Orthodoxy (Possible Convert)

[azerty]

“I wonder if some of the EO outlook on revelation versus theological conclusions is influenced by living for centuries under the boot of Islam with its vision of an ‘inscrutable’ God?”"

Orthodox theology and christian mysticism didn’t start with Islam.
The idea that God is “unknowable” is not new. Even St Augustin say that God could not be understood, but that didn’t prevent him to use philosophy in his theological treatises.

That God is “unknowable” doesn’t mean that God is totally unknowable but that he can ulimately be really known through experience.
This is why in the beatific vision we will see God as He sees us. Because His knowledge will be our knowledge and only in His divine knowledge we will be able to really know Him. (not sure if i’m clear, my english isn’t great)

The problem with the orthodox is that they tend to devaluate all form of discursive knowledge, just like modern rationalism tends to devaluate knowledge that cannot be mesured and verified and reduce things to what can be mesured.
Even meditation where discursive thinking is involved is seen as an illegitimate form of prayer.
In catholicism discursive knowledge is a legitimate form knowledge but as it is a natural form of knowledge (“psychic/natural” knowledge) it is still inferior to spiritual knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is what Pascal called the knowledge of the heart or what the orthodox call the knowledge of the noûs.

Now i think we can learn alot from orthodox theology because it emphasizes deification which is a traditional christian doctrine. It reminds us that baptism is a litteral birth in God (we are integrated in the Body of the Son) and that it is the starting of a true spiritual transformation.
Indeed, the goal of christian life is to kill the “old man” (psychikos anthropos/carnal man) so that the “spiritual man” that lives in the Spirit can take charge.

On deification John Paul II writes :
The teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers on divinization passed into the tradition of all the Eastern Churches and is part of their common heritage. This can be summarized in the thought already expressed by Saint Irenaeus at the end of the second century: God passed into man so that man might pass over to God.(14) This theology of divinization remains one of the achievements particularly dear to Eastern Christian thought.(15) Orientale Lumen

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

 

[Khalid]

I’ve had the idea that EO was influenced by 700 years of Islamic hegemony before - I think you’ll see my opinion on it in one of the above posts.

I will check out those books; I am a doctor of philosophy (equivalent), although that philosophy was very focused on Islam as I attained it from an Islamic university. However, some general-usage philosophy was included.

A stumbling block with English philosophy for me is not the advanced concepts described therein; it’s the English language. In order to understand philosophical concepts described in a given language, one must have near absolute mastery over it (i.e. thing-in-itself and being-in-itself from Sartre, etc.); as many philosophical distinctions seem quite minor to the untrained eye.

I attained a true belief in God (an actual knowledge, not just because other people did and it was expected) after reading the “banned” (in most of the Middle East) Summa Theologiae after I came to the US. I remained a Muslim for a time thereafter - as Diderot said, "An Imam could use the same reasoning! when presented with Pascal’s wager, but eventually was brought to the Light, the Way, and the Life through that self-same Thomist philosophy.

I’m not against spiritual or experiential belief - I am simply stating that in all likelihood, it’s not for me, and if it’s the only way to attain belief, I’ll be forever left wandering in the dark, or taking everything St Symeon the New Theologian said at face value, which is blind faith. Spiritual or experiential knowledge must always have a “check” and “balance” in philosophic-logical or theoretical-analytical knowledge, so that one isn’t lead astray by believing to have attained “theoria”, while under self-hypnosis (or demonic influence, even, as it seems to be a perfect portal for Satan to trick any but the most rare individuals), as hesychasm seems to have the goal of, with complete disregard for the theoretical or rational attempts at gaining knowledge.

I have heard it said (I think Gregory Palamas) “Experience leads to knowledge but knowledge does not lead to experience.”

But knowledge leads to knowledge itself.

The problem with the orthodox is that they tend to devaluate all form of discursive knowledge, just like modern rationalism tends to devaluate knowledge that cannot be mesured and verified and reduce things to what can be mesured.
Even meditation where discursive thinking is involved is seen as an illegitimate form of prayer.

This is what I mean by “hesychasm”, and it is described well. I have put myself at odds with Orthodox Orthodoxy because I have maintained that hesychasm is itself an illegitimate form of prayer, a form of self-hypnosis and not actual prayer, and that discursive or dialectical reasoning and the knowledge it produces is a surer way to guard against error. It is oft-claimed by the Orthodox they have changed no practise since the Seventh Council in 787: but hesychasm, modern Orthodox prayer itself, is an innovation from after that time.

 

[azerty]

I don’t know, i wouldn’t say hesychasm is illegitimate.

Catholic mysticism has developped the theory of the birth of God in the soul.
Ie, if you want to “hear” God’s Word, the Son, the Eternel Word of God that The Father eternally “pronounces”, your mind must be empty of creatures.
Your soul must be pure like Marie who symbolizes the pure nature. So it should be “empty”, detached, from everything that is created (even concepts) as to be able to hear the Father pronounces his eternal Word.

Orthodox also puts emphasis on the Name of Jesus which is indeed very important because it is a sacramental that “contains the presence it signifies”.
In catholicism there even is a Feast of the Name of Jesus

2666 But the one name that contains everything is the one that the Son of God received in his incarnation: JESUS. the divine name may not be spoken by human lips, but by assuming our humanity the Word of God hands it over to us and we can invoke it: “Jesus,” "YHWH saves."16 The name “Jesus” contains all: God and man and the whole economy of creation and salvation. To pray “Jesus” is to invoke him and to call him within us. His name is the only one that contains the presence it signifies. Jesus is the Risen One, and whoever invokes the name of Jesus is welcoming the Son of God who loved him and who gave himself up for him.17
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P9F.HTM

Here is an article by a catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft on the Jesus Prayer
integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/01/kreeft-the-jesus-prayer/

Anyway, i don’t essentially disagree with you. Reason is extremely important, i believe it can really enriches your spiritual life. And the disdain for philosophy (and crass ignorance) there is in orthodoxy bothers me. When i read John Romanides say that the analogia entis is an aristotelician doctrine that is at the root of modernity and that it is foreign to the church fathers, i cringe …

Like you it is also catholic philosophy (i discovered with Etienne Gilson) that really convinced me of God’s existence.

I believe you would also love John Paul II Encyclical “Fides and Ratio”.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

 

[manualman]

You’re both educated beyond me. But for what it’s worth, “Love & Responsibility” is available in a number of languages. Not to be obvious, but the original is likely in Polish (he wasn’t pope yet when he wrote it). I haven’t been able to get through it all yet. It’s one of those books where you read a paragraph and need to stop for a few hours to “get it.”

 

[Monica4316]

what do you think about the Papacy, if I may ask?

 

[Khalid]

I do believe in the Petrine supremacy, in honour as well as responsibility: for in the Scriptures, Peter was not just accorded greater honour, but always along with the honour he was granted came a greater responsibility than the other Apostles. Honour was indistinguishable from right and responsibility when Jesus called Peter; thus, the Pope should have a greater honour, and a greater responsibility, than other Patriarchs, although I am not sure if it should be as much greater as it is today.

The problem I have is with ex cathedra Papal infallibility; it is my understanding that the Pope could say, "I solemnly declare from the Chair of Saint Peter that Theotokos is now due latria, and not hyperdulia" (or he could make it a dogma of the co-redemptrix and mediatrix beliefs) and all Catholics would be honour-bound to give latria to the Mother of God, or hold her as co-redemptrix or mediatrix (I have much less of a problem with mediatrix than co-redemptrix, but some try to argue the two are intertwined) or, even further, that he could say, **“Christianity is now Buddhism”, **and it would be so. I understand that the power is absolute when il Papa speaks on matters of doctrine and dogma, and unlimited. So, what happens when an insane Pope is elected, as has happened several times in history (Alexander VI, Stephen VI who conducted a trial of the dead Formosus, etc.) and happens to exercise this power?

If there are any checks on this power, such as a “common sense” check, or any ratification I am not aware of required by the ecclesia or episcopacy, let me know.

In any case, it’s a minor stumbling block, not a major impediment.

 

[Monica4316]

I do believe in the Petrine supremacy, in honour as well as responsibility: for in the Scriptures, Peter was not just accorded greater honour, but always along with the honour he was granted came a greater responsibility than the other Apostles. Honour was indistinguishable from right and responsibility when Jesus called Peter; thus, the Pope should have a greater honour, and a greater responsibility, than other Patriarchs, although I am not sure if it should be as much greater as it is today.

The problem I have is with ex cathedra Papal infallibility; it is my understanding that the Pope could say, "I solemnly declare from the Chair of Saint Peter that Theotokos is now due latria, and not hyperdulia" (or he could make it a dogma of the co-redemptrix and mediatrix beliefs) and all Catholics would be honour-bound to give latria to the Mother of God, or hold her as co-redemptrix or mediatrix (I have much less of a problem with mediatrix than co-redemptrix, but some try to argue the two are intertwined) or, even further, that he could say, **“Christianity is now Buddhism”, **and it would be so. I understand that the power is absolute when il Papa speaks on matters of doctrine and dogma, and unlimited. So, what happens when an insane Pope is elected, as has happened several times in history (Alexander VI, Stephen VI who conducted a trial of the dead Formosus, etc.) and happens to exercise this power?

If there are any checks on this power, such as a “common sense” check, or any ratification I am not aware of required by the ecclesia or episcopacy, let me know.

In any case, it’s a minor stumbling block, not a major impediment.

I see what you mean… in history, - there have been corrupt Popes but they never managed to change doctrines I think one or two wanted to, but - one changed his mind right before, the other died

the way I was taught about this… the Pope doesn’t make something infallible. With ex cathedra statements, he proclaims what is already infallible and already believed by the Church. He can’t declare something not part of Tradition.

The question then arises… why make ex cathedra statements in the first place?

the reason is that - they’re almost always made when a particular truth of the faith (already believed by the faithful) is opposed in some way. Then, the Pope clarifies it through an infallible statement but it’s infallible because it’s already part of Tradition. We believe that all truth was given to the Apostles: we do come to greater understanding of it over time, but it doesn’t change, and dogma can’t change or “evolve”. The Pope can’t just say anything he wants.

IF the Pope said something against Tradition, we would know he’s an antipope and wasn’t validly elected.

that’s basically what infallibility means… it works negatively, not positively, in that: it prevents the Pope from saying error, when he speaks on faith and morals officially as the successor of St Peter, that is all. That doesn’t happen very often, only rarely. The presence of the Pope at an ecumenical Council, or his agreement with the Council (as in the early Church) also gives it infallibility.

I also wanted to clarify about co-redemptrix… it doesn’t mean “co redeemer”. It’s Latin and translates to “woman with the redeemer”, and means something completely different than what it sounds like. It doesn’t mean that Mary redeems us. It means that she participated in Christ’s one work of redemption by being His Mother (no Crucifixion without the Incarnation), and - offering her suffering to God in union with the Cross, - as we do, as well. (St Paul talked about that when he talked about “making up for what is lacking” in Christ’s suffering, - possibly what is lacking is our participation, in union with His). Mary’s mediation is one of intercession, Christ is the only Mediator with the Father for our salvation, as the Bible says.

Hope that helps…

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

It might be a good idea to look up these quotes in context…

“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds.”
-Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.”
Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

 

[Khalid]

It means that she participated in Christ’s one work of redemption by being His Mother (no Crucifixion without the Incarnation), and - offering her suffering to God in union with the Cross, - as we do, as well.

I am aware of the term, but thank you.

This, I do have a problem with: but though Mary is the Theotokos, and is exalted above all other women, she is still woman: her suffering with Jesus had no impact on the infinite atonement of God the Son: God the Son’s suffering and death alone contains effective redemptive power, and would have been equally viable and necessary in any circumstance, as befits the loving nature of God, even if the Fall of Man had never occurred. God could have chosen another method to bring about the Incarnation: the fact that he **did *choose Mary (and that she accepted) entitles her to great honour, but does not make her an (a priori or theoretical) essential part of the redemption.

Even if Mary was a full-fledged hypostasis of the essence of the Godhead, it still would make no difference, because infinite anything plus anything else is still infinity (just as infinity divided by anything is still infinity: I’ve used that one to defend the Trinity before, trying to bring some of my former Muslim brethren to Christ). The redemption itself, all power and efficacy, and all mediation between God and Man on the primal level, come through God the Son, although Mary can “mediate” in a sense (i.e. Communion of the Saints), being foremost amongst the Saints and whose intercession is always hoped for.

(The mathematics are oversimplified, and I may be guilty of a fallacy of induction by attempting to apply them to matters spiritual, but the theoretical acceptance of such things is why I’m converting to Catholicism, in large part: to even speak of God by analogy to formal logic (or even term logic) or mathematics-as-a-science is nearly heresy in Orthodoxy.)

I am not yet a professional theologian: point out any issue in my reasoning, or any part of the doctrine you left out of your post. More detail more good.

*Although one could argue the above is semantic alone, just as arguing if Jesus’ name was “Jesinus” or Mary’s name “Miriam” would in some way have affected the redemption, which straggles dangerously closely to the theory of Ideal Forms.

I apologise if my argumentation is unintelligible, as the first paragraph stretched my English to its limit and quite beyond.

Edit: I do find it ironic that a major problem the EOC has with the RC church is the Pope’s exercising of infallibility to make the Assumption of Mary and the Perpetual Virginity dogmata - even though Orthodox already believe in the Assumption of Mary. Too political. Lots of the EOC seems to say, “If it comes from the West, it is corrupt”, and denounces all Western influence - which it sees in dialectic reasoning, etc. (refer to my previous posts).

Also:

IF the Pope said something against Tradition, we would know he’s an antipope and wasn’t validly elected.

This resolved most lingering concern I had about possible abuse of Infallibility - but what if something was held to be true by many Christians (for an extreme example, such as will happen when the Antichrist comes) - basically, what then defines Sacred Tradition? And other such unlikely scenarios.

Although the institution of the Papacy might actually help guard against this in more circumstances than it would fall to it, as the Pope could refute such doctrines held to be false: other churches have no authority to do such a thing (and this is one of the reasons, it seems, that they are constantly schismatic: I doubt a day passes without a new Protestant sect schism).