Debating the filioque

[Richca]

Richca;11348434:

If it stated that the Son is the Origin of the procession, then I would agree with you. But it doesn’t. Any council, Pope or ECF for that?

hi tdgesq,
I’d like to know how you get the idea that the Son is the origin of the procession from these words of the creed “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son?” Normally, a father does not come from a son but a son comes from a father. The Father and Son together are the origin of the Holy Spirit but since the Son comes from the Father, the Father is the first origin of the Spirit but this should not be considered according to time as God lives in an eternal present.

blessings and peace, Richca

 

[theistgal]

Um fact, just because a tradition is ancient doesn’t mean it’s correct.

In the Church, it does.

With all due respect, Father, let me clarify my statement: The Church does differentiate between “Tradition with a capital T” and “traditions” that human beings have come up with. That’s why I said, and reiterate, that just because something is a “tradition” doesn’t mean it’s correct.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not want to be offensive, but I do wish that the Catholics would decide what they really mean by the filioque.

I understand how frustrating that can be, Fr. John. We Catholics are having a devil of a time getting the average person in the pew to take a serious interest in the disputations of theologians concerning the interior life of the Holy Trinity. Most are content to call it a mystery and let it go at that.

I have a similar trying to get a single definition of sola scriptura when “exchanging views” with Bible Only Christians. The difference, of course, is that you can get a single, definitive answer to your question, because we have a single source of teaching authority and a handy-dandy Catechism for times like these.

I asked this way back in #294, but I’ll ask again. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”.72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

What portion of this would you agree or disagree with and why?

 

[frjohnmorris]

It’s not hard to spell if you just sound it out: “kuhnuhduhnuhnuhduhkuhduhkuhdse.”

I admire your charitable interpretation of Fr. Morris’ comment, but he is calling the Latin Bible as a whole an error-filled translation, as evidenced by his recent post bringing up Romans 5:12 as “one example.” If he had only meant to criticize the translation of John 15:26, he would not have used the words “error-filled.” The point of my last post was that even this last remark would not be justified because I don’t believe that the distinction between “processio” and “ekporeusis” or between “ekporeusis” and “proienai” is rooted in popular usage, but rather in a specific theological language that developed over time. We ought to be hesitant in insisting on such nuances in ancient languages which no one in this thread is fluent in, much less a native speaker.

And thanks again. Yes, your posts have been helpful. I admire your desire to reconcile different views as much as possible rather than set out from the beginning to tear down the opposition. I am reminded by a saying attributed (probably incorrectly) to St. Thomas: “seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.”

Perhaps the expression “error filled,” is a bit of an exaggeration. Therefore, I apologize for offending my Western brothers and sisters. However it seems to me that many of our differences are due to mistakes in the Latin translations used to formulate Western doctrine. My argument is that when dealing with the doctrine of the Church or any other historical subject we must look at the original texts in the original language and try our best to convey the sense of the original language in any translation. The original text of the New Testament was written in Greek, therefore the actual meaning of the Greek words should shape our theology. The Latin translation of Romans 15:26 is misleading and does not accurately translate the essential word which is ekporeusis which means to proceed from one source or origin. That is also the word used in the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore the addition of the filioque does not convey the meaning of the original text of the Creed.
It is my opinion is that when the East and West ceased to speak the same language, the stage for the differences in doctrine was set. I am not claiming that the Greek terms are indispensable out of Eastern Orthodox arrogance, but out of scholarly considerations.

Archpriest John W. Morris.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps the expression “error filled,” is a bit of an exaggeration. Therefore, I apologize for offending my Western brothers and sisters. However it seems to me that many of our differences are due to mistakes in the Latin translations used to formulate Western doctrine. My argument is that when dealing with the doctrine of the Church or any other historical subject we must look at the original texts in the original language and try our best to convey the sense of the original language in any translation. The original text of the New Testament was written in Greek, therefore the actual meaning of the Greek words should shape our theology.

The Latin translation of Romans 15:26 is misleading and does not accurately translate the essential word which is ekporeusis which means to proceed from one source or origin. That is also the word used in the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore the addition of the filioque does not convey the meaning of the original text of the Creed
.
It is my opinion is that when the East and West ceased to speak the same language, the stage for the differences in doctrine was set. I am not claiming that the Greek terms are indispensable out of Eastern Orthodox arrogance, but out of scholarly considerations.

Archpriest John W. Morris.

Fr. John-

You do realize that some Catholics can actually speak Greek, right?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John-

You do realize that some Catholics can actually speak Greek, right?

I am sure that is true today, but I am not sure about the past. I have always found it curious that when the West rediscovered Aristotle, they did so using translations from Arabic texts found during the reconquest of Spain instead of reading the original Greek texts. The major person who shaped a distinctive Western theology was Augustine who could not understand Greek. Besides who better understood Greek the Greek Fathers for whom it was their native language or Latin Fathers and later theologians? Obviously the Greek Fathers. Could Thomas Aquinas or any of the Scholastics understand Koine Greek?
There is also no doubt that the court of Charlemagne and his successors were interested in distancing themselves as far as possible from the Eastern Roman Empire. Therefore they fostered a uniquely Latin theology and were very anti-Greek. That is why the filioque was so important to the Franks. They used it accuse the East of heresy, because the filioque was not in the Creed used in the East. In 1014 it was Henry IV who pressured Pope Benedict VIII to begin using the filioque in the Creed at Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[twf]

I am sure that is true today, but I am not sure about the past. I have always found it curious that when the West rediscovered Aristotle, they did so using translations from Arabic texts found during the reconquest of Spain instead of reading the original Greek texts. The major person who shaped a distinctive Western theology was Augustine who could not understand Greek. Besides who better understood Greek the Greek Fathers for whom it was their native language or Latin Fathers and later theologians? Obviously the Greek Fathers. Could Thomas Aquinas or any of the Scholastics understand Koine Greek?
There is also no doubt that the court of Charlemagne and his successors were interested in distancing themselves as far as possible from the Eastern Roman Empire. Therefore they fostered a uniquely Latin theology and were very anti-Greek. That is why the filioque was so important to the Franks. They used it accuse the East of heresy, because the filioque was not in the Creed used in the East. In 1014 it was Henry IV who pressured Pope Benedict VIII to begin using the filioque in the Creed at Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

There are many modern Catholic scholars who are certainly very comfortable with Greek. If you read the texts of the Second Vatican Council, as well as the modern Catechism, (and I mean the actual texts, not the heretical interpretation thereof that some liberals have forced upon the laity in many parishes), I think you will find that there is a lot of Eastern influence that in many cases the Latin Church was “rediscovering” in a large part due to the very influential voice of the Melkite Patriarch and his bishops at the Council. The Latin Church has never been limited to scholastic or Thomist theology, and the Second Vatican Council reminded us of that…there are many distinct theological and spiritual traditions, some more in line with the East than others. (The Carmelite tradition comes to mind as one that is perhaps more akin to the Eastern approach in its “feel”).

I have come across Orthodox Christians on the internet who describe the Church as a “hospital for sinners” and contrast this to the “legalistic, judicial” understanding of the Latin Church…well, in actuality, I have often come across the “hospital for sinners” analogy in modern Latin contexts - most recently by Pope Francis himself. I find that in many of these discussions the biggest issue is that those outside of the Latin Church try to paint Latin Catholicism with a single brush…and that simply does not work.

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris: I agree with your statement of your posts #360,#362 #363. When it comes to translating one language to another there is bound to be misinterpertations as some words do not translate easily, so it it is easy to misunderstand. Translators often while trying to be true to the original text sometime just do not get it correct as to what the meaning the original text was saying. As persons, we rely on those teaching us that what they say is correct, if it is not for some reason, out of not knowing something was not translated correctly, I like to think that the intention was good and not meaant to confuse.

 

[mardukm]

I have come across Orthodox Christians on the internet who describe the Church as a “hospital for sinners” and contrast this to the “legalistic, judicial” understanding of the Latin Church…well, in actuality, I have often come across the “hospital for sinners” analogy in modern Latin contexts - most recently by Pope Francis himself. I find that in many of these discussions the biggest issue is that those outside of the Latin Church try to paint Latin Catholicism with a single brush…and that simply does not work.

I don’t think Orthodox Christians can contrast the image of a “hospital for sinners” with Catholic teaching. In fact, the Catholic Magisterium has always dogmatically asserted, in contrast to the Jansenist/Calvinist/historical rigorist heresies, that the Church indeed is composed of sinners that need healing. However, I do note that when Orthodox Christians make that comment, it is always and only made in the immediate context of two specific topics: divorce/remarriage and contraception.

Yeah, I know I said in a post earlier that “this is my last contribution to the thread” but I only meant my last contribution to my discussion with brother Richca, since he was only repeating opinions to which I had already responded several times and he merely repeatedly refused to answer my pointed questions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

There are many modern Catholic scholars who are certainly very comfortable with Greek. If you read the texts of the Second Vatican Council, as well as the modern Catechism, (and I mean the actual texts, not the heretical interpretation thereof that some liberals have forced upon the laity in many parishes), I think you will find that there is a lot of Eastern influence that in many cases the Latin Church was “rediscovering” in a large part due to the very influential voice of the Melkite Patriarch and his bishops at the Council. The Latin Church has never been limited to scholastic or Thomist theology, and the Second Vatican Council reminded us of that…there are many distinct theological and spiritual traditions, some more in line with the East than others. (The Carmelite tradition comes to mind as one that is perhaps more akin to the Eastern approach in its “feel”).

I have come across Orthodox Christians on the internet who describe the Church as a “hospital for sinners” and contrast this to the “legalistic, judicial” understanding of the Latin Church…well, in actuality, I have often come across the “hospital for sinners” analogy in modern Latin contexts - most recently by Pope Francis himself. I find that in many of these discussions the biggest issue is that those outside of the Latin Church try to paint Latin Catholicism with a single brush…and that simply does not work.

I agree that from what I have read of the official catechism of the Catholic Church that a real effort has been made to recognize the contributions of the East. I also agree that some people, not just laity, have given the Catechism heretical interpretations. I once was hired by the Catholic Diolcese of Shreveport to teach church history in their adult education program. They paired me with a feminist nun, who told the people that theologians were not really bound by the teachings of the Catechism. She was by our standards an heretic who believed in women’s ordination, so called inclusive language for God and all had all sorts of feminist ideas. I remember that once she called the Our Father, a Jewish Patriarchal Prayer. We would never let someone like that occupy an official teaching position in our Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Gosh. What an utter trial for you! That must have been like working with the noise of someone scratching their fingernails on a chalkboard!

I’m sure your years “in” Purgatory will be much lessened for that experience, Father.

Humbly and humorously,
Marduk

I agree that from what I have read of the official catechism of the Catholic Church that a real effort has been made to recognize the contributions of the East. I also agree that some people, not just laity, have given the Catechism heretical interpretations. I once was hired by the Catholic Diolcese of Shreveport to teach church history in their adult education program. They paired me with a feminist nun, who told the people that theologians were not really bound by the teachings of the Catechism. She was by our standards an heretic who believed in women’s ordination, so called inclusive language for God and all had all sorts of feminist ideas. I remember that once she called the Our Father, a Jewish Patriarchal Prayer. We would never let someone like that occupy an official teaching position in our Church.

 

[twf]

I agree that from what I have read of the official catechism of the Catholic Church that a real effort has been made to recognize the contributions of the East. I also agree that some people, not just laity, have given the Catechism heretical interpretations. I once was hired by the Catholic Diolcese of Shreveport to teach church history in their adult education program. They paired me with a feminist nun, who told the people that theologians were not really bound by the teachings of the Catechism. She was by our standards an heretic who believed in women’s ordination, so called inclusive language for God and all had all sorts of feminist ideas. I remember that once she called the Our Father, a Jewish Patriarchal Prayer. We would never let someone like that occupy an official teaching position in our Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Lord have mercy…I wouldn’t have the patience to teach along side an individual with such radical positions. Rome has identified numerous heretical positions and problematic spiritual tendencies in the teaching and policies of the “Leadership Conference of Women Reigious”, the umbrella organization that represents many congregations of women religious in the United States (though not all of them by any means!). Rome has nominated three bishops to work with the LCWR to address these issues, but unfortunately the Church moves very slowly. There is, however, hope:

1. The average age of members of the various LCWR congregations is, if memory serves, around 70 or 75. The most outspoken liberal sisters tend to be quite elderly ladies who were formed during the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s.
2. The more traditional, orthodox congregations of nuns / sisters, which tend to not fall under the umbrella of the LCWR, are attracting vocations - growing year by year…while the liberal radical feminist groups are simply aging and shrinking year by year.

I find the same is true of Latin priests, by and large. Younger priests tend to be more traditional than elderly priests. The Liberal “coup” of the 1960s seems to be slowly weakening. More and more parishes, in my experience, are reintroducing more traditional elements of the liturgy. I have a friend who is a priest in the Archdiocese of Vancouver. When he was named pastor of a fairly average suburban parish, he gradually introduced reforms. First he began chanting the Ordinary Form mass in English. Then he instructed the faithful to receive kneeling at the altar rail, as per the traditional Roman custom. (This seems to be at the discretion of the pastor in Canada as I find it varies from parish to parish - though standing is by large the norm). Then he encouraged them to receive on the tongue. Then he phased out the more contemporary elements in the choir. Then he spruced up the sanctuary with more traditional decor. Then he added a traditional Latin Mass according to the older form to the weekly schedule. The congregation accepted the return to more traditional forms as it was done gradually. (I may not have the order exactly correct).
I don’t dispair. The Church has seen dark times in the past and will again. The Lord preserves her.

The last time I attended Sunday mass at my geographic parish in Toronto (I am not aways there as I travel a lot), the young recently assigned priest chanted parts of the mass - which was not something that I had experienced in that parish beforehand. I was sure to send him a note encouraging his decision to introduce a bit of chant…

 

[frjohnmorris]

Lord have mercy…I wouldn’t have the patience to teach along side an individual with such radical positions. Rome has identified numerous heretical positions and problematic spiritual tendencies in the teaching and policies of the “Leadership Conference of Women Reigious”, the umbrella organization that represents many congregations of women religious in the United States (though not all of them by any means!). Rome has nominated three bishops to work with the LCWR to address these issues, but unfortunately the Church moves very slowly. There is, however, hope:

1. The average age of members of the various LCWR congregations is, if memory serves, around 70 or 75. The most outspoken liberal sisters tend to be quite elderly ladies who were formed during the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s.
2. The more traditional, orthodox congregations of nuns / sisters, which tend to not fall under the umbrella of the LCWR, are attracting vocations - growing year by year…while the liberal radical feminist groups are simply aging and shrinking year by year.

I find the same is true of Latin priests, by and large. Younger priests tend to be more traditional than elderly priests. The Liberal “coup” of the 1960s seems to be slowly weakening. More and more parishes, in my experience, are reintroducing more traditional elements of the liturgy. I have a friend who is a priest in the Archdiocese of Vancouver. When he was named pastor of a fairly average suburban parish, he gradually introduced reforms. First he began chanting the Ordinary Form mass in English. Then he instructed the faithful to receive kneeling at the altar rail, as per the traditional Roman custom. (This seems to be at the discretion of the pastor in Canada as I find it varies from parish to parish - though standing is by large the norm). Then he encouraged them to receive on the tongue. Then he phased out the more contemporary elements in the choir. Then he spruced up the sanctuary with more traditional decor. Then he added a traditional Latin Mass according to the older form to the weekly schedule. The congregation accepted the return to more traditional forms as it was done gradually. (I may not have the order exactly correct).
I don’t dispair. The Church has seen dark times in the past and will again. The Lord preserves her.

The last time I attended Sunday mass at my geographic parish in Toronto (I am not aways there as I travel a lot), the young recently assigned priest chanted parts of the mass - which was not something that I had experienced in that parish beforehand. I was sure to send him a note encouraging his decision to introduce a bit of chant…

I am consultant on Baptism and the reception of converts to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America. We had our meeting at a Carmelite retreat center. The nuns looked and acted like real nuns completely different from some nuns that have dealt with. They had a sense of peace and joy about them. It was a wonderful and spiritual experience being there. I remember I was asked to advise the local cable TV company on religious programming. The Catholic nun on the committee was violently against the company carrying Eternal Word Network. In another place a group of Franciscan nuns came to the clergy association to tell us about their plans to open a retreat center. They showed us the site plan. I asked where the chapel was. One of the nuns replied, “They will not let us nuns celebrate Mass so we will not have a chapel.”

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris: In your post #363 I thank you for what you said about Carmelite spirituality. Iam a Discalced Carmelite Secular and was called I believe to join that secular order that I might grow in spirituality and if it be God’s will to be in ubion with Him. I understood that Carmel spirituality started in the east before moving to the West after the Muslim invasion of what is now Israel. For what I have seen both the Nuns as well as the Frairs are closer to the eastern way of spirituality. So thank you for you comments on that part of your post.

 

[Peter_J]

I understand why you would get that impression. Two points:

1. Several years ago, I read an article by Jimmy Akin that outlined how the two theologies were essentially two sides to the same coin. The JDDJ also moves in that direction.
2. Reading lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf opened my eyes to the significant points of agreement between us.

Now, I still have my issues with Luther and with sola scriptura, etc. but most of the Lutheran posters in the Non-Catholic Forum would probably agree that “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the [unity] he once tried to destroy.”

Or something like that.

Interesting ^^ points.

 

[frjohnmorris]

To frjohnmorris: In your post #363 I thank you for what you said about Carmelite spirituality. Iam a Discalced Carmelite Secular and was called I believe to join that secular order that I might grow in spirituality and if it be God’s will to be in ubion with Him. I understood that Carmel spirituality started in the east before moving to the West after the Muslim invasion of what is now Israel. For what I have seen both the Nuns as well as the Frairs are closer to the eastern way of spirituality. So thank you for you comments on that part of your post.

What is a Discalced Carmelite?
I do not know anything about Carmelite spirituality. I only know that the nuns had a sense of spirituality and serenity about them that one does not see much of any more from most Catholic nuns that I have encountered. An Orthodox nun wears what you call an habit and looks and acts like a nun.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Anthony86]

What is a Discalced Carmelite?

The Discalced Carmelites are a religious order established in 1593, pursuant to the reform of the older Carmelite Order by St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. They place great emphasis on prayer, contemplation and the direct experience of God.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Discalced Carmelites are a religious order established in 1593, pursuant to the reform of the older Carmelite Order by St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. They place great emphasis on prayer, contemplation and the direct experience of God.

That sounds very Eastern Orthodox. True theology must come from prayer and the experience of God. It is not science or purely academic exercise.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris: The Descalced Carmelite that I belong to is secular which means that !decalced Latin meaning shoeless,and secular meaning that we are lay people under the direction of Descaled Carmelite Frairs. A Secular carmelite is a practicing member of the Catholic Church who, under the protection of our Lady of Mount Carmel, (title we use for our Blessed Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ) and inspired by St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. makes the commitment to the Order to seek theface of God in praayer for the good of the Church andthe needs of the world. Mary is our modelo of prayer and faithfulness. With her help, we seek to carry out the traditions of carmel. These tradidtions are to pray without ceasing and to meditate on the law of the Lord day and night. We are under her protection to live a meditative way of life. to be in touch with her Son. We seek the face of God in prayer. this seeking the face of God means that wecommit ourselves to changing, becoming clearer images of God. This pursuit of personal holiness, holy flexibility, affects the way we live our daily lives. God’s Spirit is within us as we seek the face of God in prayer, he touches us and changes us. thew purpose of the whole process is to be made flexible in the hands of God, who is in control of our daily lives. As a result, we bring God into daily life and those in daily to God. In silence and solitude because it is important to listen to the will of God in our life. We choose the better part as Mary did. thus listening is to be in solitude. We choose to be alone with the great alone. We are called to deicate aperiod of time each day to the exercise of mental prayer, in silence and solitude. We pray Morning and evening prayer and also if possible night prayers from the Liturgy of the Hours, and also lectio devina. In order to enjoy an authentic life of simplicity, detachment, and humility and complete trust in the Lord, we follow the Church practices of self-denial.The carmelite rule of St. Albert tells us,:each one of you is to stay in his own cell near by, pondering the Law of te Lord( Sacred Scripture) day and night and keeping watch athis prayers unless attending to some duty. Prayer is the frequent contact with the One whom we know loves us. The fruit of praayer and the practice of the virtues is what sanctifieds us. We live the spirit of prayer in an attitude of interior recollection and loving diologue. We are faithful the Apostle’s command to “pray without ceasing” and to the tradition of carmel "To meditate on the law of the Lord day and night. to pray in silence means that we are silently listening to God. We practice allowing Him to call us to this quiet by being still, and listening with our spiritual senses. This stillness can follow us into our daily life enab,ling us to see God throughout the ordinary events od our life. There is more but I think you get the jest of it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

To frjohnmorris: The Descalced Carmelite that I belong to is secular which means that !decalced Latin meaning shoeless,and secular meaning that we are lay people under the direction of Descaled Carmelite Frairs. A Secular carmelite is a practicing member of the Catholic Church who, under the protection of our Lady of Mount Carmel, (title we use for our Blessed Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ) and inspired by St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. makes the commitment to the Order to seek theface of God in praayer for the good of the Church andthe needs of the world. Mary is our modelo of prayer and faithfulness. With her help, we seek to carry out the traditions of carmel. These tradidtions are to pray without ceasing and to meditate on the law of the Lord day and night. We are under her protection to live a meditative way of life. to be in touch with her Son. We seek the face of God in prayer. this seeking the face of God means that wecommit ourselves to changing, becoming clearer images of God. This pursuit of personal holiness, holy flexibility, affects the way we live our daily lives. God’s Spirit is within us as we seek the face of God in prayer, he touches us and changes us. thew purpose of the whole process is to be made flexible in the hands of God, who is in control of our daily lives. As a result, we bring God into daily life and those in daily to God. In silence and solitude because it is important to listen to the will of God in our life. We choose the better part as Mary did. thus listening is to be in solitude. We choose to be alone with the great alone. We are called to deicate aperiod of time each day to the exercise of mental prayer, in silence and solitude. We pray Morning and evening prayer and also if possible night prayers from the Liturgy of the Hours, and also lectio devina. In order to enjoy an authentic life of simplicity, detachment, and humility and complete trust in the Lord, we follow the Church practices of self-denial.The carmelite rule of St. Albert tells us,:each one of you is to stay in his own cell near by, pondering the Law of te Lord( Sacred Scripture) day and night and keeping watch athis prayers unless attending to some duty. Prayer is the frequent contact with the One whom we know loves us. The fruit of praayer and the practice of the virtues is what sanctifieds us. We live the spirit of prayer in an attitude of interior recollection and loving diologue. We are faithful the Apostle’s command to “pray without ceasing” and to the tradition of carmel "To meditate on the law of the Lord day and night. to pray in silence means that we are silently listening to God. We practice allowing Him to call us to this quiet by being still, and listening with our spiritual senses. This stillness can follow us into our daily life enab,ling us to see God throughout the ordinary events od our life. There is more but I think you get the jest of it.

Thank you for your explanation. That sounds very much like Orthodox monasticism.

Archpriest John W. Morris