Ukrainian Catholic Catechetical Materials On The Liturgy

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Terra Firma' date='11 August 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1281569356' post='2156170']
Dominicansoul, I think your passion for the catechesis of Ukrainian Catholic children is commendable. I think that Apo provided us with this pamphlet as a window into the way our Catholic brothers and sisters in other rites view us, but it seems to really have awakened in you a drive to ensure high-quality catechesis for these children. I think that is a beautiful thing.

Since the number of Ukrainian Catholics is so small in comparison to Roman Catholics, you might consider that the passion you've displayed here could have a greater purpose. Perhaps you could be called to help them out by providing them with a new, more truthful text for their children's catechetics. [url="http://www.ustpaul.ca/Sheptytsky/info/contact.htm"]Here's the contact information[/url] for the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, which published the document. I'm sure they'd happily receive your suggestions for improving this pamphlet.
[/quote]
I already contacted them!!

...and I shared a link to this thread!!!

...great minds think alike!!!!!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 August 2010 - 03:01 AM' timestamp='1281510086' post='2155674']
Perhaps you should contact the Ukrainian Catholic priest who wrote the pamphlet before accusing him of "backstabbing."

Micah, be honest, you take offense at many of my posts simply because I stand up for the distinct theological traditions and doctrines of the East.

Do I, for example, believe in the Scholastic teachings on grace?

No, I do not.

That said, do I take offense if you accept those Scholastic formulations?

No, if you want to accept them it is no skin off my nose.

But that is not good enough for you, because - like a good chauvinist - you want me to confess the Latin way of doing tings, and I will never do that. The Latin way is not for me, and has not been of any real interest to me for several years now. That you are at home in the modern Roman Church is fine with me, but I prefer the ancient faith of the Eastern Fathers, which is no doubt why I have found my spiritual home in the Byzantine Church.

It is the only way for me.
[/quote]

It is perfectly acceptable to prefer the ancient faith of the Eastern Fathers, who were in mutual union with the Western Fathers. It is perfectly acceptable - commendable, in fact - to hold to the traditions of the East. To reject this or that dogma, however, because it was clarified by the West...well, that's still a post-baptismal denial of a dogma of the faith. It's heresy. We have one faith, not two faiths. The dogma of, for instance, original sin, is true. The Easterner that denies it is a heretic of at least the material variety. Authentic Catholicism must acknowledge the infallible nature of the dogma. Now there is plenty of room for the East to reframe and explain the dogma within the context of her own tradition, her own philosophy, her own specific understanding, but to deny the dogma outright as a Western chauvinistic imposition reveals a theological-cultural paranoia, indeed, a hatred, of the West. To approqches to the same faith is fine, but two faiths is two Christs, and that is heresy.

If the East professes that, for instance, original sin is false, as you claim (although I think this is incorrect, as some other Eaaterners I know say you're wrong to deny things such as original sin), then there are two possibilities: the East is wrong or the West is wrong. It cannot be the case that both are correct. Now, the West has the pope, so my money's on the West. Either way, I think this is a false dichotomy. There is a third way, as I suggested: both sides are right, they just haven't worked out how. The West is right, there is original sin, but the East hasn't figured out how to reconcile it with their theology. That is why I belong to the school of thought that tries to reconcile the theologies, so that we may see one Christ, and not two. You, however, find it easier to say, at least implicitly, that the West is in heresy, but I answer that the Eastern Catholic Churches do not deny original sin, and so all I see is you saying that the Catholic Church, both West AND East, is in heresy.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='11 August 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1281543523' post='2155794']
As far as Apotheoun having a superiority complex... way to go and completely judge someone without hardly any basis. Apotheoun is enthusiastic about his own rite. If you perceive that as superiority, it sounds like you're a little insecure in your heritage in the Latin Rite. Lots of people make comments around here about how Dominicans are the best, about how Carmelites are the best, so on and so forth. Is that a superiority complex? No, or at least I try to assume the best about peoples motives for that, that it is simply enthusiasm, and I see no reason why I can't take it pleasantly, and I see no reason why an Eastern Catholics enthusiasm cannot be received in the same way.
[/quote]
I'm not exactly jumping to conclusions here. Todd has repeatedly undermined and insulted the West, butted into threads on Western traditions with nothing to say but how much better the East is, and explicitly denied several dogmas of the Catholic Church on the basis that they are ("Western scholasticism"...as I said above...you can't deny a dogma, it's heresy. You can try to reconcile it with the Eastern tradition and language, but you cannot outright deny it. Todd rejects any attempts at reconciliation as an attempt to westernize, but the dogmas of the faith are universal, not western). I'm not the only person to think Todd has a superiority complex about all this. I'm not judging him; I don't know the state of his soul, but I'm not going to let him get away with his anti-western and anti-catholic views.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='11 August 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1281570225' post='2156178']
Again, the Roman Rite per se is to be distinguished from the Roman Rite as abused. It is dishonest to say that the Roman Rite calls for [insert abuse of the rite here], when that very thing itself is in fact a violation of the rite. Period.
[/quote]
This has been answered by both by Zunshynn and Terra Firma.

See Zunshynn's [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=107399&view=findpost&p=2155794"]post #47[/url], and Terra Firma's [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=107399&view=findpost&p=2155825"]post #60[/url], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=107399&view=findpost&p=2155859"]post #65[/url], and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=107399&view=findpost&p=2155900"]post #73[/url].

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='11 August 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1281571912' post='2156183']
It is perfectly acceptable to prefer the ancient faith of the Eastern Fathers, who were in mutual union with the Western Fathers. It is perfectly acceptable - commendable, in fact - to hold to the traditions of the East. To reject this or that dogma, however, because it was clarified by the West...well, that's still a post-baptismal denial of a dogma of the faith. It's heresy. We have one faith, not two faiths. The dogma of, for instance, original sin, is true. The Easterner that denies it is a heretic of at least the material variety. Authentic Catholicism must acknowledge the infallible nature of the dogma. Now there is plenty of room for the East to reframe and explain the dogma within the context of her own tradition, her own philosophy, her own specific understanding, but to deny the dogma outright as a Western chauvinistic imposition reveals a theological-cultural paranoia, indeed, a hatred, of the West. To approqches to the same faith is fine, but two faiths is two Christs, and that is heresy.[/quote]
Let's talk about something specific, rather than speak in vague general terms:

How do you understand divine simplicity Raphael?

I hold that God is simple because the unknowable divine essence is wholly present in each one of His distinct energies.

Is that what you believe too?

Are God's energies (i.e., what Westerners often call God's attributes) really distinct among themselves while also being really distinct from His incomprehensible essence?

What it is that you believe?

[quote name='Raphael' date='11 August 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1281571912' post='2156183']
If the East professes that, for instance, original sin is false, as you claim (although I think this is incorrect, as some other Eaaterners I know say you're wrong to deny things such as original sin), then there are two possibilities: the East is wrong or the West is wrong.[/quote]
Eastern Christians believe that there was an original sin, we just do not believe that anyone is born sinful or guilty. The effect of the original sin was mortality.

Is that what you believe too?

Or do you believe what St. Augustine taught?

I do not mind if you accept St. Augustine's viewpoint, but of course his views on the issue had no influence on the doctrine of the Eastern Churches, which is why the idea that a person is born guilty or sinful is not a part of my expression of the faith.

[quote name='Raphael' date='11 August 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1281571912' post='2156183']
It cannot be the case that both are correct. Now, the West has the pope, so my money's on the West. [/quote]
I never bet on popes. And the pope is not a source of Tradition, but is merely a guardian of Tradition, like every other bishop.

[quote name='Raphael' date='11 August 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1281571912' post='2156183']
There is a third way, as I suggested: both sides are right, they just haven't worked out how.[/quote]
There is a fourth way, which is: both sides are correct within the intellectual presuppositions that form the foundation of their expressions of the faith, but because these foundations are different it is unwise to try and combine them.

On the issue of the original sin - as I said above - I am not worried if you talk about it along more Augustinian lines, but that way of talking about the issue does not work for me, which is why I am Byzantine Catholic and not Roman Catholic.

[StColette]

[quote name='Terra Firma' date='11 August 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1281548855' post='2155859']

Keeping in mind that this is a pamphlet for CHILDREN, how would you go about describing the Latin rite? Would you describe things as we wish they were practiced, or as these children are likely to encounter if they actually enter a Latin rite parish for worship? In my experience, they're more likely to encounter guitars and cheesy banners than not. So should the pamphlet instead have said, "Latin Churches are just not measuring up to their own standards. We are! Yay us!"

[/quote]

While I understand that the pamphlet is geared toward children, I think teaching things the way the children would encounter them rather than the way things should be done can be dangerous. IE, many children see people leaving, even their own families leaving, before Mass has ended. This is definitely not a good practice. Children can be easily taught that even though some people may leave early, it's not supposed to be that way. Personal testimony, I taught this very lesson about not leaving early to my PSR kids and sure enough I had a parent come to me a few weeks following and tell me that they had started staying until Mass was completely over because their child came home and discussed it with them. These were 2nd graders. Majority of children are capable of understanding the difference between the way things are and the way things should be.

Growing up, I never saw a guitar in Mass. I actually never encountered a guitar at Mass until I went to Franciscan lol

I guess for me the thing that bothered me about the pamphlet was the wording when contrasting the two Rites.

So, while I understand that they might possibly be gearing this to children in a way that focuses on what children might see if they attend a Latin Rite Mass, but I believe that if it's Catechetical material then it should display what the Latin Rites liturgies should be like rather than what abuses cause them to be. Again, children are quite capable of understanding the difference between something being done in a way that isn't quite right. I mean lots of Catholics don't believe that confession is necessary and a large group of Catholics don't go to confession, this doesn't mean we should teach the kids that not going to confession is okay because that's what they encounter.

Am I making any sense?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 August 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1281564628' post='2156135']
No offense intended, but I do not think of the Baltimore Catechism as "deeply thought out." To me it is a rather superficial treatment of the faith.
[/quote]

another deeply thought out theological aide I use in the classroom is "Catholicism for Dummies.."

[Sojourner]

[quote name='StColette' date='11 August 2010 - 06:55 PM' timestamp='1281574543' post='2156211']
While I understand that the pamphlet is geared toward children, I think teaching things the way the children would encounter them rather than the way things should be done can be dangerous. IE, many children see people leaving, even their own families leaving, before Mass has ended. This is definitely not a good practice. Children can be easily taught that even though some people may leave early, it's not supposed to be that way. Personal testimony, I taught this very lesson about not leaving early to my PSR kids and sure enough I had a parent come to me a few weeks following and tell me that they had started staying until Mass was completely over because their child came home and discussed it with them. These were 2nd graders. Majority of children are capable of understanding the difference between the way things are and the way things should be.

Growing up, I never saw a guitar in Mass. I actually never encountered a guitar at Mass until I went to Franciscan lol

I guess for me the thing that bothered me about the pamphlet was the wording when contrasting the two Rites.

So, while I understand that they might possibly be gearing this to children in a way that focuses on what children might see if they attend a Latin Rite Mass, but I believe that if it's Catechetical material then it should display what the Latin Rites liturgies should be like rather than what abuses cause them to be. Again, children are quite capable of understanding the difference between something being done in a way that isn't quite right. I mean lots of Catholics don't believe that confession is necessary and a large group of Catholics don't go to confession, this doesn't mean we should teach the kids that not going to confession is okay because that's what they encounter.

Am I making any sense?
[/quote]
You do make sense, and I appreciate the thoughtful answer.

However, I think it is one thing to catechize children correctly about your own rite and how to properly observe it, and quite another to tell another rite how to prepare its children to visit your rite or to see your rite.

I guess what concerns me is that we are so focused on making sure they portray us correctly, not on making the actual internal changes we need to make so that we as the Roman Catholic Church observe our own rubrics and traditions.

Imagine if a supermodel stopped taking care of herself and put on 50 pounds a few weeks before an important photo shoot. When she sees the proofs of the pictures, should she be more angry with the photographer for portraying her flaws, or with herself for her own lack of discipline?

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Terra Firma' date='11 August 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1281581855' post='2156306']
You do make sense, and I appreciate the thoughtful answer.

However, I think it is one thing to catechize children correctly about your own rite and how to properly observe it, and quite another to tell another rite how to prepare its children to visit your rite or to see your rite.

I guess what concerns me is that we are so focused on making sure they portray us correctly, not on making the actual internal changes we need to make so that we as the Roman Catholic Church observe our own rubrics and traditions.

Imagine if a supermodel stopped taking care of herself and put on 50 pounds a few weeks before an important photo shoot. When she sees the proofs of the pictures, should she be more angry with the photographer for portraying her flaws, or with herself for her own lack of discipline?
[/quote]
Win.

[organwerke]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='11 August 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1281559736' post='2156083']
Looks more like libel.
[/quote]

It is not a libel.
And, sorry for you, but even if you don't like me, I can't say that a false accuse is true only to make you feeling better.
Anyway, I know this is not the subject of the thread so I'll let you going on in peace.

God bless you.

Edited August 13, 2010 by organwerke