Contemplating Orthodoxy

[Nine_Two]

I will take this opportunity to post a link with one of the best articles I have read on the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, respectively. The author approaches this issue from a comparative theology standpoint, comparing the systems of Thomism and Palamism, respectively. I hope this is good fruit for discussion:

waragainstbeing.com/partiii

If I’m reading that correctly, he is accusing Eastern Catholics (who follow St. Gregory Palamas) of heresy. By extention is saying that the Roman Catholic Church shares communion with heretics, which is clearly not the teaching of the Church.

 

[Byz_Guy]

If I’m reading that correctly, he is accusing Eastern Catholics (who follow St. Gregory Palamas) of heresy. By extention is saying that the Roman Catholic Church shares communion with heretics, which is clearly not the teaching of the Church.

St Gregory Palamas has only been recently rehabilitated among Eastern Catholics. I’m guessing that the author is either unaware of that or opposed to the recent acceptance of St. Gregory by Eastern Catholics.

To be honest, reading it reminded me of some Orthodox who fix blame on every defect they see in Catholicism on the adoption of the Filioque. That’s pretty extreme also.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I will take this opportunity to post a link with one of the best articles I have read on the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, respectively. The author approaches this issue from a comparative theology standpoint, comparing the systems of Thomism and Palamism, respectively. I hope this is good fruit for discussion:

waragainstbeing.com/partiii

He does a poor job. His exegesis of Pseudo-Dionysus is painfully sophomoric, and a child could grasp the teachings of Palamas better. Of course, when I saw the website’s title, I can’t say that I didn’t see it coming. Let me tell you, the God he is describing is the unmoved mover of Aristotle, not the tri-personal God we read about in the Old and New Testament. To him, I would like to ask: what book in our Holy Scriptures was authored by Aristotle or by Thomas Aquinas?

 

[Nine_Two]

I agree, and so does the Catholic church. It has to do with intent as well. This is why the church declared the Assyrian Church of the East to have a valid anaphora. But is also why Anglican Orders were considered invalid because the orthodox understanding and intent of ordination was lost. This doesn’t mean as you say in a mysterious way God doesn’t work through their ‘sacraments’. Only God knows.

The Bull was based on the fact that the ordination rite didn’t make reference to the sacrificial priesthood. Coincidently, either do any of the Eastern Churches, including the Assyrian Church of the East.
I fully believe this is just cherry picking. I don’t see why we should be forced to make special categorizations for different churches just because you do.
All who are not Orthodox are correctly classified non-Orthodox. We have no tradition, or teaching on how God works within these churches. We have no need to classify them, so we don’t.

But to not acknowledge the closeness of the Catholic and EO sacramental understanding, practice and history is silly IMO. But, we will never agree on this. I think the catholic church has a better and more honest theological framework than the EO who tend IMO to avoid certain doctrinal questions. It’s not honest to lump Catholics with Mormons or even Anglicans in our ecumenical realations.

But I don’t think we do have a closeness of understanding. While we all agree that those seven things (for lack of a better word) are sacraments, we don’t agree on why. To the Catholic Church, “the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.” (CCC).
According to the Orthodox Church they are those things by which we may become closer to God. The Seven Sacraments which Catholics accept are all acknowledged to be sacramental to us. We know they are at work within our own Church.
I am convinced (as I said before), as are many North American Orthodox, that God reaches out to all Christians in a sacramental way.
I do not know if the big seven are valid among Catholics, my opinion would be that some are, most probably are, and some I’m not sure of.
The validity of sacraments is, however, an esoteric concept.

When you go to Communion, approach the chalice with fear and trembling.
When you go to confession, tell all your sins.
When you get married, trust that you have been joined before God.
And don’t worry about the fact that we don’t know if it is truly a sacrament. Let God decide.

If the Churches were to be united in faith, we would certainly recognize what you have as sacramental, but before that time, you’ll have to be content with our caution with venturing to guess how God works outside our Church.

 

[Pork_Roll]

The Bull was based on the fact that the ordination rite didn’t make reference to the sacrificial priesthood. Coincidently, either do any of the Eastern Churches, including the Assyrian Church of the East.

In this case it was both intent and words. Without the words, the intent wasn’t there because this was a protestant heresy to deny the sacrificial nature of the priesthood and liturgy. So it isn’t the same in the eyes of the church.

When you go to Communion, approach the chalice with fear and trembling.
When you go to confession, tell all your sins.
When you get married, trust that you have been joined before God.
And don’t worry about the fact that we don’t know if it is truly a sacrament. Let God decide.

Obviously we believe the same thing when we receive the Holy Mysteries. But God did give us an intellect to judge and question and understand things. I can’t turn wonder bread or crackers and grape juice into the body, blood soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. A validly ordained priest can.

 

[Peter_J]

I will take this opportunity to post a link with one of the best articles I have read on the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, respectively. The author approaches this issue from a comparative theology standpoint, comparing the systems of Thomism and Palamism, respectively. I hope this is good fruit for discussion:

waragainstbeing.com/partiii

I’ve never heard of that author, James Larson, before. Is he Catholic, and if not then what?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I will take this opportunity to post a link with one of the best articles I have read on the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, respectively. The author approaches this issue from a comparative theology standpoint, comparing the systems of Thomism and Palamism, respectively. I hope this is good fruit for discussion:

waragainstbeing.com/partiii

Some serious criticisms, now that I have some time on my hands.

He writes:

The question might also be asked at this point: What about the Trinity? If there are three distinct Persons in God, then does that not negate the possibility of absolute simplicity in God? St. Thomas simply states that the Trinity, and each of the Divine Persons of the Trinity, is identical with the essence of God. We confess, for instance, the homoousious – that the Son is “one in Being” with the Father. The principle of absolute unity and divine simplicity which they share is the Being or Essence of God.

While he is correct to say that the Son is one in Being (in terms of essence) with the Father, this does not destroy the personal existence of each hypostasis of the Trinity. That is to say, the Son and the Father are not exactly equatable with the one essence, as this would destroy the distinction between hypostasis and ousia, creating a modalist God that has no concrete reality in its persons. Rather, it is the Father who preserves the divine simplicity, for He is that who exists without cause, and the sole divine person who is divine without source, and from him according to nature is the Son begotten and is the Spirit proceeding.

As St. John of Damascus put it:

All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father that is, because of the Father’s existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.

[note that when the translation says subsistence, the original Greek is hypostasis]

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.viii.html

The idea is that God, the Father, is simple, passionless, etc., and that from him come two other hypostases (that is, personal existences or realities), who are of this same essence, which is simple, uncompound, pasisonless, etc… If one reads through that passage, he would notice that when St. John of Damascus says ‘God’ he often is talking about the Father alone, for example:

Wherefore in God, Who alone is passionless and unalterable, and immutable, and ever so continueth, both begetting and creating are passionless. For being by nature passionless and not liable to flux, since He is simple and uncompound, He is not subject to passion or flux either in begetting or in creating, nor has He need of any co-operation. But generation in Him is without beginning and everlasting, being the work of nature and producing out of His own essence, that the Begetter may not undergo change, and that He may not be God first and God last, nor receive any accession

and also:

The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three subsistences as being in each other, that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is one God, and His word and Spirit.

Many times, in fact, passages written by the Greek fathers become otherwise incomprehensible, if we do not understand that they sometimes equate ‘God’ with the Father.

 

[Cavaradossi]

From the posted article:

This “Division of the Divine” is something which is posited between God’s “Essence” and His “Energies.” In Palamism, the essence of God (Palamas is forced to use this word essence in naming the unnamable even though he must, at the same time, posit that God is beyond essence since He is beyond all names) is Absolutely Transcendent. He is beyond all Naming. He is beyond all the attributes, including Being, which we might try to apply to Him. Consequently, God’s Being, Power, Will, Love, Truth are not to be attributed to the “Essence” of God, but to His "Energies. These “Energies” are to be seen as including all that is associated with what are called the “economies” of God – with everything which we associate with God “operating.” In other words they have to do with everything that we can name about God, including such things as Truth, Love, Will, Intellect, Infinite, Eternal, Omnipotent, Goodness, etc. And, of course, they apply supremely to everything that is considered to be God’s actions outside Himself (creation), since God’s Essence, in Eastern Orthodox theology, transcends all action.

Here, he misunderstands two very basic concepts of Eastern thought. One is that God transcends the very concept of essence (hence why Palamas sometimes calls the essence the ‘superessential essence’), and the second is that the being of God is beyond essence. We can find both ideas expressed from the same chapter of St. John of Damascus’ Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith:

having no contrary, filling all, by nothing encompassed, but rather Himself the encompasser and maintainer and original possessor of the universe, occupying all essences intact and extending beyond all things, and being separate from all essence as being super-essential and above all things and absolute God, absolute goodness, and absolute fulness

He also makes what can only be referred to as a philosophical blunder, by asserting that Eastern thought does not see the essence as acting. This is untrue, as the energies, which are anhypostatic, do in fact naturally come from the essence. It is, however, in the persons (hypostases) that these energies are enhypostasized, and brought into what might be called ‘reality’ rather than being more abstract. This of course, mimics the dyophysite and dyothelete teachings that the abstract human nature, will and energy become enhypostasized in the person of God the Son, receiving a true human existence without a separate hypostasis. One can basically trace all of his other errors about the thought of Palamas from his inability to understand the concepts above.

 

[Peter_J]

In the Introduction of The War Against Being Larson wrote:

I believe that the Papacy is wounded and suffering and that this suffering has profoundly affected the philosophical-theological orientation of recent Popes. While leaving intact the prerogatives established by Christ for all times upon Peter and his successors, this philosophical and theological disorientation has affected virtually everything else, to the detriment of the Church and the salvation of souls

I also wish to state that I can make no final or absolute judgment about the thinking of Pope Benedict XVI. However,a fair number of my articles critical of his statements and writings were written after his ascension to the Papacy. They give evidence as to the continuity of his present thought with that of his past writings, but pretend to make no absolute judgment. I must add that I have seen no evidence on the part of Joseph Ratzinger of any renunciation of his previous thought and that, on the contrary, he has asserted the essential continuity of his thought up to, and even after, his elevation. As with any author, he would fall under the strong moral imperative to correct any serious errors in his past writings of which he became conscious. I am aware of no efforts on his part to do so.

I’m not getting into any deep analysis here, but it seems clear that these writing aren’t mainstream Catholicism.

 

[Peter_J]

I just realized that I never hit Submit on a post that I wrote several hours ago …

Deception is a loaded concept. The implication is that some mastermind, who knows the position is wrong is telling people it is correct, and they believe him. No, I certainly do not believe Catholics are decieved in this manner. I believe the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to be quite sincere.

However we do not believe Catholics have the fullness of faith, and therefore cannot be said to be Orthodox. If you were, we would already have union.

You’re right that deception is a loaded term, but your second-to-last sentence is pretty loaded too. Roman Catholics acknowledge that we aren’t Orthodox, in the same way that Orthodox acknowledge that they aren’t Roman Catholic. I.e. saying “We aren’t Orthodox” isn’t acknowledging that we don’t have the fullness of faith, but only that we aren’t the same as you.

 

[Nine_Two]

I just realized that I never hit Submit on a post that I wrote several hours ago …

You’re right that deception is a loaded term, but your second-to-last sentence is pretty loaded too. Roman Catholics acknowledge that we aren’t Orthodox, in the same way that Orthodox acknowledge that they aren’t Roman Catholic. I.e. saying “We aren’t Orthodox” isn’t acknowledging that we don’t have the fullness of faith, but only that we aren’t the same as you.

You’re right. That is actually a typo. I meant orthodox (almost did it again). We don’t believe the Catholic Church is orthodox, and that is why there is no union.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

You’re right. That is actually a typo. I meant orthodox (almost did it again). We don’t believe the Catholic Church is orthodox, and that is why there is no union.

So if Catholics totally believe they ‘are’ orthodox’ and EOs believe they ‘are not’ orthodox

how do we really know who to believe whether RC is ‘orthodox’ or not?

it seems people either follow one of the other blindly and read and fill their minds with their own church writings and opinions and then brainwashes them to believe that their own church is right

if someone begins to eat nice fruit at a particular church,he then may want to convert and stay there then naturally will begin to learn and believe what they teach
or if someone eats rotten fruit (has bad experiences) at a particular church then he might walk off and want nothing to do with that church

how many protestants seem to eat plenty of good fruit and have great happy lives and fully believe what their church teaches although from RC or EO perspective they are in a wrong and unorthodox church

well that protestant may go happily to heaven while some greek Orthodox grandma casts magic spells on her family and goes to hell

for years i was EO and read so much of their stuff and believed RC is wrong etc

now being RC and reading their own writings and opinions i am now believing the RC position

i even followed the anti-ecumenical old calender EO churches for a time and reading their stuff i then believed that they were telling the truth and wanted to be baptised by them which would have been a third baptism for me ,thank God i was talked out of it

 

[Peter_J]

So if Catholics totally believe they ‘are’ orthodox’ and EOs believe they ‘are not’ orthodox

how do we really know who to believe whether RC is ‘orthodox’ or not?

it seems people either follow one of the other blindly and read and fill their minds with their own church writings and opinions and then brainwashes them to believe that their own church is right

Well, I don’t know if I would say “blindly” and “brainwashes”, but yes, each side pretty much believes they are correct. Nothing too strange about that, is there? Likewise, the Lutherans believe they are correct, the Anglicans believe they are correct, the Methodists believe they are correct, etc.

Is any of that surprising? What would surprise me is if I met someone who said “X is wrong, but I believe it anyways.”

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Well, I don’t know if I would say “blindly” and “brainwashes”, but yes, each side pretty much believes they are correct. Nothing too strange about that, is there? Likewise, the Lutherans believe they are correct, the Anglicans believe they are correct, the Methodists believe they are correct, etc.

Is any of that surprising? What would surprise me is if I met someone who said “X is wrong, but I believe it anyways.”

Maybe i am taking a stab at ‘faith’

i mean i know a muslim who believes Islam is the truth and Christianity not

so we have thousands of people having full ‘faith’ in so many different ways and different beliefs

is ‘faith’ something we cant prove but must blindly believe in?

so we could call a muslims faith a joke? or a jew or a hindu or a methodists faith a joke also?

could we call the whole thing a joke?

there is a guy in florida who believes wholeheartedly and has full faith that a guy called
Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda is Jesus Christ in the flesh

so much for ‘faith’ and ‘belief’

if anything its his faith or any muslim or hindus faith that causes their error and astrayment

 

[Pork_Roll]

Here is a well balanced EO summary of history of the schism between the east and west. I think the west needs the east, and the east needs the west. The east will benefit from a primacy of unity in the see of Rome and the west will benefit from the deep theological and liturgical tradition of the east. I think that some things are explained better in eastern theology, some things better in western.

I just can’t understand why there is much resistance to ecumenism between the two churches coming from the EO faithful and Mt. Athos.

 

[Nine_Two]

Here is a well balanced EO summary of history of the schism between the east and west. I think the west needs the east, and the east needs the west. The east will benefit from a primacy of unity in the see of Rome and the west will benefit from the deep theological and liturgical tradition of the east. I think that some things are explained better in eastern theology, some things better in western.

I just can’t understand why there is much resistance to ecumenism between the two churches coming from the EO faithful and Mt. Athos.

Hesychios asked you earlier in this thread how you define unity. You told him it was the same thing he means.

In this post you indicate undeniably that you view unity as something different.

We do not see unity as resting in Rome, and we will not accept a unity based on Rome.

The reason there is so much resistance (assuming for a second you aren’t still on the whole sacrament thing) is because we’re speaking two different languages and we are quite suspicious of your motives.

 

[Art321]

Maybe i am taking a stab at ‘faith’

i mean i know a muslim who believes Islam is the truth and Christianity not

so we have thousands of people having full ‘faith’ in so many different ways and different beliefs

is ‘faith’ something we cant prove but must blindly believe in?

so we could call a muslims faith a joke? or a jew or a hindu or a methodists faith a joke also?

could we call the whole thing a joke?

there is a guy in florida who believes wholeheartedly and has full faith that a guy called
Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda is Jesus Christ in the flesh

so much for ‘faith’ and 'belief’
if anything its his faith or any muslim or hindus faith that causes their error and astrayment

Ok, I think in the end it comes down to this. Do you believe in what Jesus Christ taught? In what He said? In His promises, etc? If yes, then you must believe that He is the Truth and in His Holy Promise of His Church.

Matthew 16:18

***And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. ***

From this one verse, all religions that are not Christian are thrown out the window and we come to our present issue of the Orthodox and the Catholics. Only one of these groups can have the Fullness of the Christian Faith. The Catholic agrument is that without the head of the Church, you do not have the fullness of the Faith. And that head is the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter.

Or the Orthodox argument comes into play. They also believe only one of us has the Fulliness of the Faith. They view us as I have heard as heretical since Rome in their eyes left Holy Orthodoxy and that there is really no head bishop of the entire Church but rather I believe that the Patriarchs are the ones who together preserve the Faith and Unity as a group and they are each are individually responible for their own local churchs.

Catholics also argue that the Holy Bishops also preserve the Faith and Unity while each is individually responsible for each’s own diocese but when in perfect communion with the Pope.

In the end, I hope I made my point clear. Only one of us has the Fulliness of the Faith but who that is is for you to decide. I firmly believe this is found in the Catholic Church or otherwise I would not be Catholic.

But I also need to clarify something. Even though i believe this, I also believe the Eastern Churchs to have the True Faith and can be a place for people to find grace, etc. Heck, even the Church teachs this.

 

[Nine_Two]

“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” -Matt 16:23

The Church is not build on man, let alone a man.

 

[Art321]

“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” -Matt 16:23

The Church is not build on man, let alone a man.

Maybe I wasn’t as clear as I wanted to be. The Church was entrusted to all the Apostles and this is a hard fact. But Catholics believe they had a leader known as Saint Peter.

 

[Nine_Two]

Maybe I wasn’t as clear as I wanted to be. The Church was entrusted to all the Apostles and this is a hard fact. But Catholics believe they had a leader known as Saint Peter.

Agreed. The nature of that leadership is questionable though.