Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

[ziapueblo]

I’m Byzantine Catholic and often attend Divine Liturgy at the local OCA. They all know I’m Byzantine Catholic (I make no bones about it) and they see me also as Orthodox. Never once have I heard a parishioner there, a deacon or priest say anything at all offensive about Catholics (Byzantine or Latin). The only time I hear anything negative from the Orthodox are on Internet forums or Facebook groups.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Authentic Byzantium is Akindynos, Prochoros Kydones, Demetrius Kydones, John Bekkos

Sure you would mention these guys, each of the men mentioned above either opposed Saint Gregory Palamas or played some role in Latin/Orthodox reunification attempts. Not anything against full communion between the Latin and Orthodox. I pray for it constantly.

Eastern Catholics ought not to pretend to be Orthodox.

So you know better than, let’s say, Patriarch emeritus Gregorios III Laham or Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk?

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So you know better than, let’s say, Patriarch emeritus Gregorios III Laham or Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk?

Patriarchs have been wrong before, I might be wrong but some even became heresiarchs.

Disclaimer: I do not mean to say that those mentioned in your post are wrong or are heresiarchs, but in the end you are reducing argument to “but this is opinion of xy” instead of presenting direct arguments for actual validity of opinion. I don’t take such approach as very effective, contrary to one StAugustine uses by explaining basic theological points that have yet to be disproved.

Sure you would mention these guys, each of the men mentioned above either opposed Saint Gregory Palamas or played some role in Latin/Orthodox reunification attempts.

Perhaps that is reason he mentioned them? To present that Eastern tradition is not clearly Palamite, and I believe that what was made at Latin/Orthodox reunification attempts was nice step towards full unity of Church, something we ought to pray for just like you do, which I commend you for.

 

[Salibi]

Saint Gregory Palamas is a saint of the Melkite Church. The Vatican, when accepting the Melkite Church back into communion, apparently raised no issue with his veneration, otherwise the Melkites would not have kept venerating him. If it’s good enough for the Vatican, it’s good enough for me. Correct me if I’m wrong about anything. Perhaps you mean the Melkites venerate Saint Palamas illicitly?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Hm, I do not think this is necessarily about veneration- we all venerate St. Cyprian yet he wanted to rebaptize those baptized by heretics, something that is of course wrong. St. Cyprian is venerated in spite of his error, not for it.

The discussion here is mostly about whether Palamite theology is wrong or not. If Palamite theology is wrong, it does not necessarily mean (St.) Gregory Palamas is wrong to venerate. By veneration of certain Saint we do not acknowledge he was infallible in life, nor that he was never in error or that he did not die in one or anything like that, we simply acknowledge (via infallibility of Church) that person is in Heaven and can pray for us. That’s it kinda. Technically speaking, problem with veneration applies only if those two conditions are true;

1. Palamite theology is wrong
2. Gregory Palamas is believed to be in Heaven because of his theology.

Being good theologian does not equal being Saint, neither does being bad theologian imply one is not a Saint. Unless second point is proven to be true, I suggest we keep veneration of Gregory Palamas and this theology two separate “issues” (as in conversation issues, not implying it’s an issue within EC churches, neither denying it, etc) to move forward. I however also think this is very interesting debate that might lead to fruits if approached correctly.

Of course, if however my second point is true, veneration of Gregory Palamas stands solely on validity of his theology.

 

[Erik]

According to Aquinas:

• The divine only interacts in this world through created effects and created grace and various created causes…
• all that is ever known of God are created effects in this life
• The divine is never accessed or experienced directly, just a series of created causes

How does the remote and transcendent God bring about those created effects in Creation space-time?

How does Thomas’ idea of an absolutely simple being of Pure Act bring about effects in our created world?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I do not mean to diminish Aquinas, but those things are far from dogmatic by themselves. I myself hold view Aquinas is right, but that does not prove much as it’s very subjective. There is clearly a presumption on which this is based and that would be :

The divine only interacts in this world through created effects and created grace and various created causes…

If I understand correctly, this is exactly what Palamite theology contradicts.

 

[Erik]

Yes, that is true that is completely correct, I just want to understand. The Thomasine perspective.

According to the Orthodox perspective of Saint Gregory Palamas. At the Transfiguration atop Mount Tabor. The Apostles present witnessed divine energies directly. They witnessed divine light. Not ordinary photons. But supernatural super photons. In scientific terms, they somehow observed particles not part of the particle physicists standard model. They did observe horneri protons neutrons electrons neutrinos quarx photons or other ordinary particles of the standard model. Instead, they observe some sort of supernatural super photons conveying supernatural divine light directly to them.

Whereas Catholics and Thomas Aquinas would say so I understand. That the miracle of the Transfiguration. Manifested here on Earth. As ordinary light. Ordinary photons. Which were nevertheless? Generated supernaturally.

So if you’re following and this is making sense for you. Then the Orthodox say that God’s divine energies. Can reach 2? And then also into creation space time.

Whereas Catholics say that God’s divine energies. Reach 2 but not into. Creation. At creation. God’s energies are converted into. Normal. Created. Matter and energy. Normal created. Atoms and molecules and photons.

Honestly, I’m kind of skeptical of the Orthodox clean. From a purely scientific perspective. Even if there was some sort of supernatural super photon? How would your eyes detected? Your eyes have normal created photon receptors. Your eyes can detect normal visible photons. But if there was a neutrino your eyes couldn’t detect it because your eyes don’t have. Neutrino. Detecting proteins. In the rods and cones. So even if God somehow generated. Raw divine UNcreated eternel supernatural super photons. How would your eyes possibly detect them? For you to perceive an experience them unless they were converted into ordinary photons. What your eyes know how to deal with?

 

[Wife.of.Gabriel]

As a Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy 15+ years ago and in April this year, God-Willing, will revert officially back to the Catholic Faith, I’m really curious as to which of the Orthodox Churches you’re attracted to & believe has never changed.

Are you thinking of an Old Calendar Church or a New Calendar Church? If an Old Calendar, an Old Calendar Church in communion, or not in communion, with the New Calendar Churches? An Eastern Orthodox Church or a Western Orthodox Church or a Coptic Orthodox Church? One of the Orthodox Churches that accept the use of Contraception or one that continues to officially reject it while offering “economia” to those who practice it? One where maintaining all the Fasts is required for Communion reception or just where it’s just suggested? One where women are required to wear head coverings or one that it’s optional in or one that doesn’t have women cover their heads. One where girls walk in the Eucharist procession or one where only boys do? One that allows you to brush your teeth before & after receiving the Eucharist or one that forbids one or the other or forbids both? One that allows menstrating women to receive the Eucharist or one that doesn’t. One that requires a new Confession before every time receiving communion or one that doesn’t? One that accepts Catholic Communion as being the actual Body & Blood of Jesus or one that doesn’t accept Catholic communion as valid or one that doesn’t even accept other Orthodox Churches communion as real and valid? One that’s in union with the Ecumenical Patriarch or one that’s not? One that requires all of the St. John Chrystostom pre-communion prayers or one that doesn’t? One that mandates attendance at Great Vespers Saturday night or one that doesn’t offer it.

Let me know, I’m sincerely interested.

 

[Erik]

understand Catholics to state, that only our glorified resurrected body, will be able to directly experience God’s glorious divine energies…

and that our created flesh can only experience created energies – “our eyes have photon absorbing proteins, that enable our eyes to detect regular created photons… But we couldn’t detect supernatural divine super photons, even if God did generate them right before us, anymore than we could see neutrinos, dark matter or dark energy” (so to speak)

likewise we can’t directly comprehend the divine language of God and angels in heaven… So God had to translate & convert divine communications into the terrestrial languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek

similarly, God’s heavenly energy must first be translated & converted into created energy, before there can be any interactions with creation

again, in science sounding speak, created matter can only “speak four languages”, can only interact four ways – strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism, gravity…

if supernatural super photons did exist, they couldn’t “talk to” anything in created space time. They would be unobservable, like dark matter but without even any gravity effects… Just as a neutral neutrino is “oblivious” to the electromagnetic force, so all created matter would be “oblivious” to the “supernatural super force” if it existed

again, humans on earth only spoke 72 languages… If God didn’t translate divine heavenly language into Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek… Then humans couldn’t get the message, would just be Alien gibberish (so to speak)

once the dust settles, and a miracle is over, Orthodox and Catholics agree, that something anomalous and paranormal occurred

Orthodox say that God can reach directly into creation… Like, in a dark pool billiards hall, seeing a hand reaching into the light over the table, and grabbing and moving around the billiard balls

whereas Catholics say we wouldn’t see the hand at all… We would merely infer there was a hand reaching into the pool game, because the balls moved in a surprising unexpected anomalous way

===

i also understand that analogia entis is justifiable from Genesis 1:26

• analogia entis, wherein the assumption is made that things “be,” and God “bes,” so there is some kind of faint analogy of “being” that can be grasped between created being and divine being

we IMAGE God on earth. We are made in his LIKENESS.

so even as the very word “God” is a faint analogy to actual God in heaven

so human beings were CREATED as faint analogies to Divine Being

hence,

• God is placed on a continuum of “being” where the divine essence is likened to created being

 

[RomanChristian]

Let start with this to the person asking about his heart pulling you to Orthodox Christianity. I have been in your shoes for I’m Orthodox Christian now I felt that I needed to reconcile with the Orthodox Church. I was raised, Roman Catholic my background is of Southern Italian and I had this yearning to be Orthodox Christian. I would ask God not people in a chatroom, not the best place to get advice on one’s faith. God will guide you in your struggle HE knows what is in your heart. I hope this helps you…

 

[Salibi]

I wasn’t talking about that. I don’t think we Maronites accept his theology anyways. I was just responding to StAugustine’s overtly impious remarks about a saint of God. I was too disgusted to read further than the first paragraph of his post. And it’s not up to him to choose to “accept” Saint Gregory or not- the Church has accepted him, infallibly stating that he is in heaven praying for us when his canonization was not contested. He can choose not to venerate him, but it is not up to him to pick whether he believes Saint Gregory is a saint or not. I humbly offer him the same advice I’ve offered several of my more strongly - opinionated Latin brothers and sisters on this forum: Get in line behind Rome’s teaching.
And I would like to add that such disrespect towards a saint bordering on hatred harbored towards said saint is unacceptable neither here on earth nor in Heaven. StAugustine has given me time and again the impression of great holiness, but none of us are perfect, I suppose. I sincerely hope he can resolve this “feud” of his with Saint Gregory Palamas and maybe benefit from the Saint’s meritorious intercession.

O Saint Gregory, light of Orthodoxy, pray for us. Amen.

 

[Erik]

Would be very useful to resolve this contentious issue as quickly as possible.

In expertly I’m still of the opinion that at this point, both sides do not even. Correctly characterize the other. Each side is arguing at straw men of their own creation to some degree.

I think there’s a lot more common ground or room acceptable disagreement then is being recognized.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

From my point of view, main focus on conversation was on whether Palamite theology is correct or not / whether Palamite theology is to be interpreted way modern Orthodox interpret it- something not closely related to his sainthood. If Rome accepted St. Gregory Palamas as Saint, let us repeat Saint Augustine’s (not forum user) words, " Roma locuta; causa finita est " or “Rome has spoken, matter is finished”.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Well, contraceptives were forbidden by St. John Chrysostom too, I don’t see why Orthodoxy has no clear teachings on this- after all it would not be a limit to Christians, it would be a guide and directive for them to get closer to God. It seems to me that modern Orthodox neglect some hard-line teachings of Fathers because there is simply not enough authority in Church- promulgations of Synods, Bishops or Autocephalous Churches are viewed as something in-between recommendation and opinion for those not directly bound by them, and even then matters tend to be ignored down the hierarchy. This might be just my impression, but Orthodoxy is stalling to remain unchanged instead of fighting against evils of modern world. Catholic Church does not fear change because She knows Church “changes” to fight evil and She does not need to prove She is true Church by never changing.

There is a great quote saying something along lines of “lie has to be believable to be good lie, but truth has no limitations of being believable- it just has to be true”. Funnily enough, I believe traditional Catholics are usually strict about teachings unlike Orthodoxy, yet many traditional Catholics try to escape “modernist Church of Vatican 2” and run from Catholic Church to Orthodoxy.

 

[Maezck]

@OrbisNonSufficit I had no idea about that with St. John Chrysostom, wow. Thank you for this reply, and it would seem there’s a few topics that Orthodox doesn’t have clear teachings on (which I didn’t mention) that are moral issues in this modern world. I would agree it would seem these unethical issues and others are neglected because of lack of authority within… I have found this also in my studies and would agree with your impression. I am not able to ethically delve deeper into Orthodox, because of their want to remain unchanged within this modern world. So many new ethics issues have arisen, and to be silent in education and logic just doesn’t add up. I really appreciate the sincerity of the Catholic Church, capable of remaining unchanged yet reaffirm teachings to fight any ethics issues the modern world may present.
That is pretty funny about the trad Catholics and the Vatican 2 topic, I just had a laugh, so true and it’s peculiar how these topics present themselves.

 

[ziapueblo]

If Rome accepted St. Gregory Palamas as Saint, let us repeat Saint Augustine’s (not forum user) words, " Roma locuta; causa finita est " or “Rome has spoken, matter is finished”.

Why does Rome have anything to do with whether Gregory Palamas as a saint or not? We Byzantines venerate him, Rome doesn’t have to.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If Rome proclaims Gregory Palamas is Saint, it becomes binding and not matter of opinion for everybody, including Latin Catholics. It does not enforce veneration of course. That is difference, and it has some impact on things stated in this debate hence I felt necessary to point that out.

If you meant that Rome does not make someone a Saint, that’s also true. God makes people Saints and Church just affirms it.

 

[RyanBlack]

Would be very useful to resolve this contentious issue as quickly as possible.

In expertly I’m still of the opinion that at this point, both sides do not even. Correctly characterize the other. Each side is arguing at straw men of their own creation to some degree.

I think there’s a lot more common ground or room acceptable disagreement then is being recognized.

I agree. A good scholarly work that makes a strong case for the compatibility of Palamas and Aquinas on the question of deification is “The Ground of Union” by A.N. Williams.

 

[RomanChristian]

You say Rome has spoken okay fine she can sit in the corner hold her breathing until she blue in the face. No skin of my nose. I take anything said by Rome with a grain of salt. She can’t order or force any Church to agree with her. The Roman Catholic Church is an independent Church and she can only rule herself no other Church has to bow to Rome. Oh! I still call myself Catholic and as far as I know you don’t own the word or copyright to it; So if anyone ask me I still call as I’ve stated to you the only difference is I’m just in the Russian Orthodox Church the Roman Catholic Church. In the United States of America I’m free to call myself Catholic I want no one can stop me…