Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like this from EWTN (emphasis added):

EWTN Catholic Q&A
Hesychast Prayer
Question from Joe on 01-31-2004:
What were the West’s objections to Hesychast prayer and what role, if any, can they play in a Latin Catholic’s prayer life today?

Joe
Answer by Anthony Dragani on 02-20-2004:
Joe,

There were two primary objections:
  1. There was a concern that it reduced mysticism to a specific “method” or “technique.” In other words, there was a fear that Hesychast prayer was an attempt to develop some sort of “formula” for spiritual growth, which would neglect the truth that spirituality is about a relationship with God.
  2. There was a disagreement with the theology associated with it. Hesychast prayer is very much linked to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas, who taught that God is both essence and energies. The essence of God is that which we can never know, so we experience God through his uncreated energies. Grace is another name for these energies. Thus, Hesychasm advocates the position that when we experience grace, we are experiencing God Himself. This view of grace was very different from the view advocated in much of Scholastic Theology in the West.
Today these concerns are no longer held, and the Western Church recognizes the validity and full legitimacy of Hesychast prayer. Pope John Paul II even asked Byzantine Catholic Churches to restore St. Gregory Palamas to their calendars, as many had previously removed him.

Can Hesychast prayer play a role in the life of a Latin Catholic? Absolutely! Many Roman Catholics have read the wonderful book “The Way of a Pilgrim,” and now routinely say the Jesus Prayer.

God Bless, Anthony

ZP
 
Wow 😲 like a dollar per page! You have a copy? Covers all of these topics?

I understand Thomas Aquinas identifies God’s essence and nature. With God’s energetic Actions.

I understand Eastern Orthodox. Believe that limits God. Because if God’s actions were free if God could have chosen to do something else. Then God has an “unrealised Potential” Beyond outside of other than what God freely chose to do.

However, God being infinitely intelligent. God. Chooses those actions, which most superbly represent his character.

We say God is good. So God chooses those actions that are maximally good. Optimally good. If God had chosen to do anything else, it would presumably have been less good and so less reflective of God’s Good nature essence attribute.

So even if this isn’t the best choice of words. The optimization the maximization. God employees. Represents some kind of restriction or limitation. Search that. We really cannot identify God with any of the actions that God himself Dis-identified with in not choosing to do.

To identify God in any way with any of the theoretically possible actions, which God nevertheless chose not to do, would be to identify God with something less superb less optimal less maximal of a representation of His nature than God Himself chose to do to represent Himself.

So it seems to me on this particular point that Thomas Aquinas Offers the stronger argument. The theoretical possibilities, which God Hypothetically could have done. By his omnipotence. But nevertheless chose not to do because they don’t maximally represent his nature. All of those theoretical possibilities are mere curiosities that do not actually reflect on God’s Nature or Essence.

Obviously God being Omni Potent God could theoretically hypothetically have chosen to do other things as I understand the Eastern Orthodox, too. State.

But once again, God himself rejected all those possible choices in favor of others. What God rejected humans have no right to identify or associate with God?
 
It’s been several years since I’ve read it, but as I recall, Williams deals largely with the question of whether Aquinas’s understanding of God as pure act and Palamas’s understanding of essence and energies can be reconciled in the context of their approaches to deification, without addressing all of the other questions you raise. On the question of reconciling the two, Williams takes a fairly positive stance.
 
Rome can order any Church to agree with her, can’t force them to agree though. Same way God could and did “order” us to hold to 10 commandments but “can’t” (would be against his own nature) force us because of our free will.
RomanChristian said:
Oh! I still call myself Catholic and as far as I know you don’t own the word or copyright to it;
Click to expand...
You can call yourself apple and you won’t be one, same way you are not Catholic despite calling yourself so. We are all capable of lies or ignorance anyway.
RomanChristian said:
difference is I’m just in the Russian Orthodox Church the Roman Catholic Church
Click to expand...
could you rephrase? If you mean only difference is that you are effectively outside the Catholic Church built by Christ identified by communion with See of Peter, the Rome, you are correct but I wouldn’t say that’s small difference. You believe in plurality of Churches of God and indifferentism, I get it.
 
Erik said:
Obviously God being Omni Potent God could theoretically hypothetically have chosen to do other things as I understand the Eastern Orthodox, too. State.
Click to expand...
That’s a tricky part though, all-knowing and all-good God couldn’t have chosen anything not perfectly good otherwise he wouldn’t be all-good (and as he is all-knowing he knows what is perfectly best all the time), so in theory while God has a choice it’s always kind of “easy” to determine from his point of view and he couldn’t choose anything else based on his nature. In theory he is capable of other things based on his omnipotence but other parts of his nature disallow them. It’s pretty hard to get our human brains to grasp this completely, and as Saint Augustine said, if we think we completely understand God, we can be sure it is not God.

In my opinion hesychasm itself is not harmful theologically speaking, and if we identify Palamite theology in sync with Aquinas it is not wrong. Would that be correct?
 
That would stand to reason

with all due respect to everyone on all sides. Wouldn’t it be most practical too prioritize UNITY. Over these extremely philosophical speculations about the nature of God.

Again, with all due respect, it looks to me like we could philosophize for 1000 years… and the only thing that would come of it is division of the church over these traditions of men.

Are we absolutely sure any of this is absolutely essential for faith and Salvation?

I admit I may not understand All of the nuances and inter relations between all these ideas.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” ― St. Augustine
 
Empirical vs. Transcendent essence

I have been told elsewhere that Thomasine philosophy can accommodate an Essence-Energies like distinction…
  • Essence → Transcendent essence, unknowable
  • Energies → Empirical essence, known through God’s energetic acts of revealing intervention
Providing… “the distinction lies merely in our perception and not in God as composition…This distinction will then only be in the minds of creatures”
 
Greetings of Peace!
I would support you with your decision as long as you would respect the tradition of our Catholic Church and give value to it.I would tell you my story it is very horrible because I almost forget that I am a Catholic due to my addiction to the Chinese culture and I am just a teen ager and I want to change my religion to Buddhism because in my mind Buddha is an Asian version of Jesus while the Bodhisattva are the angel.I’d realize that God did this to me to respect the belief of other because recently I am anti-Protestant but I later realized that God loves us all and because He loves me too He saved me from my addiction and made me more simple and a more happier Catholic.Actually I don’t know how it came and as a teen ager I want to be a Catholic Carmelite Priest .I think God will let you to be an Orthodox but please keep the Catholic Church in your heart my dear.
 
Last edited:
Here’s a quote from the book energy in Orthodox theology and physics:
the divine energies could be different than they are… If they are the sphere of personal action in the way that I have described, then at least some of them could be different; otherwise they would be a kind of emanation rather than the free acts of a free Creator. However, the same constraint means that there are limits to the ways that they could be different. The range of acts which would constitute a legitimate expression my character is quite large, yet I trust that at least some acts, such as murder, adultery, or treason, fall beyond it. In the same way, if the divine energies are to manifest the divine ousia, then although they can vary enormously they must fall within the range that is properly related to the divine ousia (whatever it might be!) as expression to source
Click to expand...
I agree that this may give too much of a sense of variability to God in the name of His freedom of action.

God’s actions are maximally optimized for His Good. If another action would have been better God would have done it!

One must remember that God has foresight and foreknowledge. God is never surprised. God always knows how everything plays out and so is always able to choose the very best action to take at every place and time.

So I sense that Latin scholasticism and Thomism has a better stronger, more accurate sense of the total overall cohesive coherence of all of God’s acts in creation throughout space and time.

They aren’t separate disjoint “random acts of kindness” that God could have done differently if he wanted to. Rather, each act is the maximum expression of God’s singular goodness, for and towards Salvation, at that place and time. They are all coherent parts of a single divine master plan.

EO may perceives God’s energies and graces as more “random acts of kindness” than I sense is justified.
 
Let me first start that the Roman Catholic tries to claim to be the one true Church which is untrue to from the start. Second Saint Peter died 2,000 years there is nothing in the bible that said that he is a Pope or that it passes down from generation to generation or some kind of head you reading words that are not in the bible. There is no place in the bible that uses the word Catholic. The Catholic Church that mention in prayer is not your Church it is all of the Autocephalous Church that makeup The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Roman Catholic is one of the Autocephalous Church that would make up the whole of what is said in the prayer. The Church of Roman is out of communion with its other sister’s Churches but the Roman Church has chosen this road. I will pray you one day return back into communion being out of communion has problems that hurt the Catholic Church. This is why I pray that the statutes of the Greek and Russian Church will help with a little soul searching. Being out of communion hurts your Church as well as mine. Your Church should reconcile itself to the fact that it is an Autocephalous Church and maybe we can get on with life here.

My friend who is an Eastern Catholic Priest agrees with me that he doesn’t ever see Roman Catholic Church ever reconcile itself in the near future and is not interested in it. Until hearts change here there is only empty talk here no meat what is needed is a true contrition in ones heart. If the Roman Catholic Church were to end and disappear would it end Christ’s Church the answer is no for The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic would still be here on earth?

Tell me why the same miracle that you claim from weeping Virgin Mary statues , incorruptibles saints to the apparitions of the Virgin Mary also happen in the Eastern Orthodox Church it seems that God has blessed to Orthodox Church with The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that so claim by my Church.
 
Last edited:
To my former Traditionalists Catholic friends,

I read the something’s from Latin Mass Magazine to articles written by Michael Davies. I know what you know I’ve read the same things that you have read. You know what I mean by that; I know what is in the heart of Traditionalists Catholics I breathe the same air as you did 25 years ago. I know what you say privately among yourself and to others like yourself. I’m very aware of what the Roman Catholic Church has said about itself not that long ago.

You only have go back to the November 20, 1947 and read a Papal Encyclical called Mediator Dei written by Pope Pius XII. I feel everyone of should read that Encyclical Mediator Dei and then tell me what you think after you have readed it??? This a very fair question it your Church’s words not mine my friends. The Roman Catholic as written a lot of stuff over the years, there is a lot to see if you only dig deeply into the Church’s past. Pope Pius XII warned the Church against what should not never ever happen… You will just have to read and see.

Have good day…

RomanChristian
 
Last edited:
RomanChristian said:
Second Saint Peter died 2,000 years there is nothing in the bible that said that he is a Pope or that it passes down from generation to generation or some kind of head you reading words that are not in the bible.
Click to expand...
Neither are Ecumenical Councils explicitly stated to be binding, we are not sola scriptura heretics, neither Catholics nor Orthodox. Many Church Fathers explicitly state need for Seat of Peter to be unity of Church, something Orthodoxy left. Orthodoxy contradicts itself by rejecting couple of Church Fathers, including Augustine who was approved by Ecumenical Council. I have considered joining Orthodoxy before, but clearly that would not be right decision. Miracles happen to pious Christians, they are found in Catholic Church as much as in Orthodox Church (I’d argue Catholics have more of them but that barely means anything considering size of Churches). Orthodoxy has some attributes of Church and valid sacraments as well as priesthood but they do not have Seat of Peter hence they do not have fullness of Church.

If you study Church history and Church Fathers (pre-schism but also post-schism) on both sides, you can not come to any different conclusion than that.
 
ioannes_pius said:
The Church has executed notorious heretics before, and it belongs to Her to do so.
Click to expand...
I’ve always been under the impression that the Church never burned anybody. My understanding is that the Church would try a heretic, and finding him guilty and unrepentant, would hand him over to secular authorities, and it is they who would execute the heretic.
 
You are no better than anyone else. Catholics have a hang up on trying to convince others that they are the first and not the last. Oh the 1.2 billion Catholics who you say that you have, I kind of doubt that number it more like with all that have left the Roman Catholic Church in the last 50 years its probably 500 or 600 million left in the Catholic Church that number is decreasing ever more in recent years. You win some you loss some.
We can see the empty seats in the Catholic Church and Church closings and parish consolidations. Don’t forget the Protestant that are growing in South America very quickly and in different parts of the world you try to hide that number. I would like they join my Church but you can’t have everything. The one thing I can say about myself is that I’m happy in my Orthodox Church and it teaches me how to live a better life than I did 30 years ago. God draw me to the Orthodox Christian faith in order to save me from an unknown future and the loss of my soul. The Orthodox Christian is the true Catholic Church and will be to end of time…
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Many Church Fathers explicitly state need for Seat of Peter to be unity of Church, something Orthodoxy left.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox never left the Catholic Church. The Roman cardinal acting under orders given by the Pope when he was alive, accused Patriarch Michael Cerularius and all his followers to “be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself…” There were several reasons listed for condemning them, such as:
“they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;” i.e., no filioque in their creed,
" they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;", i.e., they do not enforce celibacy.
among other reasons.
This PAPAL BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION TO PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE MICHAEL CERULARIUS IN 1054 was not revoked until 900 years later when Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met on December 7, 1965. At that time it was declared: “Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius … One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. …”
Etc.
 
Last edited:
C.Ray said:
I’ve always been under the impression that the Church never burned anybody. My understanding is that the Church would try a heretic, and finding him guilty and unrepentant, would hand him over to secular authorities, and it is they who would execute the heretic.
Click to expand...
However, some Catholics who opposed the burning of a heretic alive, were then called out at Sunday Mass and declared to be excommunicated. Some of the names of these unfortunate Catholics who were excommunicated are given in the works of Henry Charles Lea.
A History of the Inquisition of Spain
A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages
 
There is a Roman Catholic saint who predict that there is only 112 Popes then he said the end. Pope Francis is the 112 Pope he is Peter the Roman as the said called him. The predictions started in the 1100 somewhere. If the saint is right we see how important the Pope won’t we?

In my opinion your fathers support my Church appose a Pope aas head so we he or she type ou f statement. Like Eastern Catholic priest told me he wondered what God thought of His Church divided like it is. Roman Catholic Church is away from full communion if she would change her ways, unfortunately not to happen as of yet we will hope to see some change on her part.

I wouldn’t talk about burning heretics; in some locations people like you would have be burned at the steak don’t forget. The burning at the steak is been done by both sides.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top