Are the Orthodox more Mystical than the Catholics?

[mardukm]

Required reading in seminary. Was referring to present day.

What do you mean by “present day”? Is Padre Pio “present day” enough? How about Mother Theresa? How about HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory? Are these “present day” enough for you?

I would love to agree with you, but Aristotelian philosophy is very much either/or. This is why the dogma of transubstantiation is unacceptable to the Orthodox and liturgical Protestants. Western thought and Thomism very much de-mystifies the sacraments… which are by their very nature mysterious.

I have not studied Aristotelian philosophy much. But I DO know that what makes the Sacraments mystical or mysterious is the Presence of Divinity WITH and DESPITE a material sign (given the “otherness” of God). Can you explain please how Aristotelian philosophy has somehow taken away the Divine Presence and the Mystery of the Sacraments? Even more, can you explain to us IN MORE DETAIL how Latin Catholic theology has somehow taken away the Divine Presence and the Mystery of the Sacraments?

It seems to me you are arguing for mystery for the sake of mystery itself, and not for the sake of the Divine Who has revealed Himself to us. If you are arguing mystery for the sake of mystery, then what distinguishes that from Islam? It may or may not be true that Aristotelian philosphy is “either/or.” But Catholic theology is not Aristotelian philosophy per se is it? IIRC, the early Fathers utilized Aristotelian/Platonic philosophy as well. Is there a reason why the Father’s use of classic philosophical principles to explain the Faith does not register as condemnable on your radar, while the Latin Catholic Church’s use of the same principles is?

A final question for you would be, how exactly do you define “Mystery” or “mystical?” Is it the ABSOLUTE negation of reason? If so, and if you think that is what Eastern Orthodoxy represents, then I suggest you look elsewhere, for that is NOT what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. If it is NOT the ABSOLUTE negation of reason, then what is it exactly about Latin Catholic theology that is offputting?

And, BTW, I think you misunderstood brother Genesis315’s statement “it is not either/or, it is and/both.” He is not saying that Aristotelian philosophy is “and/both.” He is saying that you can get BOTH the mystical perspective/paradigm within Catholicism AND you can the rational/theological paradigm as well. BOTH informs Latin Catholic theology EQUALLY. YOU cannot in good conscience claim that ONLY Aristotelian philosophy informs Latin Catholic theology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Absolutely. Much more comfortable with mystery than the Western Church.

If I were going to cross a river, it would be the Bosphorus, not the Tiber.

No offense taken: if I were going to cross a river, it would be the Bosphorus, not the Elbe. (Nor the Thames.)

 

[O.S.Luke]

What do you mean by “present day”? Is Padre Pio “present day” enough? How about Mother Theresa? How about HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory? Are these “present day” enough for you?

There are always exceptions. Overall, however, I think the Eastern Church is more immersed, and readily embraces, mystery. You are welcome to disagree.

I have not studied Aristotelian philosophy much. But I DO know that what makes the Sacraments mystical or mysterious is the Presence of Divinity WITH and DESPITE a material sign (given the “otherness” of God). Can you explain please how Aristotelian philosophy has somehow taken away the Divine Presence and the Mystery of the Sacraments? Even more, can you explain to us IN MORE DETAIL how Latin Catholic theology has somehow taken away the Divine Presence and the Mystery of the Sacraments?

Transubstantiation seeks to use philosophy and Thomistic logic to “explain” the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood. The Real Presence of Christ needs no such explanation - miracles are supernatural and mysterious, thus unexplainable. No explanation was good enough for the Catholic Church for 1100 years, by the way.

It seems to me you are arguing for mystery for the sake of mystery itself, and not for the sake of the Divine Who has revealed Himself to us. If you are arguing mystery for the sake of mystery, then what distinguishes that from Islam? It may or may not be true that Aristotelian philosphy is “either/or.” But Catholic theology is not Aristotelian philosophy per se is it?

I fear that much of it is, given Thomas Aquinas’ influence.

IIRC, the early Fathers utilized Aristotelian/Platonic philosophy as well. Is there a reason why the Father’s use of classic philosophical principles to explain the Faith does not register as condemnable on your radar, while the Latin Catholic Church’s use of the same principles is?

Not ALL the ECF’s. And if you read the Desert Fathers, it is a 180° turn from anything close to rationalism or Western influence.

A final question for you would be, how exactly do you define “Mystery” or “mystical?” Is it the ABSOLUTE negation of reason?

I have no idea why you have brought reason into the conversation. I certainly didn’t.

Pax,

O+

 

[Peter_J]

I would love to agree with you, but Aristotelian philosophy is very much either/or. This is why the dogma of transubstantiation is unacceptable to the Orthodox and liturgical Protestants. Western thought and Thomism very much de-mystifies the sacraments… which are by their very nature mysterious.

I largely sympathize with what you are saying.

I remember a month or two ago, a reformed poster saying: If only the Catholic Church would realize what a mistake it was to move away from St. Augustine. My reaction was like, Hmm … let me think about that one.

(I think that was on a thread about soteriology, so not exactly what you’re talking about here.)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother O.S. Luke

There are always exceptions. Overall, however, I think the Eastern Church is more immersed, and readily embraces, mystery. You are welcome to disagree.

Yes, I must disagree. I believe it is only in purely Western, industrialized nations that you may find Latin Catholics that are more pragmatic and rational in their faith (while finding even mystically-inclinde Latin Catholics among those). However, the GREAT MAJORITY of Latin Catholics are “south of the border” - i.e., in third world countries. The faith of such Catholics is indeed mystical and embraces mystery more than the average Latin Catholic from an industrialized nation (my wife is Filipina, and her Faith is mystical to a degree that would make any Eastern Christian jealous). So the VERY great majority of Latin Catholics are indeed more mystical in their approach to their Faith. Thus, I cannot agree that the Eastern Church is more mystically-inclined than the Western Church on the whole.

Transubstantiation seeks to use philosophy and Thomistic logic to “explain” the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood. The Real Presence of Christ needs no such explanation - miracles are supernatural and mysterious, thus unexplainable. No explanation was good enough for the Catholic Church for 1100 years, by the way.

I’ve read the dogma of Transubstantiation. I don’t see any indication that the Divine Presence or the Mystery has been excised from the Sacrament. Can you please point it out specifically? I asked it before, but you did not really respond to the question. Can you please do so now?

I fear that much of it is, given Thomas Aquinas’ influence.

Not ALL the ECF’s. And if you read the Desert Fathers, it is a 180° turn from anything close to rationalism or Western influence.

I’m a Copt, so I’m the last person that would say anything against the Desert Fathers. Nevertheless, the mysticism of the Desert Fathers only comprises a small percentage of the theology of the East. You say “not ALL the ECF’s” utilized classical philosophy in their teachings, and appeal to the small percentage of Desert Fathers. In fact, the GREAT MAJORITY of ECF’s, East, West and Orient, utilized classical philosophy in defense of the Faith. In fact, the distinctions and teachings that were the object of decrees by the Seven Ecumenical Councils used classical philosophy as part of the groundwork for their decrees. Have you ever read the arguments of St. Basil or St. Athanasius on the issues? So I ask you again, is there a reason why the ECF’s use of classic philosophical principles to explain the Faith does not register as condemnable on your radar, while the Latin Catholic Church’s use of the same principles is?

I have no idea why you have brought reason into the conversation. I certainly didn’t.

That’s the argument of the EO controversialists. They claim the Latin Faith is too rational and is divested of mystery. You’ve never heard or read of that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, I must disagree. I believe **it is only in purely Western, industrialized nations that you may find Latin Catholics that are more pragmatic and rational in their faith (while finding even mystically-inclinde Latin Catholics among those). However, the GREAT MAJORITY of Latin Catholics are “south of the border” - i.e., in third world countries. The faith of such Catholics is indeed mystical and embraces mystery more than the average Latin Catholic from an industrialized nation **(my wife is Filipina, and her Faith is mystical to a degree that would make any Eastern Christian jealous). So the VERY great majority of Latin Catholics are indeed more mystical in their approach to their Faith. Thus, I cannot agree that the Eastern Church is more mystically-inclined than the Western Church on the whole.

Bravo, Sir! I believe that the bolded portion really hits the nail on the head, so to speak. My first experience with Catholic Mass was in rural Mexico, and I’ll say that it is very different over there than back here in the States! It was probably the single most important contact that I could have had when I decided to come back to religion, over a decade later. Remembering how deeply woven faith and mystery are into the bedrock of society there, and my times in the house of the local priest (he ran the orphanage I was volunteering at/living in) having discussions about the nature of faith over dinner…it was clear to me even as a young Protestant that there was something going on there that was much deeper and more mystical than the church I was involved in…for better or for worse, we were lacking roots in the land. Of course, the whole entire venture was faulty to begin with(Protestants preaching in Mexico, as though there is no one who believes in Jesus Christ there!), and I knew it at the time, but it took going there and seeing how it really is for those people that have nothing to figure out exactly why…

But anyway…yes, Latin American Catholicism is very different. Not to descend too far into ethnic snobbishness, but I think if I had to be restricted to being the stereotype of the “anglo” Catholic, instead of carrying on the faith of my grandmother and her family, I probably would not have chosen to be Catholic at all. I would probably be Orthodox. I cannot live a spiritual life devoid of mystery. It does not seem natural or appropriate, given how I encountered the faith in the first place. It would be a betrayal.

 

[theistgal]

Quick Tip: Become an Orthodox Christian - no matter which Orthodox Church you attend through out the world, the Liturgy, Faith, Creed, Doctrines, Dogmas, etc. will be identical - although the language will vary.

Thanks for the invitation. I’d just as soon remain in the True Church, though, if it’s all the same to you.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Thanks for the invitation. I’d just as soon remain in the “True Church”, though, if it’s all the same to you.

:crying: You won’t even come for a visit to the Church Christ established? :crying:

 

[jimmy]

I can just as easily say that they claim things are mysteries because they know taking them to their logical conclusions leads to Catholicism (a good example of this is their placing the sensus fidei as the supreme teacher and judge rather than an externally verifiable authority–this is because they have had to backtrack a few times when their externally verifiable teaching authroity taught Catholic ideas they now reject like the filioque, the papacy, original sin, indulgences, etc. Of course, this is historically untenable as those who dissented from the seven Councils they do accept were punished forthwith–the people weren’t given the opportunity to pass judgment on it–those who passed unfavorable judgment were cut off from the Church).

This is complete nonsense. They are more accustomed to mystery because they follow the fathers. The fathers had a strong sense of mystery. Read Gregory of Nyssa or St. Ephrem or many of the other fathers. They had a very deep mysticism.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Let me ask those people to consider this.

God may say that 2 and 2 are 4.
Once you abstract numbers from reality you can quickly arrive at the conclusion that 2 and 2 are 4 from reason.
However you can also do this through investigation and find the same thing.

Therefore truth is truth wherever it is found.

Faith is higher that reason and discovery because of its Author, but God never reveals anything contrary to reason though and that is a nice summary, a simple one of the relationship between faith and reason.

Paul

 

[theistgal]

:crying: You won’t even come for a visit to the Church Christ established? :crying:

Enough with the blatant proselytizing, OK?

I have attended Orthodox Churches many times and they are wonderful places. I have no doubt that their sacraments are valid and that they are indeed a part of the Church Christ founded (which is more than many of them would say about the Catholic Church ).

However, since I don’t agree with their teaching about the role of St. Peter, I can’t in good conscience join them. Whether that’s acceptable to you or not, I really don’t care, because I don’t answer to you - I answer to Christ.