M
Marie5890
Guest
Absolutely beautiful! So faith-filled. So trusting.
I wish there was an Orthodox church near-by for me to visit.
- Status
I wish there was an Orthodox church near-by for me to visit.
M
mark_a
Guest
I read here once this explanation. I have no idea if it is correct:
If Mary was conceived without original sin instead of being saved from original sin after she was conceived (possibly like John the Baptist), she would not have grown old and died (or been assumed just prior to her death, whichever the case may be).
In fact, the Orthodox poster insisted that the Orthodox view of Mary’s conception confirmed the Othodox view of the assumption (whichever it is).
Anyway, I’m just passing this along. No need to shoot the messenger.
If Mary was conceived without original sin instead of being saved from original sin after she was conceived (possibly like John the Baptist), she would not have grown old and died (or been assumed just prior to her death, whichever the case may be).
In fact, the Orthodox poster insisted that the Orthodox view of Mary’s conception confirmed the Othodox view of the assumption (whichever it is).
Anyway, I’m just passing this along. No need to shoot the messenger.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Me too, that is why I have become Eastern Catholic. The problem with too detailed definitions is sometimes people lose the big picture.
J
jwinch2
Guest
To a point, I agree with you. I believe that there is a time and a place to chalk things up to being one of God’s mysteries. And you are correct in my view that it is one of the beautiful aspects of the Eastern tradition.
However I think you take things a bit too far in your analysis. For example, I would say that one of the things I find that I love most about Catholicism is that there is (to use your words) a need or even a desperation have everything spelled out. However, I would further suggest that this does not have to be viewed as ego, nor does it imply a lack of trust or faith in God. It can simply be viewed as a yearning desire to know more about Him.
Just as it is difficult for one person to love another if they do not know them, it can be hard for many people to love God in the manner in which they are called, without seeking some understanding of who God is. The study and contemplation of God and His mysteries has led to the development and writing of some of the Catholic Church’s greatest saints. Saints Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc. all spent their lives trying to understand God’s mysteries. Were those lives wasted? Did they do it from ego, or a lack of faith and trust? Or, as I am suggesting here, were they simply trying to know God more fully and through that knowledge, love Him more deeply?
M
Marie5890
Guest
I do see the point you are making, and in many ways it’s valid.
But a lot of the dogma and legalism that is in the Catholic Church goes to an extreme that reminds me of what Christ Himself was pushing back against w/the Pharisees and scribes, etc.
“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”-esque sort of scenerio.
Like ConstineTG says, its like people forget the big picture they are so focused on the threads of the overall tapestry, and not the tapestry itself
M
Marie5890
Guest
Agreed. I have noticed that tendency, too
J
jwinch2
Guest
I believe you are misinterpreting the passages in Sacred Scripture discussing the Pharisees but I will leave off. I don’t want to derail the thread anymore than I already have…
M
Marybeloved
Guest
You’re right, jwinch. And if the point you were responding to were truly valid, then it would make absolute nonsense of the first millennium of Christianity where the nature of God and of Christ and many truths of the faith were hushed out and taught in the terms that we all take for granted today. I suppose the Fathers were just a bunch of ego-driven pharisees, no? Trying to understand and teach the true nature of God instead of just “trusting” and living out the mysteries.
And you’re right- Our Lord criticized the hypocrisy of the pharisees, never their desire to know God and understand the truths that he himself had revealed to men.
M
Marie5890
Guest
I guess some people have a need to have things more defined to feel closer and to understand God more; others dont need that nearly as much. 
As far as ego-driven, my general experience of observation is that as broken human beings, we really tend to be ego-driven more so than not. I dont think humility comes as easy to each of us as we would like or think that it does.
But then I listen to Abp Sheen’s teachings a great deal and he talks extensively on human ego and how it effect us and gets in our way. So it’s something I am aware of.
As far as ego-driven, my general experience of observation is that as broken human beings, we really tend to be ego-driven more so than not. I dont think humility comes as easy to each of us as we would like or think that it does.
But then I listen to Abp Sheen’s teachings a great deal and he talks extensively on human ego and how it effect us and gets in our way. So it’s something I am aware of.
M
Mickey
Guest
It is a life long struggle that can only be acquired by the grace of God.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
What humility has to do with the OP I fail to see. Another assumption.
Whats the Big picture? I will take a guess and assume thats “Heaven”. Should one choose to follow in say “Blind Faith” then so be it. Should another be drawn deeper into faith through deeper understanding, then where is the issue?
Through learning comes knowledge and through knowledge comes truth. Thus how does one suggest at some point “I’m good” or “fine” where I am with my faith. Yet presume another who continues to learn, comprehend then understand somehow falls short in faith?
Thats an assumption that a lack of knowledge, is knowledge in itself.
I fail to see to connection. In fact if your “good” where your at? Then why are you here? To spread Blind Faith?
Whats the Big picture? I will take a guess and assume thats “Heaven”. Should one choose to follow in say “Blind Faith” then so be it.
Should another be drawn deeper into faith through deeper understanding, then where is the issue?Through learning comes knowledge and through knowledge comes truth. Thus how does one suggest at some point “I’m good” or “fine” where I am with my faith. Yet presume another who continues to learn, comprehend then understand somehow falls short in faith?
Thats an assumption that a lack of knowledge, is knowledge in itself.
I fail to see to connection. In fact if your “good” where your at? Then why are you here? To spread Blind Faith?
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
I heart this comment.You’re right, jwinch. And if the point you were responding to were truly valid, then it would make absolute nonsense of the first millennium of Christianity where the nature of God and of Christ and many truths of the faith were hushed out and taught in the terms that we all take for granted today. I suppose the Fathers were just a bunch of ego-driven pharisees, no? Trying to understand and teach the true nature of God instead of just “trusting” and living out the mysteries.
And you’re right- Our Lord criticized the hypocrisy of the pharisees, never their desire to know God and understand the truths that he himself had revealed to men.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Yeah right: Ever had a discussion about the blessed Trinity with an Orthodox? Their philosophical discoveries will blow your socks off and never end…
Unlike the Latin Rite where everything must be dealt with in absolute, the Eastern praxis is fine with leaving some loose ends. We can’t pretend we know everything, only God knows everything. We are fine with some things being left as a mystery.
A
adoglover1956
Guest
How?
J
jakasaki
Guest
I would like to know how as well…
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I don’t speak for Orthodoxy, but from experience; Their philosophical detailed interpretations of the Trinity leaps bounds. Simply said “it’s all Greek to me”.
Try mixing theology, Greek philosophy, Spiritual disciplines combined with Greek terms such as “uncreated energy” describing the Trinity from the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit independent understandings of each one!
Now Mary being full of Grace, from the Catholic perspective to be full of Grace by God, reveals there was not a time Mary’s existence did not have Grace. That is simple.
Orthodox instead of saying we don’t know? They apply hoops and loops to deny the Immaculate Conception. Don’t be decieved by simplicity of Orthodoxy, it comes with a payload of philosophical treatment on both sides of any isssue.
At Least I am not sold on Orthodoxy simplicity. You need two doctrate degrees in Greek and Greek Philosophy combined with Monk spirituality to take in their theological understandings, because when one starts and stops another picks up to begin again, humbly speaking my own opinion here.
I have heard scholars speak that it is offensive to the Orthodox when the Latins enter into mysticsm and discussion of mysteries, because these the Orthodox believe can only be addressed by Greek philosophy, Greek speach and understandings supported by Greek monk mysticsm. In other words, it is insult to Orthodoxy if and when the Western Church developes or enlightens by clearer definition from an apostolic doctrine.
A
adoglover1956
Guest
As a Catholic I would like to know why there is this propensity to have everything documented through aristotolean(sp) metaphysics. It is all a mystery and beyond explanation. To say something is accepted through faith is fine. And to say that the Orthodox are jumping through hoops to avoid the immaculate conception is false. The Orthodox have a different understanding of original sin which is traced back to ECF.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Correction; I am not refuting their theology. I am stating their theology is supposed to be far superior than the West according to their philosophical and mystical theologians.
Orthodoxy is soaked with Greek philosophy and Aristotelean understandings.
If you are referencing Transubstantiation by Aristotle terminology, not Aristotle physics. You have been misinformed.
Besides to my knowledge, Transubstantiation is the only term that I know of invented by Aristotle that the Catholic church uses “not everything documented”. But the Catholic Church does not use Aristotle’s metaphysics to define the Eucharist. Trans. only reveals a “change” occurred. Orthodox and protestant arguments are the one’s claiming to an Aristotle metaphysical change, not the Catholic Church. She only uses the Term to identify the “change” of substance.
This change of substance is never defining the Eucharist, it only points to a change of the substance has occurred. Trans. never reaches the mystery.
If you review Aristotle’s definition of Transubstantiation of substance change and accidents. The Church does not follow Aristotle’s definition of substance and accidents. The Church defines Substance different from Aristotle’s.
Aristotle’s Transubstantiation has to take place by nature destroying the object in order to adapt a change of substance. The Church’s Transubstantiation takes on a substance change by divine power.
A
adoglover1956
Guest
I think that’s arguable. But you made a generalization about the Holy Trinity and the Immaculate Conception. Address that.
I could add more…but I fear the mods do not like a Catholic challenging the Church.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Who’s arguing with the Church? I can’t read what you want me to address, because it’s marked out. Are you experiencing any blackouts of posts on your end?
I can’t read what you think is arguable? please re write
- Status