Why be an Eastern Catholic and not an Orthodox Christian?

[Mickey]

In the face of that, the claim that “it is not a dogma” seems like an empty platitude, especially as it is nevertheless held to be dogmatic, believed with the same zeal as if it was in fact a dogma (only without the name).

Huh? :whacky:

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.

It is one of many issues.

Like I said, there might not be any new dogma, but there are things believed with the same dogmatic fervor.

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.

Like the earlier discussion on original (ancestral) sin, purgatorial fire was taught to me as a RC–and I am guessing it is still being taught in some places.

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.

I think the only hollow platitude here is your theory about Orthodox non-dogmatic dogmatism. :tsktsk:

 

[Mickey]

St. Aquinas does not use the method to know God, but only to know about God

Oh…er…sorry. To know about God, would be a way of approaching Him.

Knowing, understanding, and approaching implies an intimacy that can never be achieved by Reason

Bingo!

Brother Ghosty is only denying the gross misrepresentations of your source.

1. It is not a gross misrepresentation. Read his books. You may learn something.
2. Ghosty also denies the uncreated light----do you?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

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 ultimate problem is that there are a lot of EO who utilize the Essence/Energy distinction as a basis for disunity with the Catholic Church. In the face of that, the claim that “it is not a dogma” seems like an empty platitude, especially as it is nevertheless held to be dogmatic, believed with the same zeal as if it was in fact a dogma (only without the name).

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.

On the other hand, I have met EO, some of them members of CAF, who are more consistent with the apophatic phrenoma of the East, and don’t go around hurling accusations of heresy at Catholics, but try to engage in genuine dialogue.

Blessings,
Marduk

There you go. I get everything here but the essense/energy thiinking. I think its fair to say that there are those who just don’t grasp this be it in the EO or the CC. And on the other hand stand those who who have a firm understanding.

I’ve never heard the Purgatory Fire thinking. Contrary I have read the mystics and through my own experience believe there are souls who are there at Gods will. But I see it as pure light and bliss, but still an awaiting period which precedes Heaven.

Listen energy cannot be destroyed is can only be displaced. You as Human Flesh are made up of matter and energy.

You cannot die and remain in the grave until some rapture comes and there is some great awakening. Its impossible scientifically. The energy has to go somewhere and yes its perfect sense that it would go to Heaven/hell. But its also very obvious from observing faith for so long there are Christains who are not Saints. They can’t even make it mass weekly. Yet they are not denying Christ as there savior, they are Baptised, somehwhat follw the catholic or orthodox faith. You know the souls I’m referring to.

Where do they go what they die? The energy cannot die. It a scientific law not theory.

We have to bath as EO and CC admitt there are some things we have some knowledge of but don’t completely understand. The presense of Mary in the what 200 years? Fatima? A times, dated predicted Miracle by God which the happened exactly as said by the BVM is defys all the laws of Nature, only God can do that.

God Bless, Gary

 

[mardukm]

Oh…er…sorry. To know about God, would be a way of approaching Him.

No one can approach God by Reason alone. St. Thomas taught that. Maybe you need to read his books.

Bingo!

I’m glad you understand that, which is a wonder why you so easily accept the misrepresentations of your source about what the Latins teach about Scholasticism.

1. It is not a gross misrepresentation. Read his books. You may learn something.

I’ve read a good portion of the First Part of his Summa, where he discusses the purpose of knowledge, the relation of Reason to Sacred doctrine, etc. It’s the reason that I know that the essay you provided from Orthodoxinfo is a bunch of baloney.

1. Ghosty also denies the uncreated light----do you?

I’ve come across that term in my personal readings, but it was never taught to me as a Copt. So I’m not qualified to answer that question.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

I don’t know what the “why” and the “how” has to do with this. The problem is the misrepresentations of that author - it involves the “what.” The man doesn’t even give any sources for his claims. So I don’t know why you should trust his word over the Magisterial Catholic sources I quoted. To believe in something just on someone’s say-so? Yes, that is blind belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Indeed. I wonder if it because Aquinas experienced the uncreated light near the end of his life.

Imagine the course of Scholasticism had he experienced the uncreated light in the beginning of his life.

 

[mardukm]

Imagine the course of Scholasticism had he experienced the uncreated light in the beginning of his life.

Why would that change anything? St. Thomas taught about the uncreated light in his Summa. He equated it with the knowledge of God that comes by Grace.

Orthodox Latin Catholic scholasticism has no problem with the concept of the uncreated light. Your comment seems to indicate that you are not really knowledgeable about Scholasticism.

IIRC, you are a convert to EO’xy from Latin Catholicism? I’m not questioning your motives or devotion to your new Church, but in the course of reading the various debates with EO here in CAF, has the thought ever come across your mind, “Oh, I did not know that when I was Catholic.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

No one can approach God by Reason alone. St. Thomas taught that.

Yes. I know. It is his method which I do not care for. But hey…you are in communion with Rome and Rome has a long history for the scholastic method. If you are comfortable with that…great!

Maybe you need to read his books.

I got through some of his works as a Roman Catholic…it was very tedious.

I’m glad you understand that, which is a wonder why you so easily accept the misrepresentations of your source about what the Latins teach about Scholasticism.

LOL! You say it is a misrepresentation…I say it’s not.

It’s the reason that I know that the essay you provided from Orthodoxinfo is a bunch of baloney.

I believe it is quite accurate. I must admit, I am pleased that Aquinas eventually labeled his work as straw.

 

[Mickey]

The problem is the misrepresentations of that author - it involves the “what.”

Again, I believe what he says is accurate. I also believe that most of which you write is twisted to suit your own polemics…so be it.

 

[Mickey]

Why would that change anything? St. Thomas taught about the uncreated light in his Summa.

But he did not experience it (possibly) until the end of his life.

Orthodox Latin Catholic scholasticism has no problem with the concept of the uncreated light.

Orthodox Latin Catholic scholasticism? Can we just call that OLCS?

 

[jam070406]

It would have been interesting, had he not died, to able to read the debate between St. Thomas and the Greeks from the council he was on his way to.

 

[Mickey]

It would have been interesting, had he not died, to able to read the debate between St. Thomas and the Greeks from the council he was on his way to.

Indeed.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

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.

 

[hazcompat]

Why would that change anything? St. Thomas taught about the uncreated light in his Summa. He equated it with the knowledge of God that comes by Grace.

Orthodox Latin Catholic scholasticism has no problem with the concept of the uncreated light. Your comment seems to indicate that you are not really knowledgeable about Scholasticism.

IIRC, you are a convert to EO’xy from Latin Catholicism? I’m not questioning your motives or devotion to your new Church, but in the course of reading the various debates with EO here in CAF, has the thought ever come across your mind, “Oh, I did not know that when I was Catholic.”

Blessings,
Marduk

His Light is greater than life.

peace

 

[Mickey]

Curious as to why people choose to be Eastern Catholic and not Orthodox Christians? What are your reasons and justifications? Thanks for (name removed by moderator)ut.

We have been way off topic as we find ourselves entrenched in a discussion on Scholasticism/Thomism.

Getting back to the OP:

I chose to canonically change from the Latin to the Eastern Catholic Church–where I stayed for about eight years. I moved East because I was drawn there by Her theology, beauty, and rich mysticism. I had very little knowledge of Holy Orthodoxy at the time of this move Eastward. Ironically, it was as an Eastern Catholic that I learned about the Holy Orthodox Church. In time, it was a natural and seamless transition to enter Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[dvdjs]

We have been way off topic as we find ourselves entrenched in a discussion on Scholasticism/Thomism.

Getting back to the OP:

I chose to canonically change from the Latin to the Eastern Catholic Church–where I stayed for about eight years. I moved East because I was drawn there by Her theology, beauty, and rich mysticism. I had very little knowledge of Holy Orthodoxy at the time of this move Eastward. Ironically, it was as an Eastern Catholic that I learned about the Holy Orthodox Church. In time, it was a natural and seamless transition to enter Holy Orthodoxy.

Given that the topic question is: “…why people choose to be Eastern Catholic and not Orthodox Christians?”, you are *diametrically *off topic.

 

[Ghosty]

Mickey: I’ll try to address your various points all in one post. If I miss any I apologize.

1. You can consider Bp. Vlachos’ description of Scholasticism correct, just as you can consider the Earth to be flat and resting on the back of a celestial turtle, but that doesn’t make it correct. Provide some examples of Scholastics actually believing what you claim, or you have conceded that your argument is based on sentiment and not fact.
2. Knowing the effects of God in nature, which is one of the focuses of Scholastic study, is nothing different than what your quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa described. If you want to call that “approaching God”, fine, but then you must admit that it is a Patristic belief and not a Scholastic invention. For what it’s worth, Scholastics would never consider this to be “approaching God”, because it does not lead to a participation in Divinity which comes through Grace. Even demons can see the evidence of God in the world, but they don’t approach God by recognizing this fact.
3. As for the Divine Light, I don’t disbelieve in the uncreated Light, and I never said I did. I do doubt the effect experienced through Hesychasm is in fact necessarily this Divine Light, and I do so for a couple of reasons. First there is no Patristic or Scriptural references to such a consistent experience of Light through methodical prayer, and the other ancient ascetic traditions (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac) have no accounts of such an experience. Secondly, the method used by the Hesychasts is mechanically identical to pagan methods of prayer, and these also produce an effect of warmth, peace, and light, as I’ve experienced myself even when I was an atheist. Here is a relevant quote from a Hindu source:

In Yoga, the emphasis is on physical and mental preparation. Various exercises have been devised to prepare the physical body for Divine realization. But unlike some of the “Yoga” that is being practised in the West, in the Hindu tradition Yoga is much more than just a “get fit” class. One is expected to do considerably more than just perform a series of stretching exercises. All that is preliminary. The encounter with light and bliss comes through inward meditation. In Hatha Yoga, one of the last steps toward Divine realization is

                                           * With a steady mind and half closed eyes,

fixed on the tip of the nose…
He who can see the light which is the all,
the seed, the entire brilliant,
…approaches Him, who is the great object.56 *

Similarly, in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, we find that "the undisturbed flow of the ultra-meditative causes Subjective Luminosity."57 Through proper techniques, the Yogi is able to obtain "knowledge of the subtle, the veiled, the remote…"58 Finally, the Yogi is able to attain the goal of the quest, when "the cover of light is destroyed."59

So this experience is not specifically Christian, and in fact predates Christianity by at least several hundred years. That a Christian prayer technique that is mechanically similar to yoga produces the same experience as yoga, again an experience I myself had without any belief in Hinduism OR Christianity, makes me suspicious. I don’t doubt that the Hesychasts encountered God through prayer, but in the case of the “Light” I must say that their experience sounds identical to the normal effects of such mechanical meditation on the brain. The only other explanation is that atheists and Hindus can experience the Divine Light while blaspheming and praying to pagan gods.

1. Aquinas had mystical experiences all through his adult life, typically followed by an energetic bout of writing. His final recorded mystical ecstasy is often highlighted, but it wasn’t his only one. What’s more he did not abandon any of his previous positions after that experience; his statement that all his work was as straw was not to discount its accuracy, but rather to say that it was meaningless in comparison to God Himself. He certainly didn’t renounce Scholasticism, and in fact kept teaching and corresponding on such matters up to the end.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

You can consider Bp. Vlachos’ description of Scholasticism correct

Thank you. I do.

I do doubt the effect experienced through Hesychasm is in fact necessarily this Divine Light, and I do so for a couple of reasons.

Yes. You have compared it to some awful new age and hindu practices such as TM. For shame.

makes me suspicious.

The fact that Ghosty is suspicious does not justify your insults against Hesychasm.

The only other explanation is that atheists and Hindus can experience the Divine Light while blaspheming and praying to pagan gods.

The only other explanation!?! You have slipped off the deep end. There is demonic influence with the Hindu practices. You should read the book: “The Gurus, The Young Man, And Elder Paisios”

Aquinas had mystical experiences all through his adult life,

Are you sure his experiences weren’t blasphemous also?

his statement that all his work was as straw was not to discount its accuracy,

I believe the statement is quite telling.

He certainly didn’t renounce Scholasticism

Of course not. Scholasticism was peaking with Aquinas. He inspired the label, “Thomism.”

I will say something in favor of scholasticism. I think that its use of logical argumentation has some merit when refuting the pseudo-logic of the atheists and agnostics.

Having said that, I agree with very little of what you are trying to set forth–especially your denigration of hesychastic prayer-----my discourse with you has ended.

 

[Mickey]

Given that the topic question is: “…why people choose to be Eastern Catholic and not Orthodox Christians?”, you are *diametrically *off topic.

Really? Diametrically? Are you sure?

I explained why I went to Eastern Catholicism first–then I included the end of my journey…my journey home.

 

[dvdjs]

Really? Diametrically? Are you sure?

I explained why I went to Eastern Catholicism first–then I included the end of my journey…my journey home.

Yes I am sure.