This is an interesting point. A while back, I began a question on a forum regarding whether or not we can know of God from nature. A few posters suggested that we cannot learn of God from nature, as nature is corrupted by the Fall and tends to deceive rather than provide knowledge of God. However, I’ve found St. Paul, St. Athanasius and other Fathers express that we can know of God from nature.
Thanks for giving your views. It’s somewhat humorous you mention Barlaam sounding like St. Gregory. At the end of St. Gregory’s Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite, the Barlaamite agrees that the Orthodox is right and converts on the spot!
I’m not questioning the Holiness of the Saints, mind you. I just can’t deny the fact that I felt the exact same things the Hesychasts describe when using mechanically similar means of meditation. At the time I was an atheist and was simply dabbling in such things for the experience and to “test the waters”. It makes me suspicious of some of the effects Hesychasts have claimed, but I don’t doubt for a second that they were/are Holy saints who do indeed experience God. I just question whether certain effects are actually Divine; I don’t doubt that we can really participate in Divinity through prayer and be raised up to experience God directly.
I referred to the beauty of Catholicism to indicate that even though one may not share or understand a certain approach to the Faith, you can find another approach and still maintain the same Faith. Thus, unity is maintained. If you focus on the Faith itself as the bond of unity, instead of questions on how you can approach God, or how you can experience God, or how you can understand God, then Christ’s command for unity may be fulfilled, according to the Spirit, will be fulfilled. To put it simply, focus on the “WHAT”, first and foremost, and, only if necessary, the “WHY” (as far as the Spirit leads the Church), instead of the “HOW.” Focusing on the “how” will never lead to the mark of Catholicity. The HOW would be relevant to maintain a parochial sort of unity at the local level, but will never lead to the mark of Catholicity at the universal level (unless you believe uniatism is the proper model for unity).
Again, focus on WHAT we believe, instead of WHY or HOW we approach God. There are many ways to approach God within orthodox Catholicism, but what unifies us is WHAT we believe. You don’t need to understand or accept the Western approach to God in order to remain united to them IN FAITH (i.e., in WHAT we believe).
That’s a very good question. Using the model of the dialogue between the OO and the CC, the Catholics asked their Oriental Orthodox partners, “WHAT is it that you are actually trying to teach by your miaphysite expressions of Faith?” Likewise, the Oriental Orthodox asked their Catholic partners, “WHAT is it that you are actually trying to teach by your diaphysite expressions of Faith?” By focusing on that question, by searching deeply for an answer to that question, both sides came to understand that they were actually teaching the same thing about Christ - and, hence, that they actually believed the same thing about Christ.Yes, theology is nothing more than “the expression of Faith”. So I am curious how it is that you think we can somehow “look beyond” it to search for a common faith not dependent on it. Is there some sense by which I can agree with you without taking a certain theological stance as a result?
ISTM the appearance of dualism is only relevant for those who DON’T focus on the “WHAT” of the matter. The approach of uniatism is to focus on the “why” and the “how,” seeking to impose that on others; that imposes an artificial dualism where none exists. True ecumenism focuses on the “what.”
Christology is not the only issue to resolve, so I don’t know why one should expect formal communion at this point.
It is a general principle on how to achieve unity, though not all issues have been resolved.
Who said anything of the sort? However, it’s a fact that there is official, formal recognition between the OO and Catholic Churches on the orthodoxy of each others’ Christology. The same cannot be said of the EO and OO. There is still a strong uniatist element in EO’xy preventing formal agreement on the matter of Christology.
Are you saying that the OO and Catholic hierarchies are just being two-faced politicians - that they don’t actually believe what they are saying?
Thanks for the greater detail.
The language of “stain” is also a feature of St. Athanasius’ anthropology. So I don’t think it is this particular point that is at issue.
That we have been “affected with death and passions that were brought into the world by his act of original sin” is the formal, dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter. I suggest you read the Council of Trent instead of some Encyclopedia if you want to find out exactly what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter. The only ones who ever claim that this is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church are ignorant EO polemicists. Can I assume that your understanding of the Catholic teaching on Original Sin is more informed by non-Catholic sources, rather than Magisterial Catholic sources?
I would suggest reading St. Athanasius and St. Ireneaus. I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint right now exactly where they have written about how fallen human Reason can receive the light of Grace, but those are two early Fathers who talk a lot about fallen human Reason.
That is the teaching of our Father Pope St. Athanasius. If you want to call it “Western” that’s your opinion. I believe it is simply patristic, and it is well within the phrenoma of the Oriental Tradition.
Yes, I will concede that, as long as you are willing to concede that such an approach is indeed spiritually beneficial for other Christians. Again, focus on the WHAT of the matter - i.e., focus on WHO it is the more rational-minded are trying to approach by their own means. If their appraoch is of spiritual benefit to THEM, why would you be so put off that you are willing to not be in communion with them? You find their approach to God puzzling. What is more puzzling to me is why you (and others here) would not be willing to be in communion with them just because their personal spiritual journey to the same God and Savior is different than yours.
As mentioned in the other thread, when I was young, I was taught to list every little sin on my conscience and confess it to the priest. You can even find that approach detailed in some Coptic manuals on confession (do you want me to find a source online for you?). I ask you, why is it that if a non-Catholic does it, it is all good, but if a Latin Catholic does it, all of a sudden, it gets branded “scrupulosity” and thoroughly criticized? There seems to be a very subjective bias going on here. What may be regarded by one to be overly scrupulous may be regarded by another as simply a good examination of conscience. Again, though, using the principle I suggested above, focusing on the “hows” and the “whys” leads to all sorts problems for the unity of the Church.
Note how brother Mickey has avoided responding to your query for non-polemical examples. Rather telling. You can’t really have a fair discussion with that kind of blind belief. As far as its views on Cathlicism, Orthodoxinfo is nothing more than the EO version of Jack Chick or Lorraine Boettner.
Mardukm, within the context of what we are talking about (scholasticism or the scholastic method, which is certainly a “HOW”), I think it makes sense to talk about method a bit. And, since nothing occurs in a vacuum, when talking about ANY aspect of the faith, we always broach other aspects, to the point that isolating one from the other becomes nothing more than a rhetorical exercise (which is to say, useful when you need to do it to make a point, but not necessarily corresponding to the reality of how the faith is lived). This seems like an especially salient concept in the non-Western churches precisely because they are less compartmentalized in their approach to the faith.
Oh but I do. And I could not be in one of the ECC or OCC churches precisely because it is not all about the approach (I fear you think the opposite is my position; it is not). It’s not an “either/or” situation – it’s both/and! I need orthodoxy and orthopraxy to the extent that it is possible to have both (obviously I don’t think any church is problem-free, as we are but fallible human beings).
You are the only person I have ever encountered in any Oriental church who has separated the two in this way such that one can be ignored for the sake of focusing entirely on the other, which is not going to work with me anyway; I don’t believe the things you believe!
It seems that I may have misunderstood you on this point (or you me). When I read “look beyond theology” it makes me think that you are saying that theology is somehow a mask for certain truths that we all recognize, rather than an exposition of certain truths from a given perspective that is shared by a particular community (whether it is a particular church, a family of churches, or something that transcends our current divisions). It is in that exposition that we all find reason to either agree or disagree with each other, such that two churches can agree on a basic tenet (Christ is God) and disagree on the exposition of it (the “natures” arguments). I believe that to agree in the exposition is what sustains communions. I don’t see that agreement between any of the major communions (EO, OO, CC), though some are certainly closer than others (EO and OO, according to most) due to their communities’ own recognition of their basic similarity.
I guess my problem continues to be what I am sensing from you that all of these things only “seem” to divide churches that are actually, somewhere under the surface if all that pesky “theology” would get out of the way, essentially the same. Not only does this unwisely ignore the positions of the various churches involved in the dialogue (after all, I don’t see Rome rushing to abandon its distinctive doctrinal stances, only to absorb others without much care as to what they believe), but it’s not even right on its face! We must live in reality: These things don’t seem to divide the churches – they ACTUALLY divide the churches! As long as you deny the reasons (and, yes, I think there are substantial reasons), you will find yourself without much to show in terms of progress.
Okay. I just think you’re placing too much stock in these official, formal declarations, or at least much more stock in them than any OO Christians I have ever talked to. They’re generally not opposed to such talks, but have a realistic view of what they do and do not accomplish and mean.
Not at all. I’m saying that this harmonizes with the modern stance of OO towards Chalcedonian Christianity in general, but does not touch the RC-specific claims, so I see it as more consistent with other statements about the mia-/diaphysite divide than as establishing any particular stance regarding the “orthodoxy” of Catholicism, as the OO do not believe the Catholic communion to be orthodox.
Well here’s one ex-Catholic who never had that explained to him until now! Thank you.
Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that it is. I just remembered that that’s what they called it, so I reported what they called it in case there was some Latin-specific understanding of the word that I am unaware of (see above, I suppose).
Well then why is the RCC’s focus not on Christ’s conquering of death as it is in the EO church?
You can assume whatever you want. Talks on original sin in RCIA were introduced within the context of Augustinian theology (as I’ve already mentioned). It was later that I took aboard ideas relating to the EO after reading their own writers about their own liturgical and sacramental theology (I’ve only recently reached this level of inquiry with regard to the OO), and it wasn’t with prejudice toward Catholicism, either. Recognizing that there are differences between the two communions is not being corrupted by “ignorant EO polemicists”, especially when you are reading about the EO from their own sources without any reference to Catholicism. Or are you saying that I’m somehow naturally an EO polemicist simply because I’ve read what EO say about their theology, and what RC say about theirs, and I don’t see them as being the same like you do? That seems pretty rude, so I sincerely hope I’m reading you incorrectly (in which case, please accept my sincere apologies in advance; I know you are not out to get me, only arguing for what you see as the truth).
Okay, thank you. I am currently reading through St. Athanasius’ “On the Incarnation”, but so far haven’t come across anything that looks like what you’ve presented. Maybe it’s in there somewhere. The writing is certainly reasonable.
Does St. Athanasius focus on reason as the object of such purification? This is what I don’t see. Ideas of purification do show up in some parts of “On the Incarnation” (and I don’t have access to other writings by the great Saint Pope right now, so I concede that my view is extremely limited), but I have not seen it so far applied to reason as some sort of separate object to be purified, as opposed to the soul or mankind in general, or…something else that is purified by God. Please note: I’m not arguing that God does NOT purify reason, or that it is bad to argue that reason can be purified. I’m only saying I haven’t seen that argued anywhere yet, and that putting reason on this sort of pedestal where it occupies so much of mankind’s relationship to God, or can and should do all these amazing things for one’s spiritual life, is what seems like a hallmark of Western spirituality. Certainly the Orientals also know and practice reason, but I haven’t seen it as the focus of the spiritual life among them as it has been considered at certain points in the development of Western theology and spirituality.
Others can do what they want. I wouldn’t say that they should or shouldn’t do anything (it’s not my place), but no, I personally don’t think this can truly be spiritually beneficial, because I don’t think that it is what spirituality is. I’ve said before in other threads: Simple actions, simple words, fasting, and prayers. This isn’t some sort of “Orthodox party line” to club the Catholics with. I think that any person, at the core of their spiritual being, can eventually find this (or must eventually admit this). I wrote earlier that Aquinas was really on to something when he discovered that all of his writings amounted to only so much straw. I think a similar realization must come to everyone in their own way, as God calls to them in whatever place they find themselves (or, in the case of many monks, calls them out to where they should be).
This is an obvious mischaracterization of what I and others have been saying. Everyone’s personal spiritual journey is different than everyone else’s, whether they wind up sharing communion or not. That’s what “personal” means.
No, thank you.
“Scrupulousity” is the term I’ve heard used by the Latin church and those in it and in communion with it. Don’t pretend as though I’ve made it up as a slight. It isn’t. And there probably are people in other communions who have similar dispositions that lead to the same disorder, but it seems much more pronounced among Latins. Maybe the RCC should look into why that might be.
Of course.
This is an interesting comment in light of what you just wrote. I guess thorough examinations are only good for the individual conscience, not the proposed “unity”?
Yes, that is right. This hasn’t happened for the EO since the 8th century, so there has not been any new EO dogma since the Great Schism.
The Essence/Energy distinction is not dogma, but it is considered true by the Church. Why should this be declared dogmatically?
Yes, I think there has been theological development. However, there has not been dogmatic theological development. So, ideas such as Toll Houses, whilst theologoumenon, are not binding.
I disagree. Why are you in denial. Aquinas is using a method to know, understand, and approach God. This method is called Scolasticism and Aquinas’ use of it is labeled as Thomism.
Now you are playing semantics games.
That is your opinion.
Was that a meandering argument.
Of course. He rejected many Aristotelean premises.
Then how can you be certain?
There is a period where Holy Orthodoxy fell into western captivity. I am pleased that these Latinisms are being discarded. Eastern Catholics are still trying to discard them.
Interesting.
You question the uncreated (Taboric) light? Oh my! This explains much.
A belief need not be dogmatized (set into a formal decree) in order for it to be dogmatic. A lot of EO (perhaps all) view the Essence/Energy distinction as a dogmatic principle.
Whether it is dogma is beside the point. The point is that it is regarded as a dogmatic principle by many (if not all) EO by which many judge the merit of Latin teachings. And it’s not just with regards to filioque. Another is in relation to the patristic teaching on the unity of God. The unity of God is a defined dogma in the Catholic Church; however, the Catholic Church has never utilized it in opposition to the Essence/Energy distinction. In contrast, many EO have dogmatized the Essence/Energy distinction to such an extent that they actually use it in opposition to the Latin concept of the unity of God.
The problem is that there are way too many EO who utilize the filioque as a basis for division with the Catholic Church when it should not be.
Like I said, there might not be any new dogma, but there are things believed with the same dogmatic fervor. Another example is the issue of purgatorial fire. The Latins have never even dogmatized this matter, yet there are a lot of EO who view it as some sort of heresy. Though there is no dogma (a formal decree) about it, the zeal of the Easterns in opposition to it is nevertheless dogmatic. There are a LOT of issues on which the opposition of many Easterns has become dogmatic, so, again, the claim that “there has been no dogma” sounds like a hollow platitude.
Again, the opposition to these things from the EO have become just as dogmatic as the positive affirmation of these dogmas from the Catholic side. Among non-Latin Catholics, you can find criticisms and occasional arguments with our Latin brethren, but you won’t find non-Latin Catholics calling them heresies. You can rationalize that the EO have not made any new dogmas all you want, but the fact still remains that many EO actually do have a very dogmatic outlook on a lot of matters. The moment one says “that is a heresy,” one has made a dogmatic determination.
ROTFL!!! You just provided a dissertation on not focusing on the “why” or the “how”, and then you insult me for agreeing with a metropolitan.
Like many Roman Catholics, I was always taught that the original sin was inheriting the guilt/stain of Adam’s sin. I believe such language continues to be used today in catechism classes everywhere–but hey—I’m only one of those ignorant EO polemicists.
You know I think you 100% right. This I found difficult to comprehend till I earned a EE degree and walked away from psychology due to years of stress/burn-out. I still work with people, buy not denial. I just refuse to go there anymore.
Indeed. I wonder if it because Aquinas experienced the uncreated light near the end of his life.
Correct.
No. Specifically, St. Aquinas does not use the method to know God, but only to know about God insofar as Reason can do so. Knowing, understanding, and approaching implies an intimacy that can never be achieved by Reason (much less by Reason alone), but only by Grace.