Nine_Two:
My original post said that what you said didn’t make any sense from an Eastern perspective. That doesn’t mean that I’m in disagreement with every single last thing in the post. If I say “The aardvark yawns the chicken as the sun rises at dawn”, you’ll say that doesn’t make any sense. Does that mean I can accuse you of denying the sun rises at dawn?
Then please be specific when I ask what you’re referring to. “That doesn’t make sense” was actually your second post, and it was in response to me saying that I couldn’t respond unless I knew what you were questioning.
You didn’t exactly give me much to build a response from, so I went with everything I said in the post, none of which involved a “treasury of merit”, or Saint’s merits in life being applied to others.
You made the statement that the saints interceed for us immediatly after saying they are saints by virtue of going beyond what was required. In the context of a treasury of merits, it all sounds like that. I’m sorry if I interprete it incorrectly, but that’s what it seems to indicate.
I wasn’t speaking about the “treasury of merits”, so it wasn’t part of the context as far as I can see. I had already said many times that I don’t like that analogy and don’t use it.
You have however said it is the exact same belief that exists in the East, and then go into explanations that certainly don’t follow the thinking of the East. Like most results of scholasticism, it is convoluted.
Where did I ever say this?
I said your post didn’t make sense, from an Eastern perspecitve, and that therefore claiming agreement was incorrect. I didn’t claim any specific parts were wrong or couldn’t be reconciled.
Which is why I couldn’t respond to you properly. I didn’t know what you took issue with, and everything I said (intercession of the Saints and growing in Theosis through extraordinary devotion and works) is indeed fully Eastern.
I have issue becaus going above and beyond means there is something to go beyond. Certainly they didn’t go beyond Christs commands, as I said, read what they wrote about themselves if you want dirt on them. With the exception of the Theotokos none were spotless. Additionally numerous saints are such for a single act committed during otherwise all-to-human lives, as evidence I give the demonstration of many Martyrs. Many others pulled themselves up from the depths of depravity. St. Ignatius of Loyola for example was scum of the earth before he saw the light and quite accidently began the counter-reformation. He continued to see himselfas scum. Eastern saints tend to be much the same. They didn’t go “above and beyond” in their own minds, the reason they are saints is because they did their best to meet the commands of Christ.
It’s not about them being spotless, it’s about their works being exemplary. This is the very reason a person is Canonized. It’s why the Church doesn’t Canonize every Christian who dies in the bosom of the Faith, despite them being saints in Heaven just like anyone else there. It’s precisely how the Orthodox website I linked to defines them, too.
I honestly don’t know where you’re getting the idea that anyone would think Sainthood means the person had some extra pile of “good works”, or that they’d be spotless. That seems like a straw-man to me since no one has suggested such a thing.
I understand fully how easily it is to accidently insult someone over the internet, but questioning ones understanding of their own tradition, when you yourself advertise belonging to another (even if you say you’re practicing in another) can’t be anything but insulting.
I questioned it because it appeared that you were denying the intervention of the Saints, and the good works we do on Earth on behalf of the dead, both of which are staples of Byzantine tradition. When I asked for clarification of what you were questioning, you didn’t specify, so I could only assume you meant the whole post.
Also, in fairness, you have also recently denied (it seems) that good works increase our sanctification, which is also a staple of Byzantine theology and practice, so all these things together do give me reason to be unsure of how much you know about Byzantine tradition. This may all be a misunderstanding on my part, and I’m fully willing to accept that, but I had to go with what I was getting and obviously I came off as a jerk. My schedule nowadays doesn’t leave me much time for editing my posts, let alone editing for tone. Again, I’m sorry.
And a clarification: I am Canonically Latin, but I don’t practice the Latin tradition and haven’t for many years; I’m only canonically a Latin because that’s what I was Baptized in, and my Canonical transfer isn’t complete, but I haven’t even been to a non-Eastern liturgy in years. That’s why my profile says “practicing Melkite”. Canonical status really doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on the tradition a person follows. I realize this kind of thing isn’t found in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, which only has the Byzantine tradition, but it’s a good thing to know about the Catholic Communion.
I do wish you well, as I said I was a bit surprised by the tone of your post and am somewhat relieved to hear it was unintentional, and I accept your apology.
I’m glad we can come to peace on this issue. Let’s put it behind us!
Peace and God bless!
