from diocese to diocese and there is usually a specific class for confirmation preparation within the CCD program, I have helped out at the parish in my home town with the teaching of the 11th grade class for confirmation)
Generally speaking I think it is "all right" to do as the EO do, and actually maybe even a good idea, but I have no problem with the Western practice either.
But I personally believe there are a few things that should be kept in mind by the Eastern Orthodox, which it sounds like might be, from your description, the core of the matter with the mother-in-law's concerns.
"State of Grace" and "State of Sin"
According to both Catholic and EO theology Baptism puts one into a state of Grace. What would remove one from a state of Grace is mortal sin. Mortla sin requires full deliberation
Nature and Supernature/Grace
Communion is technically "super-natural Grace," and thus I believe that with any person in a state of Grace, it is helpful. But what must be remembered is the classic formula of the relationship between Grace (the supernatural)and nature: "Grace Builds on Nature."
There are two ways to "get this wrong" as far as this concept goes. The first is basically the heresy of "Neo-Pelagianism" (Augustine fought heavily, in his later years, against the original heresy of Pelagianism), to say that nature remains substantially unchanged and Grace builds on top of it without any real inter-penetration. The second way to get it wrong is taht of a quasi-"deconstructionism" in which Grace is thought to completely disassemble nature and then reassemble it in a way taht no longer bears any resemblence whatsoever, no congruity at all, with what it was.
(the best formulation I have heard of how to "get it right" is taht used by a professor I have had named Dr Scott Hahn: "Grace Heals, Perfects and Elevates nature" - I have used this and given a more detailed account of this formulation in a post on the muugle matters website called "Religion and Love in Tolkien" - which was a while ago so it is somewhre in the archives.)
The issue in this particular situation is the concern that the role of nature not be overlooked, and the particular "nature" here is psychological/personal formation of a child.
Summary/Synopsis (?)
In short (or, um, maybe not so short LOL), the mother-in-law is right to be concerned for the salvatino of her grandchild, as we all are right to be concerned for the salvation of ourselves and those we love. And, being as Communion is supernatural Grace, it is thus helpful when received in a state of Grace, (it is supernatural Grace either way, but when not in a state of Grace it is what St Paul refers to as "eating and drinking condemnation" to yourself) ... and a child below the age of reason is really incapable of commting serious sin and thus, once baptized is in a state of Grace until reaching the point where they would have the power of deliberation necessary for serious sin.
Thus, I think worrying about the child not going to heaven is, at this point, inaccurate, but I also think frequent communion can't hurt and will probably help. But I also think that a great deal of ernest attention should be given to what I have desrcibed above as the "natural" side of the thing.
Having your child baptized and, in the EO system, giving communion from infancy are to give your child the "tools" they need (to use a regretably rough analogy, for lack of a direct but also more gentle analogy) for being saved and sanctified, for going to heaven, but that supernatural Grace was never meant to completely replace the "natural tools" you give your child, such as a psychologically balanced and healthy personal formation - Grace is meant to empower those things and take them to a new level that is still congruous with their original nature. Thes gifts are equally important to "getting into heavn" by not commiting mortal sins, primarily through true love of God and neighbor (for example, neither insecurity nor anger are a mortal sin whereas hatred is ... but to quote Yoda, there is a natural progression whereby "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate ..." - maybe not LEADS TO in an ironclad sense, since sin is by definition a choice - but as with everything in this life, these factors are usually never neutral, they are usually eiether helpful or hurtful)
Of course, giving these things is not a matter of giving "objective gifts;" it is a matter of giving your time and energy and love to your child, in short - giving yourself" If salvation is coming into covenant relationship with God through Christ, part of the formation of the ability to do that healhtily is how one is formed in natural relationships.
One of the things that amazes me is how unconditional everything is for children. Their love is unconditional. Of course love is an act of the will, and part of the reason that their love is unconditinoal is that their will is unconditional, as any parent of a "terrible-twos" toddler can attest to LOL. The role of the parent is not to break that will for the sake of "obedience" but to help their child in forming their will, directing it into the right places - into virtue and dignified human efforts (which in now way precludes the same being a lot of fun, which is a common modern misconception), and away from vice/addictive behavior/selfishness, etc.
AS a child grows this involves different aspects (and you would know this better than I, being a parent - this is more just sort of what I, as a bachelor, have managed to pick up) - when very young it may involve much more appeal to the natural authority of the parent, but as the capability to undertsand develops it involves more and mroe talking and helping the child to learn right from worng, helping them form their own understanding and will so that in the end they are a well formed person who can do the right thing on their own. Ultimately the goal is that same thing of being able to love God and neighbor to their fullest - and therein lies that friendship that an older paretn has with their grown children (along with a good bit of laughs about inside jokes looking back at humorous foibles on both sides along the way).
Postcript
Being as this is written in a public forum which also happens to be your rightful domain in that it is your blog, you would already have the right to, say, pass the text of this comment on to your friend, but I just wanted to say, for the record, taht for my part, if any of it is helpful to your friend in understanding and resolving these concerns ... I am more than happy of that. It may or may not be helpful since the family is EO and, although I think the thoughts on this matter would be relatively the same, there may be differences I do not know of taht would make thoughts from a Ltin rite Catholic unacceptable to an EO such as the mother-in-law.
But I hope it's at least somehwat helpful ... any further questions clarifications etc - just ask :)9nice to be putting the MA degree to some good use while waiting to get on for a PHD LOL)
Merlin
Did it again, forgot to go back and finish a though - but the form on this one is not left as dangling as with the last on, at least :)
A child below the age of reason cannot deliberate in the way necessary to commit mortal sin, and being baptized there is "technically" not the worry of "not going to heaven" until threason develops sufficiently to commit mortal sin.
merlin,
i was going to give her the link for here, but it might be a bit much for her to plough through to get to the relevant parts. unlike myself. this is a fun game for me!
do you mind if i cut and paste the sections (perhaps your last 2 entries in full) to show her? (don't even know if i can do that yet....)
feel free to cut and paste away (and also feel free to fix any of my rampant typos you come across LOL)
ta
Post a Comment
<< Home