Why be an Eastern Catholic and not an Orthodox Christian?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

1. Magisterium.

In Catholicism there can be many unorthodox parishoners, but you can point out an official statement from Rome or a bishop elsewhere that quotes the official party line and say to those people. You are wrong!

In Eastern Orthodoxy you can’t do this, because I’ve tried. I tried correcting a Greek Orthodox person that was saying a teaching that I knew was against Greek Orthodoxy. I quoted a paper from his “Church” the Greek Orthodox Church of America to refute him. I however was rebuffed that it wasn’t his Church you see he was Canadian and in the Greek Orthodox Church of Canada. (What the other bishop said was not binding even though he was a recognized bishop of his Tradition). The only way I could correct him was to narc and tell his direct bishop… which I didn’t want to do (I wanted to correct him not excommunicate or humilate him).

This is my experience too. Sometimes it’s a good thing (i.e., when one finds someone more open to true ecumenism), and other times it’s bad.

1. Catholicism is more truely catholic in its repesentation world wide. It has a Ecclesiology of the Body besides a Eucharistic ecclesiology. and I would add even with full blown Latinization has been better to Oriental Churches that united with it then the EO that pretty much forced them to give up their unique liturgical heritage.

I believe Orientals have a greater awareness of the universality of the Church than Easterns (i.e., Eastern Orthodox). I think part of this is because our phrenoma is generally High Petrine, instead of Low Petrine. The other part is because the Orientals exist in a communion of more than one Tradition.

The Catholic Church has the best awareness of the universality of the Church than either
the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox. We live it out in our Liturgy every week when we honor not only the local bishop, Metropolitan, and Patriarch, but also the bishop of Rome, who is the head bishop of the Church universal.

The danger has always been that so much of the Catholic Church is Western, and one might wrongly equate the Western phrenoma with what is truly universal, at least on a non-Magisterial level. But this is changing, and has already changed to a good degree. We have thrown off the yoke of uniatism, though the Catholic Church is still in its birth pangs, IMO.

Today, the greatest attitude of uniatism exists in modern EO’xy. This is most evident in so-called “Western Orthodoxy,” which really has nothing Western about it, but is the Eastern phrenoma imposed on Western trappings. One can also see this EO uniatism in the talks regarding Christology with the OO. Though there have been great strides in understanding, as is evident with the various colloquies on the matter, there have been no official Synodal acceptance of these talks from any of the EO Churches, AFAIK, unlike with the Catholic Churches. I guess I don’t need to detail to you the specifics of the matter, to demonstrate that there are still a lot of EO who wish to impose its particular understanding of the matter onto the OO before making any sort of formal agreement on the issue.

1. Promoting Intellectual growth, theology etc. A number of great saints were intellectuals; being philosophers, or other kind of academics. Since the Great Schism, and with conflict with Latin Scholastics, this form of spirituality has been played down by the EO (to the point where some writers seem anti-intelectual) and their has been a disappearance of the Justin Martyr style saint among them as well.

Catholisim has however continued this tradition…

Well said, brother. I should note, as well, that OO’xy has never evinced this opposition to intellectualism that modern EO’xy has done.

It’s interesting. If you approach OO about Transubstantiation, it is more likely they will either not have heard of it, accept it, or say, “we believe it, but don’t use that term.” If you approach your typical EO about Transubstantiation, it is likely you will get, instead, a tirade about the dangers of philosophy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Biedrik]

So, is that a sort of salutation in the Latin Church?

Not exactly. It’s just a customary way to begin writing. One can see Archbishop Fulton Sheen frequently do it whenever he wrote on a blackboard during one of his talks. It’s just a sign of dedication to the Holy Family. I know that it used to be that Catholic schoolchildren would often write J.M.J on the top of their tests, homework, essays, etc.

 

[dzheremi]

Mardukm,

I am not sure what in my post points to anti-intellectualism. That’s not really what I intended. I don’t see the East or the Orient as anti-intellectual or anti-Catholic to begin with. Rather, the intellect does not seem to be indulged as a means by which we experience God. In keeping with that, I am not personally objecting anything as “Western”, as though geographical location or cultural background is reason enough to reject an idea. It is instead, as I’ve written before, the approach that leads me away from one tradition and to another. I don’t see the theological or philosophical developments of the Latin or Western church as being in keeping with the way I actually experience or understand the faith. I do not see how they are helpful. They seem to muddy things up and create all kinds of strange, labyrinthine distractions from God (some of which, yes, may lead to places are bad/questionable/heretical, depending).

In formative periods of my spiritual life, I have read Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” and “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers”. One of these changed my life. The other is in a box in the garage somewhere (if I didn’t sell it at our last garage sale…)



p.s. – Okay, so the attitude you describe was imported into the East by Protestants. For the sake of discussion, if I take your idea at face value it only leads me to say "okay, sure…and those Protestants are the product of which church tradition?"

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I am not sure what in my post points to anti-intellectualism. That’s not really what I intended.

I don’t see anything in your posts regarding that either, but your post was in the context of a general discussion on the intellectualism of the West, as if it was something bad. Your post was the last in that chain of posts, so I simply continued with the conversation from your post.

I don’t see the East or the Orient as anti-intellectual or anti-Catholic to begin with.

No one can accuse the Orientals of being anti-intellectual, but the OO has its own share of anti-Catholicism in our modern history, though it hasn’t ever really been that great, unlike in EO’xy which has historic animosity with the Latins. Modern EO’xy has both elements, and a lot of it.

Rather, the intellect does not seem to be indulged as a means by which we experience God.In keeping with that, I am not personally objecting anything as “Western”, as though geographical location or cultural background is reason enough to reject an idea. It is instead, as I’ve written before, the approach that leads me away from one tradition and to another. I don’t see the theological or philosophical developments of the Latin or Western church as being in keeping with the way I actually experience or understand the faith. I do not see how they are helpful. They seem to muddy things up and create all kinds of strange, labyrinthine distractions from God (some of which, yes, may lead to places are bad/questionable/heretical, depending).

Can you quote some Western sources that say that you experience God through the intellect? I’ve always thought that the Latins differentiated between what one can experience through Faith and what one can know through intellect. Perhaps you have simply confused the two? Is it correct to say that your own experience is actually what the Latins teach about the matter? You say “They seem to muddy things up,etc…” Maybe its your own (limited) understanding that muddied things up? Positively, it has inspired you to search out the other Traditions.

In formative periods of my spiritual life, I have read Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” and “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers”. One of these changed my life. The other is in a box in the garage somewhere (if I didn’t sell it at our last garage sale…)

I admit I haven’t read much of Aquinas unless the conversation/debate demands it, but AFAIK, the Summa is not supposed to be a spiritual treatise, unlike the Sayings of the Desert Fathers. The Summa has a different purpose that the Sayings don’t accomplish. I wouldn’t look to the Sayings of the Desert Fathers as a main source for apologetics, but I wouldn’t throw them away because it doesn’t serve my purpose for a particular circumstance. The Summa and the Sayings each have their role in their respective fields. I don’t know if it is the individual or the general Eastern Orthodox phrenoma which causes the extremism that I sense from you. I gather you are at a stage of spiritual growth that does not require delving into the matters that are covered by the Summa. Does that mean the Summa is useless and will always be useless?

Okay, so the attitude you describe was imported into the East by Protestants. For the sake of discussion, if I take your idea at face value it only leads me to say "okay, sure…and those Protestants are the product of which church tradition?"

You don’t need to be of any particular Tradition to be anti-Catholic. All you need is unthinking prejudice and hatred. That exists everywhere.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

Not exactly. It’s just a customary way to begin writing. One can see Archbishop Fulton Sheen frequently do it whenever he wrote on a blackboard during one of his talks. It’s just a sign of dedication to the Holy Family. I know that it used to be that Catholic schoolchildren would often write J.M.J on the top of their tests, homework, essays, etc.

I’ve only ever heard it used as a swear word. I guess that’s because I come from a naval family.

 

[mardukm]

I’ve only ever heard it used as a swear word. I guess that’s because I come from a naval family.

My Filipina wife tells me the phrase is considered a blessing in her culture.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We actually have something in common, marduk—a filipina wife. My wife says it’s pronounced hesus maryosep! And it’s not a blessing at all she says. My wife said that it is kind of like taking the Lord’s name in vain. It’s not respectful at all according to Kate, my wife, born and raised there.

My Filipina wife tells me the phrase is considered a blessing in her culture.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

No one can accuse the Orientals of being anti-intellectual, but the OO has its own share of anti-Catholicism in our modern history, though it hasn’t ever really been that great, unlike in EO’xy which has historic animosity with the Latins. Modern EO’xy has both elements, and a lot of it.

I’m not sure that that’s entirely fair (just like I’m not sure that it would be fair to say that RCism is nothing but philosophizing).

Can you quote some Western sources that say that you experience God through the intellect?

You mean can I quote some Western sources that say “you experience God through intellect” (that literal sentence)? Probably not, but it seems clear that this is more or less taken for granted in the approach to theology taken by many Western theologians, as far as I can understand them (Anselm’s ontological arguments for the existence of God, for example). I would even say that the Summa is essentially an example of this same hyper-rationalization of absolutely everything (until you just want to dieeee… ), with its very, very legalistic structure (objection the third, whereby blahblahblahblah…), ultimately leading to a sort of mechanical/mathematical ‘A + B + C = GOD’ sort of idea. I’m sorry, I know that’s pretty immature and unfair. What can I say, I hate it. I know I’m a child and it’s brilliant and I’ll just never get it, but I really tried. I can read, and I can think about these things, but at the end of the day…I just found the whole thing very stifling. Didn’t Aquinas himself conclude that for all the intellectual exercise and brilliance, all attempts such as his only amounted to so much straw? I think he was on to something then! And I don’t like straw. I like fire. “If you will, you can become all flame.” That speaks to me! I can hear that.

I’ve always thought that the Latins differentiated between what one can experience through Faith and what one can know through intellect. Perhaps you have simply confused the two?

More than a mere possibility. In the end, such distinctions amount to more compartmentalization that inspires navel-gazing instead of working.

Is it correct to say that your own experience is actually what the Latins teach about the matter?

I don’t know, probably not, but then who else’s experience am I supposed to have? I suppose in so far as I am going forward based on what I remember (by this point several years removed from their direct influence/teaching), and I probably learned something other than what they meant to teach, no. It isn’t. But I am also not saying it is (see my hedge-filled wording that you quote below).

You say “They seem to muddy things up,etc…” Maybe its your own (limited) understanding that muddied things up? Positively, it has inspired you to search out the other Traditions.

Oh, I don’t doubt it. If I were of the type of mind that understood what the heck they were talking about, I probably wouldn’t have left. You don’t leave things that are going well.

I wouldn’t look to the Sayings of the Desert Fathers as a main source for apologetics, but I wouldn’t throw them away because it doesn’t serve my purpose for a particular circumstance. The Summa and the Sayings each have their role in their respective fields.

This is kind of what I was getting at when I wrote earlier about how I don’t see a separate “school of apologetics” in Orthodoxy like there seems to be in Catholicism. I don’t really see any circumstance that I could get into where the advice of the monks wouldn’t be helpful, whereas I would have to travel far and wide in the world before I ever met anyone (willing to talk to me) who would demand proofs or an air-tight thesis on the existence of God (and I wouldn’t be able to give it to them, anyway). One seems real, for lack of a better way to put it, and the other one is just way above/outside of anything I can even possibly relate to. Such ideas may be well-argued, they may be technically brilliant (in fact, I suspect both are true, given the immense influence on Western theology that the ideas of men like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas have), but if they don’t help me to come to God (not the idea that God exists, not the proof the God created the universe, not the reasoning for X position, but GOD HIMSELF), then they don’t amount to a hill of beans.

I don’t know if it is the individual or the general Eastern Orthodox phrenoma which causes the extremism that I sense from you.

I don’t know what the EO have to do with anything regarding me. I am not now, nor have I ever, seriously considered joining, either temporarily or permanently, their church. And what do you mean by “extremism”?

I gather you are at a stage of spiritual growth that does not require delving into the matters that are covered by the Summa. Does that mean the Summa is useless and will always be useless?

I’m not sure I’ll ever find the Summa all that useful, but again, that’s just me.

You don’t need to be of any particular Tradition to be anti-Catholic. All you need is unthinking prejudice and hatred. That exists everywhere.

And you don’t need to be unthinking to see hatred where it isn’t really there.

I’m just trying to come back to God. If I’ve said something wrong or that seems like hatred to you, I’m sorry. I don’t go out of my way to hate people or things, though I do have a learned dislike for some things that I have tried and ultimately found to lacking or harmful (or both). Maybe that’s what you’re picking up on. I make no apologies for that. That’s just learning from experience.

 

[Joel_PF]

Dzheremi, are you aware of St. Anselm’s devotional arguments? Even his proof of the existence of God is written in the form of a prayer, of a personal dialog with God. Plus, a lot of Catholic writing and spirituality is not intellectualistic: St. Bernard, The Cloud of Unknowing, Bl. Julian of Norwich, John of Ruysbroeck, St. Catherine of Siena, St. John of the Cross, St. Therese of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Josemaria Escriva, to name a few.

However, that Catholics use even their intellects in the service of God is only to be expected. Reason is a help to spiritual life; not an enemy.

That a mere intellectual knowledge of things related to the Faith is not in itself desirable all Catholics, even the more intellectualized ones, are in agreement (St. Thomas had very little regard for a mere intellectual approach to the Faith; but that is very different from using one’s intellect to think about the things of Faith, which is what he did).

I repeat what I said some posts ago: if some Christian traditions left reason and the intellect behind, it was not on account of their being more pious or holy.

Mardukm: Excellent points. There is an anti-reason attitude in EOs that is, as you point out, incoherent.
I’m a student of Aquinas myself. And I must say that his works are much more than apologetics; though some parts of them can be used for that end. It is all about understanding better and deeper the things we believe in, and making sense of the apparent difficulties and contradictions that might come in our way.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I never found Aquinas edifying as a Catholic, or scholasticism for that matter. I do appreciate the Orthodox approach toward mysticism and keeping mysteries just that–mysteries. Trying to explain, categorize, name, and philosophize every aspect of the faith, theology, even how sacraments work, the nomenclature and use of platonic and aristotlean thinking, none of that was ever helpful on my spiritual journey. But that’s just me.

 

[dzheremi]

Joel PF,

I never found Aquinas edifying as a Catholic, or scholasticism for that matter. I do appreciate the Orthodox approach toward mysticism and keeping mysteries just that–mysteries. Trying to explain, categorize, name, and philosophize every aspect of the faith, theology, even how sacraments work, the nomenclature and use of platonic and aristotlean thinking, none of that was ever helpful on my spiritual journey. But that’s just me.

This.

 

[fons_vitae]

Well said, brother. I should note, as well, that OO’xy has never evinced this opposition to intellectualism that modern EO’xy has done.

It’s interesting. If you approach OO about Transubstantiation, it is more likely they will either not have heard of it, accept it, or say, “we believe it, but don’t use that term.” If you approach your typical EO about Transubstantiation, it is likely you will get, instead, a tirade about the dangers of philosophy.

Blessings,
Marduk

I never understood the unfortunate anti-philosophical vibe I get from some Eastern Orthodox materials, either. Their forebears were so brainy and intellectual, almost in a… Scholastic way?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Anti-philosophical or anti-scholasticism? Would you say they’re one in the same? I think most Orthodox would argue they’re not.

I never understood the unfortunate anti-philosophical vibe I get from some Eastern Orthodox materials, either. Their forebears were so brainy and intellectual, almost in a… Scholastic way?

 

[dzheremi]

Can’t it be about the proper place of philosophy, and not philosophy as a…thing? That’s the distinction I’ve most often seen stressed by the Orthodox.

Everything we’ve talked about can be seen more or less as inconsequential differences of opinion, until/unless they touch the Christian faith in which we ought to be united (Catholics with Catholics, Orthodox with Orthodox). It seems like certain people in this thread are trying to paint the EO as saying that philosophy as a concept is bad, and I just don’t see that.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t think Anselm’s ontological argument suggests union with God based on intellectualism. If you read the whole Proslogion, it is very clear that, although intellect may play a role, God is more than any human category and we have to go beyond those categories to to understand him and have union. That is, intellect is not left behind, but rather taken up into something higher. That’s the whole point of the book, and even ontological argument itself which only takes up one or two chapters, is structured that way.

And I agree - Eastern Christianity is not ant-intellectual or anti-philosophical - it has a pretty good dose of Plato especially - The Divine Names is nothing if not the work of a Christian Platonist. Scholasticism is a very particular approach to philosophy, and it has good and bad practitioners.

And some would argue that even Aquinas was much more a Platonist than he has traditionally been given credit for.

 

[Madaglan]

Dzheremi, are you aware of St. Anselm’s devotional arguments? Even his proof of the existence of God is written in the form of a prayer, of a personal dialog with God. Plus, a lot of Catholic writing and spirituality is not intellectualistic: St. Bernard, The Cloud of Unknowing, Bl. Julian of Norwich, John of Ruysbroeck, St. Catherine of Siena, St. John of the Cross, St. Therese of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Josemaria Escriva, to name a few.

However, that Catholics use even their intellects in the service of God is only to be expected. Reason is a help to spiritual life; not an enemy.

That a mere intellectual knowledge of things related to the Faith is not in itself desirable all Catholics, even the more intellectualized ones, are in agreement (St. Thomas had very little regard for a mere intellectual approach to the Faith; but that is very different from using one’s intellect to think about the things of Faith, which is what he did).

I repeat what I said some posts ago: if some Christian traditions left reason and the intellect behind, it was not on account of their being more pious or holy.

Mardukm: Excellent points. There is an anti-reason attitude in EOs that is, as you point out, incoherent.
I’m a student of Aquinas myself. And I must say that his works are much more than apologetics; though some parts of them can be used for that end. It is all about understanding better and deeper the things we believe in, and making sense of the apparent difficulties and contradictions that might come in our way.

The East has a different understanding of intellect, rooted in the teachings of the early Fathers (as collected in the Philokalia). The secular meaning of intellect suggests rational thinking about things. In the East, the intellect (sometimes called the nous) needs to be purified through fasting and prayer, and its union with the heart and with God is not achieved through more reasoning and accumulation of knowledge through the senses, but through the rejection of conceptual images.

The East uses reason, but with discretion, just as one would use snake venom with discretion, knowing when it can cause harm, and when it can create benefit. Reason is put to the service of ascetic struggle; it may teach some about God, but Christian knowledge of God is through experience of God in the heart. Thomas Aquinas too seems to have realized this truth after his revelatory experience, and states, “All that I have written seems to me like straw compared to what now has been revealed to me.”

If you read the works of St. Maximus, the John of Damascus, St. Gregory Palamas and others, you will find them reasonable without being rationalistic.

 

[Madaglan]

And some would argue that even Aquinas was much more a Platonist than he has traditionally been given credit for.

Aquinas made use of the works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, so this is not surprising.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Can’t it be about the proper place of philosophy, and not philosophy as a…thing? That’s the distinction I’ve most often seen stressed by the Orthodox.

Everything we’ve talked about can be seen more or less as inconsequential differences of opinion, until/unless they touch the Christian faith in which we ought to be united (Catholics with Catholics, Orthodox with Orthodox). It seems like certain people in this thread are trying to paint the EO as saying that philosophy as a concept is bad, and I just don’t see that.

No its not necessarily bad. I did have another seminary student tell me once the reason he could not be Catholic is they integrated too much Aristotle, but the East also integrated too much Plato. Either is troubling to me, though I have struggled with the Wests dogamatization of Aristotilian thought-esp. transubstantion, which borrows from Aristotles metaphysics.

Ultimately these are matters of faith. Its nice to explain the faith rationally, but in my journey I have decided I cannot reason my way to God, I can’t reason myself to a better understanding of the sacraments. They are mysteries. I tip my hat at the rational explainations, understand their benefits, but they don’t make or break my faith.

 

[Bluegoat]

Why do you think they have integrated too much Plato or Aristotle? How much is too much?

 

[JohnVIII]

The East has a different understanding of intellect, rooted in the teachings of the early Fathers (as collected in the Philokalia). The secular meaning of intellect suggests rational thinking about things. In the East, the intellect (sometimes called the nous) needs to be purified through fasting and prayer, and its union with the heart and with God is not achieved through more reasoning and accumulation of knowledge through the senses, but through the rejection of conceptual images.

The East uses reason, but with discretion, just as one would use snake venom with discretion, knowing when it can cause harm, and when it can create benefit. Reason is put to the service of ascetic struggle; it may teach some about God, but Christian knowledge of God is through experience of God in the heart. Thomas Aquinas too seems to have realized this truth after his revelatory experience, and states, “All that I have written seems to me like straw compared to what now has been revealed to me.”

If you read the works of St. Maximus, the John of Damascus, St. Gregory Palamas and others, you will find them reasonable without being rationalistic.

Major