From what I have seen however, the Reformed/Calvinists really didn’t quote much from say St. John of Damascus or St. Maximus the Confessor. I’ve seen Reformed theologians quote Augustine and Aquinas quite a bit, but when it comes to the Eastern saints there seems to be a real blind spot.
One of the main stumbling blocks for everyone in the Reformation is the Eastern Church. At first, the Reformers were largely unaware of Eastern Christianity altogether. They could blame all their theological objections on “popery” and “Romishness”. But the unchanged Teaching of the Apostles has been preserved infallibly also in the East, where there is no love of “popery” either. How is it that the Eastern Catholics also believe the Apostles taught that Scripture must be interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition? They got this not from “Rome”, but from the Apostles themselves!
Amen friend!And you know me, guan, if you guys (East and Rome) could fix this issue of “popery”, I would see no reason to remain where I am.
But Jon, if the fulness of truth is found in either location, why not go there until the wound heals? Become part of the healing! Once the inertia toward Christian re-unification is begun (and it is well underway), it will not be stopped until it reaches completion. To worship together in full communion would bring tears to my eyes.
Yes I do, dear brother, and often think of this when saying my prayers for the unity of the Church. I think there may be tens of thousands like yourself, and with the continued disintegration of the divisions falling into sin, more and more do such controversies need resolution so that we once again may all be ONE.
I am glad to read your comment, Cavaradossi. Augustine is a western saint and has had enormous influence on the western church, not so much in the east, thankfully. I admit I am not a fan of Augustine. He is a saint but even a saint can brush close to heresy. Augustine didn’t step over the line, but Calvin did.
Hi po,
You know, considering what guan said above, perhaps I am part of the healing. Some criticize me because this is an obvious part of my apologia, but I believe its important for folks to recognize that there really are many of us out here who pray for unity, and unity between east and west is truly the first step toward full unity.
Mine, too, my friend.
Well, I looked at the links, and discover Calvin to be quite verbose. His writings remind me of portions of Charles Taze Russell (founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) and of Ellen G. White (SDA) that I have read. All are quite wordy and have to be taken in small doses. Calvin does indulge in some ad hominem attacks–he mentions those “foolish” people who come up with “fictions” regarding predestination, and calls their objections “hollow.” In any event, I do find that my initial understanding of Calvin to be not incorrect. No wonder I was not corrected when I expressed it.
Yes, I can understand why Calvanists think and believe the way they do. If you get in that mental framework, it does make sense. It is difficult for those who have recievedthe Apostolic Faith sometimes to wrap the mind around these new gospels that are such a departure from what has been committed to the Church, but if one can immerse oneself, it begins to make sense, just like listening to a psychotic. I am not saying that Calvin was mentally disturbed, in fact, the historical evidence seems to indicate that Luther was a much more tortured and disordered soul than Calvin.
That’s right. Calvin was a French lawyer, the French being noted for logic, and being a lawyer, Calvin got a double whammy. But logic is only as good as the premises it is based upon.
I have to admit, I have learned some bodacious stretches from Calvanists since I have come to CAF. It seems that certain passages are left out entirely, and if called upon to integrate them, for example, those that refer to falling away from the faith (contrary to perseverance) there are sometimes very outlandish. This is one of the main problems of Calvanism that I can see, is that it does not take into account the whole of Scripture. It is primarily based upon the writings of Paul, and uses Romans as a foundation.
The East has its arguments, and over the past 1000 years, they have become quite firm. Yet, it is clear to me that Peter was prime among his brothers. Jesus gave the Apostles power over everything. They passed that power on and the primacy of the chair of Peter went with it. I honestly think that much of the East-West division was political and geographic. It is human nature to engage in power struggles. As a Catholic, I see the EO Church as an intergral, ireeplaceable part of making disciples of all nations. Yet, how far must one go to find an EO Church in most partts of the world? And, which EO Church is it, under which Patriarch?
to be charitable and invite others, as I do with you, to examine and consider unity - especially in light of the advance of evil in our world. Just as the wall which separates us is dismantled one brick at a time, Those bricks can be employed to build, one brick at a time, the wall defending us against evil. You and I are bricklayers in that regard.The unity between East and West is ongoing and occurs in steps, just as the disunity did. Yet, you and I are not spectators, but participants. We are either striving toward unity, or we are stagnating.
Conveniently left out is all that the fathers have said that is in accord with the Catholic Church teaching. Essentially, the Calvinists are being forced to confront Church history, but even then they are cherry picking their quotes, as they do with the rest of the scriptures. If either Aquinas or Augustine was the fiercely independent and ego-driven type, there would be no Calvinist theology today, only Augustinian or Aquinasan (?). But, those do not exist. Why? Because both were obedient, as was Saint Jerome, to the greater entity - the Church.
This is one of the main problems of Calvanism that I can see, is that it does not take into account the whole of Scripture. It is primarily based upon the writings of Paul, and uses Romans as a foundation.
Jesus, on the other hand, built His model on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.
Thomism or Thomists.
D’oh!!! :doh2: What was I **not **thinking?Thomism or Thomists.
Hmm putting Calvin in with them I’m not so sure about…
With respect, there are a fair few assumptions here. And on the old Luther being disordered and maybe a tad insane myth, the product of older Catholic scholarship, I would recommend a reading of this overview of the scholarly field here, and see its development: tquid.sharpens.org/catlut1.htm
When did this thread take on a very “condescending” manner? With respect, it’s gotten a rather uncomfortable atmosphere to it now, compared to it earlier on.
Yes, they start with Paul and interpret the rest of the scripture in the light of what they think Paul is saying. They “read the bible backwards.” I think they should start with the gospels and Jesus, and understand them thoroughly, and only then go to the rest of the NT. Without the gospels, they are unlearned, and we know what Peter said about the unlearned!