Byzantine Catholic and sin

[Phillip_Rolfes]

IF …

The classic Orthodox way of addressing this issue is to forsake that IF and to
NEVER call one’s SELF a Friend of God…
For we are Called of God unto denial of self, you see…
And in our daily lives, we are provably NOT friends of God…

Perhaps I should’ve rather said, “If I am called to be a friend of God…” because, as you rightly point out, friendship with God is not a thing that we can grasp, but something that is given (or rather initiated) by God first. Genesis tells us that God created Adam and Eve, and then walked with them in the Garden. Exodus says that God spoke to Moses face-to-face as a friend speaks to a friend. Jesus Himself tells us “I no longer call you servants… but friends.”

So while I don’t always act as a friend of God (i.e. live my life according to the demands of love) in my day-to-day life, I’m certainly called to be a friend of God (even if I don’t always “live in a manner worthy of the call I have received”).

Every irritation we have is enmity with God…
Every time we forget God in some thought or action…
Which is throughout the day…
Every time we are distracted in prayer…
Every time we have a little more dessert…
All the times we are not praying…
You can make your own list…

This is, of course, very true (especially the dessert part ), which is why repentance is such an amazing gift from God. I love the saying from the Desert Fathers when asked, “What do you do out here in the desert all day?” To which the response is, “I fall, and I get up. Then I fall and I get up again.”

So I understand it as something that is given by God, rather than something claimed by man…

You are absolutely right! Friendship with God is something that He initiates. Our role is to respond to His invitation through conversion and ongoing repentance; to enter into the relationship He has opened to us through the Incarnation of His divine Son. Is not that response what the Byzantine East (both Orthodox and Catholic) calls synergia?

A Friend of God is, in my nvho, one who is Embraced by God, you see - And THAT is not something many speak of in social settings…

I think the italicized portion is the crux of what we’re both getting at. Our individual relationships with (and experiences of) God are deeply intimate, and therefore ought not to be shared casually. This is why the Fathers, when speaking of their own spiritual experiences, with few exceptions speak as though they’re talking of someone else’s experience (St. Macarius and St. Symeon the New Theologian being the two exceptions to this general rule that come immediately to mind).

(cont)

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Did you watch the Bp Justinian video (above) where he described his becoming a Friend of God? And its symptom?

I did watch the video, yes. Quite lovely. And I, as a Catholic and an Easterner (Maronite) firmly believe that this is what we’re all called to. Holiness/friendship with God isn’t the domain of monks and nuns. I am called to that just as much as they are! You are called to that just as much as they are. As Christians, we are both called to “live our lives in a manner worthy of the call we have received.”

And, my brother, I look forward to the day that, through the graces and mercy of God, you and I both stand before His throne in friendship with Him and with one another in His Kingdom.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Additionally, the point was made that post-Schism Western Councils are not Ecumenical, and I think you were referring to these for definitions without addressing their lack of Ecumenisity… One help might be to cite material taken from the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church whose rulings are accepted both east and west…

That alone would still make Vatican I, Vatican II, Lyon II and Florence Ecumenical. If we include Maronites then we can also include many other Councils as Ecumenical…

The Council at Florence was repudiated by the Eastern Church…

And Chalcedon by Copts. Does not make it less Ecumenical than others. By logic of “East and West need to accept Council to be Ecumenical” we are simply leaving out Copts… and if we include them, not even Chalcedon is Ecumenical. What this is doing is basically putting Greeks and Latins in place of supremacy where their approval is needed but others are insignificant.

Opposite logic, one that Catholic Church generally holds to, is that council needs to be approved and ratified by the Pope. This is true even in Eastern Churches, though nowadays there are dissidents obviously, and solves crisis of above. At the same time though, even if Council is Ecumenical it means it is inspired by Holy Spirit but dogmatic definitions are true, not doctrine binding. In other words, doctrine of Venial vs Mortal Sin is not binding upon Eastern Catholics. Eastern Catholics do not deny distinction between mortal and venial sin, but don’t use it. As @dochawk said in numerous threads, there have been volumes written on Venial vs Mortal Sin in Eastern theology but officially distinction is not made and does not need to be made in our Latin sense, but in Eastern one. Eastern theology is fully authentic and true and hence contains as much Truth as Latin theology, and as much untruth as Latin theology (that being 0).

To be quite honest, we don’t care what Trent said.

So if (very hypothetically) Trent taught heresy it’s all ok to you? Woah. If Trent taught truth, there is no point in denying it (sure, view it through your tradition and lens, that’s actually what is supposed to happen)… and if Trent taught lies, it is just brotherly love to bring truth to us. This sort of indifferentism/duality of truth/ relativism is ignorant of how Church actually lived prior to Schism. We are not several Churches paying lip service to each other, we are One Catholic Church who lives according to truth. Rites are our points of view on the truth, but if truth differs there is need to act. After all, we believe Truth is a person! Son of God is Truth and rejecting Truth is rejecting Him… and Truth makes us free. Hence denying truth just to not embrace something that Latins came up with is as bad as embracing Latinization. You can’t go to one extreme just because you want to avoid the other one.

 

[George720]

And Chalcedon by Copts. Does not make it less Ecumenical than others.

The Copts took themselves out from out Communion - Their non-Communion with us - eg with the rest of the Christian Churches - does not invalidate the ecumenicity of the Council from which they withdrew… Nor does their non-Communion with the rest of the Christian Churches make their now local Councils Ecumenical… And I should add the same is true with Rome: Her non-Communion with the rest of the [dare I say autocephalous?] Churches all by itself makes all Her councils to be local and not ecumenical… Just as a council called by Russia for the Russian Church is a local council…

It is the size of the Latin Church’s Communion that makes it so difficult to call an Orthodox Council of all Her autocephalous Churches Ecumenical… The Oriental Churches we let go and still claimed ecumenicity… The matter should have been one of an ongoing council for resolution ever since, but it was dropped with occasional resurgences of trying…

By this logic, you see, the ecumenicity of a council is a function of its attendance by the autocephalous Churches, and most of them if not all… Yet by the Latin Church’s claim that only the Pope is the Head of all these Churches, then there cannot be any ecumenicity at all, because ONLY the Papal Church is autocephalous…

A whole lot of stickies in this line, it would seem…

geo

By logic of “East and West need to accept Council to be Ecumenical” we are simply leaving out Copts… and if we include them, not even Chalcedon is Ecumenical. What this is doing is basically putting Greeks and Latins in place of supremacy where their approval is needed but others are insignificant.

[/QUOTE]
More stickiness… Yet the Orientals differ from the Orthodox in only one relatively small matter, whereas the difference of Rome from both the Easterns and the Orientals is a whole lot of very developed doctrines…

geo

 

[George720]

I did watch the video, yes. Quite lovely. And I, as a Catholic and an Easterner (Maronite) firmly believe that this is what we’re all called to. Holiness/friendship with God isn’t the domain of monks and nuns. I am called to that just as much as they are! You are called to that just as much as they are. As Christians, we are both called to “live our lives in a manner worthy of the call we have received.”

One of the “symptoms” of Friendship with God is an abiding Joy that simply will not go away from the time it first comes into existence until death… Bp Justinian, in his video, related this Joy, saying that it has persisted from the day he received it as a very young man to the day as a very old man that he was telling about it for a video… It is that Joy that marks Friendship with God, you see… At least that is how I understand it… And that Joy is visible in those who have it…

As Paul wrote: “…Of God the Gift…”

When that glorious day comes, and you are looking around to see me standing before His Throne, remember me and say a prayer for me the sinner… By that prayer I just might have a chance of showing up…

geo

 

[DeniseNY]

Slava Isusu Christu
Slava na Viki!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Copts took themselves out from out Communion - Their non-Communion with us - eg with the rest of the Christian Churches - does not invalidate the ecumenicity of the Council from which they withdrew…

Same point could be made of Eastern Orthodoxy from Catholic perspective.

Nor does their non-Communion with the rest of the Christian Churches make their now local Councils Ecumenical… And I should add the same is true with Rome: Her non-Communion with the rest of the [dare I say autocephalous?] Churches all by itself makes all Her councils to be local and not ecumenical… Just as a council called by Russia for the Russian Church is a local council…

First off, many Councils started as local before being pronounced Ecumenical. Also, claiming Ecumenicity based off acceptance of “entire” Church is wrong as explained above. Copts withdrew communion because they did not view Chalcedon as Ecumenical… so therefore not entire Church accepted it. Otherwise even my local kitchen council (okay, if accepted at least by one Bishop) can be Ecumenical because everyone who accepts it will remain in the Church and others will break communion- hence everybody in Communion has actually accepted the Council. Ecumenicity of the Council did not stop when Arians left the Church nor when did Nestorians nor when did Copts… and nor when did Greeks. Nor would it stop if Spanish left or if Latins left.

then there cannot be any ecumenicity at all, because ONLY the Papal Church is autocephalous…

That does not logically follow. Peter confirms brethren in faith by confirming Ecumenical Council, does not mean they are not Apostles anymore. Authority in the Church is form of submission… not vice-versa.

More stickiness… Yet the Orientals differ from the Orthodox in only one relatively small matter, whereas the difference of Rome from both the Easterns and the Orientals is a whole lot of very developed doctrines…

That’s true but changes nothing in how is council Ecumenical.

 

[Vico]

George720:

The “reality of friendship with God” is exceeding rare, and perhaps I suffer from thinking that people who do not have first hand of knowing it should not be positing it as something assured, or in the bag, or as a “reality” of ordinary Christian experience…

Perhaps it is rare. I don’t know, because I don’t know the hearts of others. I can only examine my own heart. What I do know is that I (and all Christians) are called to friendship with God - even more, in fact! Scripture is very clear that the relationship between husband and wife is the best analogy for what our relationship with God ought to look like (marriage as God intends it from the beginning is a living icon of the spiritual life). …

Isaiah 62

5 For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your builder [Cn: Heb your sons] marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you.

Equality with God is not implied by friendship. The Theotokos is the bride of The Holy Spirit in perfect union with Christ.

Lumen Gentium

63. … As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ. …
64. The Church indeed, contemplating her hidden sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By her preaching she brings forth to a new and immortal life the sons who are born to her in baptism, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God. She herself is a virgin, who keeps the faith given to her by her Spouse whole and entire. Imitating the mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she keeps with virginal purity an entire faith, a firm hope and a sincere charity.

 

[dochawk]

The matter should have been one of an ongoing council for resolution ever since, but it was dropped with occasional resurgences of trying…

there are days that I dream of gathering up popes and patriarchs and having a real old-style conclave . . . yes, in the literal meaning of “con clave”, “with key”, like the people of Rome did a couple of times to cardinals who wouldn’t elect a new bishop of Rome, sending in only bread, water, and wine . . .

“You guys can come back out after you concelebrate!”

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

“You guys can come back out after you concelebrate!”

Funny as that sounds, I do think that some would rather die of old age than reunite… and even if it did work, some would probably reject unity (as in communion, Church being One and all that) later.

 

[George720]

The Theotokos is the bride of The Holy Spirit in perfect union with Christ.

Do you have any of the Fathers affirming this idea?

geo

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The Theotokos is the bride of The Holy Spirit in perfect union with Christ.

Do you have any of the Fathers affirming this idea?

geo

Those before 800 A.D.?

Saint Ephraim the Syrian (306-373) called the Virgin Mary the Bride of Christ (from Michael O’Carroll, “Spouse of God”).

Saint John of Damascus wrote “It was fitting that the spouse whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine Mansions” ( Munificentissimus Deus , 20).

Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote “Mary was the only one who merited to be called the Mother as Spouse of God” (Sermons 208).

Saint Germanus of Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 634 ~ 740) used the title Theonymphos , Greek meaning “God-wed” or “Wedded to God”, for the Theotokos.

In a later era, Saint John of Kronstadt (1829-1908) invoked the Virgin Mary: “Rejoice, Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse of God the Holy Spirit!”

Kontakion 4 (of the Akathist)

Filled with a storm of contradictory thoughts, the wise Joseph was greatly disturbed: until then, he had seen you a virgin, and now he suspected you of secret guilt, All Blameless One! Learning that your conception was of the Holy Spirit, he cried out: Alleluia! Alleluia, alleluia!

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I have to admit that as much as I love the Akathist, this is the only part I don’t like.

St. Matthew writes:

[18] Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. [19] Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

[21] And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. [22] Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: [23] Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [24] And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him…

Nowhere does the Gospel say that St. Joseph “suspected [her] of secret guilt” (some translations say “a secret union”). Imo, that’s the only flaw with the Akathist to the Theotokos. It does not do justice to either the Virgin or St. Joseph, who St. Matthew writes is “a just man”. Everything in the OT describing a “just man” applies to St. Joseph since he was the only one worthy of being the earthly spouse of the Most Holy Theotokos.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[George720]

In a later era, Saint John of Kronstadt (1829-1908) invoked the Virgin Mary: “Rejoice, Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse of God the Holy Spirit!”

I am surprised that John of Kronstadt would say She was the Bride of the Holy Spirit… She is the Bride of God, no question, the New Eve of the New Adam, God-man wedded to humankind in Her… But Bride of the Holy Spirit??

I don’t think so…

geo

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

@Margaret_Ann There are varying lines of interpretation on this topic (including among the saints), and the Scriptures themselves are open to these interpretations. One line claims that Joseph did, in fact, suspect Mary of infidelity. As a “just man” Joseph would’ve lived according to the dictates of the Mosaic Law, which says that Mary ought to be stoned to death for her adultery (that would be part of the “everything in the OT describing a ‘just man’” that you’d have to apply to Joseph). Joseph, therefore, deviates from the Law (of Moses) and acts mercifully by deciding to divorce her quietly and send her away rather than making a public spectacle of her by revealing her (supposed) sin and having her stoned to death.

The other line of thought states that Joseph realized Who was growing in Mary’s womb and just how holy she herself must be. In order not to expose the divine Child and His mother to the shame of his own sinfulness, Joseph decided to divorce Mary quietly and send her away (akin to Peter’s “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.”).

The point is that the story is open to both interpretations, and the Church hasn’t ruled in favor of one or the other.

Personally I like the first interpretation better because I think it reveals a great deal more about Joseph than the second interpretation does. Think of it. Joseph is a descendant of King David, whom God Himself calls a “man after my own heart.” As the Psalms and various prophecies reveal, God’s own heart is a heart of mercy - “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” What we’re seeing in Joseph, therefore, is that he is a “righteous” man like the righteous men of old who kept the Law, but he is even more. He is a man like David (his father/ancestor) - a man after God’s own heart. In the face of Mary’s perceived infidelity, he doesn’t act according to the justice demanded by the Law, but by the mercy of God that makes him a man after God’s own heart.

Taking this a step further (and perhaps beyond strict biblical interpretation), who do you think Jesus learned his attitude of mercy from? Certainly Mary to some extent, yes (all boys learn from their mothers). But I suggest that, to a greater extent, Jesus learned mercy from Joseph because boys learn how to be men from the words, actions, and attitudes of their fathers. And so, what do we see Jesus doing as a man when faced with women who were public sinners (some notorious adulteresses and prostitutes, others caught in the very act of adultery)? After the example of His father, Joseph, He shows mercy - only in His case he isn’t faced with any perceived sin, but with real/actual sin. He doesn’t expose these women to public shame or stoning, but forgives them and sends them away quietly, saying simply “Go and sin no more.” You can almost hear St. Joseph’s own voice in the words of our Savior.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

In a later era, Saint John of Kronstadt (1829-1908) invoked the Virgin Mary: “Rejoice, Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse of God the Holy Spirit!”

I am surprised that John of Kronstadt would say She was the Bride of the Holy Spirit… She is the Bride of God, no question, the New Eve of the New Adam, God-man wedded to humankind in Her… But Bride of the Holy Spirit??

I don’t think so…

geo

Raduisia, Nevistyu Svyatago Ducha!

St. John of Kronstadt, My Life in Christ, p. 170:

The Virgin Mary is the most merciful sovereign of all the sons and daughters of men, as the Daughter of God the Father, Who is love; the Mother of God the Word, of our love; the chosen Bride of the Holy Ghost. Who is love consubstantial with the Father and the Word. How can we do otherwise than have recourse to such a sovereign and expect to receive all spiritual blessings from Her?

My life in Christ : extracts from the diary of the most reverend John Iliytch Sergieff : Sergeev, Ioann Il'ich, 1829-1909 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

But note also on page 227:

When he inspires you to seek life in corruptible things, you must strive after life in the incorruptible ; when he attracts your eyes to the human body, disregarding its immortal soul, you must turn your mental gaze still more steadfastly upon the soul of the man, created after God s image and likeness, redeemed by the suffering and death of the Son of God upon the cross, made to inherit eternal blessings, affiliated by God, the temple of the Holy-Ghost, and the Bride of the Holy-Ghost.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In addition to what has already been posted, I wanted to mention that the act of confession in the East is a different experience than in the West. There is no anonymous confession. This may seem intimidating at first, but it is actually very helpful. Your confessor gets to know you, and can pick up on things that you may experience difficulty with (things you might not even consciously perceive) and will give you direction based on this. In the long term, this is extremely helpful in dealing with resolving sin, especially habitual sin, in your life.

This is exactly what confession, ideally, should be like. I prefer behind-the-screen, anonymous confession, as it is traditional, and that tradition didn’t develop mindlessly nor without good reason — was the Holy Spirit “asleep in the wheel” in allowing the Church to prescribe this as the normative method for confession in the Latin Rite? — but even then, I give the priest a brief synopsis of my state in life, and my besetting sins, so that he will understand me better. Reciting a “grocery list”, while perhaps necessary where there is a line of penitents and little time, is not particularly helpful in helping the penitent to grow in holiness, nor to help the priest to understand the penitent.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The other line of thought states that Joseph realized Who was growing in Mary’s womb and just how holy she herself must be. In order not to expose the divine Child and His mother to the shame of his own sinfulness, Joseph decided to divorce Mary quietly and send her away (akin to Peter’s “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.”).

I understand where you’re coming from but I like this one better. I can’t imagine St. Joseph suspecting the Most Holy Mother of God of any sin let alone infidelity. To each his own.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

St. John Chrysostom disagrees… Check out Homily 4 on the Gospel of Matthew (paragraph 7).

 

[George720]

Thank-you for your post, @Vico - St. John very apparently did himself believe that the Blessed Virgin is the Bride of the Holy Spirit, which from my pov shows that sainthood does not bequeath infallibility!

Because it is an easy matter, humanly speaking, to ascribe such a marital relationship by pointing out that it was the Holy Spirit Who impregnated her… When He “came upon” her… And it is also easy enough to extend from Her role as the Bride of God, unto being by extension the Bride of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit… But all of these are conclusions drawn by fallen human inference, based on fallen human definitions, when the terms themselves are but descriptive and evocative of matters not so based at all…

I must say that Russia was under heavy western influence at this time, and John was in all likelihood writing pastorally, and not dogmatically, and if this idea was prevalent in his flock and he at least saw no harm in it and perhaps even believed it, then using it to encourage and exhort is without much harm, I should hope… Although God did put His Russian Church under the purgation of the rule of the Atheists for some 80 - So perhaps my hope is vain…

Raduisia, Nevistyu Svyatago Ducha!

Forgive my ignorance of Slavonic - Might you translate this for me?

So is this idea common among the Russian Saints? That the Holy Spirit is the Spouse of the Blessed Virgin, and perhaps thereby the real Father of Christ, instead of God the Father?

geo