D
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
Of course you are.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I’m not sure if scholasticism is a good or bad thing; jury’s still out with me. Transubstantiation, for example, doesn’t bother me at all and it is very logical and I don’t see anything about the language of it that goes against the patristics or precedents at all. I don’t see it as an “explanation” as some Orthodox call it. It’s not an explanation as that would be impossible to do. No one can explain “how” God makes miracles. The scholastic thinking here explains what is happening at communion, not how it happens.
But the problem with the Catholic Church adopting so much scholastic/thomistic thinking is that it diverged the West farther and farther from the Orthodox and in the long run the two mindsets are just so far apart! Take sins for example. There is a set formula for mortal vs. venial sins and one knows exactly when to go to confession for said sins. In Orthodoxy, it isn’t as defined or chiseled in stone exactly the parameters of sin. One goes to confession when one feels the need personally. The boundaries aren’t as defined. I guess as a cradle Catholic I like that defined status and am finding it hard to think with Eastern principles on this. So scholasticism and the Catholic praxis of hard definitions, boundaries, parameters, rubrics, and universally-defined categories is good in many ways. It has helped keep me grounded for years. But I can see how this is a stumbling block in Catholic-Orthodox talks and mutual understanding.
But the problem with the Catholic Church adopting so much scholastic/thomistic thinking is that it diverged the West farther and farther from the Orthodox and in the long run the two mindsets are just so far apart! Take sins for example. There is a set formula for mortal vs. venial sins and one knows exactly when to go to confession for said sins. In Orthodoxy, it isn’t as defined or chiseled in stone exactly the parameters of sin. One goes to confession when one feels the need personally. The boundaries aren’t as defined. I guess as a cradle Catholic I like that defined status and am finding it hard to think with Eastern principles on this. So scholasticism and the Catholic praxis of hard definitions, boundaries, parameters, rubrics, and universally-defined categories is good in many ways. It has helped keep me grounded for years. But I can see how this is a stumbling block in Catholic-Orthodox talks and mutual understanding.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I suppose that it can be said that there is a “set formula” for mortal sin. The Catechism of the Catholic church puts it this way:
But this “definition” leaves it to an informed conscience not only to discern grave matter, but, more personally, full knowledge and deliberate consent. I don’t have any indication that Orthodox, in the main, think significantly differently about sin which moves them to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist.
Moreover, that personal need to go to confession can be a chiseled in EO parishes as anywhere else. I have heard, during the liturgy, the general admonition not to approach if you had not confessed within the past month.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
How do you do that? Fr Seraphim Rose has been died for more than 20 years!
Brother Marduk, I’ve sensed some animosity toward EO’y in some of your recent postings that I have never seen before. Was it something I said that set you off? Sure, I have some opinions that are different from you, but I am not as intelligent & knowledgeable as you are, so I’m probably the one that is wrong.
BTW, I’m a believer in the toll-houses. It bothers me when I come across EO who don’t accept them. But at least I’m miaphysite, so is there still hope for me? The miaphysite issue was one of the reasons I could not remain Catholic; because unlike yourself, I really can’t see how miaphysite & diophysite can be the same thing, hence, from my point of ignorance I would be in a Church that holds a stand against what I confess about the nature of Christ if I remained Catholic. This is also a reason why I must remain in the Antiochian Church instead of the Russian Church.
I hope you haven’t dusted your feet off over me yet and I hope you can still call me your brother!
G
Ghosty
Guest
The Eastern Orthodox are much more against Miaphysitism than the Catholic Church. How do you justify being in a Communion that outright rejects your theology? Just curious, because it seems strange that you wouldn’t just become Oriental Orthodox.
Peace and God bless!
J
JohnVIII
Guest
A dismissive laugh. How sad. Bro. Marduk is one of the most consistent thinkers on this forum.And so RC polemicists such as yourself would be consistent.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
OO isn’t an option for me. But I would kiss the hand of an OO priest.The Eastern Orthodox are much more against Miaphysitism than the Catholic Church. How do you justify being in a Communion that outright rejects your theology? Just curious, because it seems strange that you wouldn’t just become Oriental Orthodox.
Peace and God bless!
T
tdgesq
Guest
I assume you are referring to transcendental meditation. I have never seen it compared to Hesychasm before. If what you state is correct then that particular spiritual practice cannot be a reason for conversion from EC to EO.
A
Addai
Guest
Isn’t the toll house idea just an elaboration of old Latin ideas regarding purgatory and some visionary experiences of the old saints like this one… ?
- The Departure of St. Macarius the Great.
St. Macarius had commanded his disciples to hid his body, but some of the natives of the city of Shabsheer came and stole his body, built a church for him and placed the body in it for around one hundred and sixty years until the Arab conquest and the rebuilding of his monastery, they returned the body to it.
In a manuscript in Shebeen El-Koum, was mentioned that St. Babnuda, his disciple, saw the soul of St. Macarius ascending to heaven, and he heard the devils crying out and calling after him, “You have conquered us O Macarius.” The Saint replied “I have not conquered you yet.” When they came to the gates of heaven they cried again saying “You have conquered us”, and he replied as the first time. When he entered the gate of heaven they cried “You have overcome us O Macarius.” He replied “Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ who has delivered me from your hands.”
May his blessing be with us. Amen."
copticchurch.net/synaxarium/7_25.html#2
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Personally I haven’t met any inconsistent thinkers at CAF yet? Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant?
A dismissive laugh. How sad. Bro. Marduk is one of the most consistent thinkers on this forum.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I am indeed referring to Transcendental Meditation. I don’t mean to speak ill of Hesychasm, because the spirituality of it is entirely sound and Holy, and nothing like TM. The mechanics of Hesychastic prayer, however, is identical to TM, and both produce a similar “effect” in their practitioners which I know from personal experience. That is why I’m suspicious of the claims that the “light” is truly Divine, but I am not doubting that Hesychastic prayer will bring you closer to God and allow for a greater participation in Grace.
So, to be clear, I don’t doubt the Holiness at all, I just don’t think the light effect is necessarily the Divine Light. Look up TM and Hesychastic prayer and I think you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
I understand. Oriental Orthodox parishes aren’t always easy to find. I must admit that I’m still perplexed at why you would go to the most uncompromising “diophysite” Communion when you are a confessed Miaphysite, though.
Peace and God bless!
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Adrian,
Thanks for the info!
I am normally very careful about distinguishing between:
(1) EO apologists (who are interested in defending the EO Faith) from EO polemicsts (who are interested in demeaning and misrepresenting Catholicism);
(2) what I have heard from EO themselves from what the EO teaches magisterially;
(3) EO concepts from the Eastern Orthodox Church herself (i.e., though I may disagree with a particular tenet espoused by an EO, I am always careful not to use that disagreement as a general condemnation of the Eastern Orthodox Church herself);
I am especially careful about being consistent with regards to (2) and (3) because those are things that EO polemicists so very often do that I greatly detest, and which I always oppose when the opportunity arises.
If I have transgressed these self-imposed standards lately, again, please forgive me. Please feel free to point out what you might feel I have stated that expresses animosity against the EOC or the EO Faith itself. I am always open to well-reasoned correction.
In any case, I have never felt an erg of animosity towards you, so it’s unlikely any animosity has transferred.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thanks for the info!If I have written something that expresses animosity towards EO’xy, please forgive me.
I am normally very careful about distinguishing between:
(1) EO apologists (who are interested in defending the EO Faith) from EO polemicsts (who are interested in demeaning and misrepresenting Catholicism);
(2) what I have heard from EO themselves from what the EO teaches magisterially;
(3) EO concepts from the Eastern Orthodox Church herself (i.e., though I may disagree with a particular tenet espoused by an EO, I am always careful not to use that disagreement as a general condemnation of the Eastern Orthodox Church herself);
I am especially careful about being consistent with regards to (2) and (3) because those are things that EO polemicists so very often do that I greatly detest, and which I always oppose when the opportunity arises.
If I have transgressed these self-imposed standards lately, again, please forgive me. Please feel free to point out what you might feel I have stated that expresses animosity against the EOC or the EO Faith itself. I am always open to well-reasoned correction.
In any case, I have never felt an erg of animosity towards you, so it’s unlikely any animosity has transferred.
Brother, you don’t need to put the above highlighted question before me or any Catholic, because there is no doubt in the Catholic mind. Though you may not feel the same way, the Catholic Church officially and formally affirms the orthodoxy of miaphysitism.
As I’ve stated several times before, you will always be my brother in Christ - well, unless you become an athiest or a non-Christian.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Your perplexity would be well noted if I were to go to the Russian Church again, as they may very well ex-communicate me for heresy there! But the Antiochian parish I go to is very accepting of both views (Diophysite/Miaphysite), I am in fact not the only one there that is Miaphysite, my priest informs me that there are about a dozen or so in the parish who are Miaphysite. It may be that I have found a small oasis of true peace and harmony between those who hold both views and I like it! I have had almost no experience with the Antiochian Church save this one parish and I am told that it is unique in the USA, not because of the Diophysite/Miaphysite issue, but because it is ethnic. 99% of the parish is Arabic and the Liturgy is song mostly in Arabic, whereas most (maybe all the rest) of the parishes in the USA consist of average Americans & the services are in English. So I cannot say if all of the Antiochian Church is as accepting as this one is or not, but I am told that they are supposed to be because their was an agreement made, the Chambesy Union, I think it was called. And as it is right now I am in full communion with the Russian Church also since the two Churches are in communion!I understand. Oriental Orthodox parishes aren’t always easy to find. I must admit that I’m still perplexed at why you would go to the most uncompromising “diophysite” Communion when you are a confessed Miaphysite, though.
Peace and God bless!
So what do I need Rome for I have all I need right here! (I’m just kidding
)
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I’m not offended, and I wouldn’t be even if you did. I just thought that maybe someone in the EO camp may have ticked you off and if so I was hoping it wasn’t me. I know you & I recently had some strong disagreements about St Basil’s teachings and so I thought maybe because of that I could have been the one who ticked you off.
As far as I am concerned please feel free to criticize any aspect of EO’xy as I’m sure that if you did so you would surely have some reason for it; it would not be out of prejudice. As an example you asked me (in another thread) how it could be that the practice of the EO of accepting a baptism that is not true baptism by economia is not a violation of the Apostolic Canon that forbids the acceptance of a baptism that is not a true baptism. I didn’t answer your question then because I don’t have an answer. You made a truly valid criticism that did not involve undo prejudice.
You are a very respectable Christian. Thank you for your friendship!
This may be what it was that I seemed to be detecting. I have been EO for some time and I am still not sure how you tell what “the EO teaches magisterially”! Do you claim to know how to do this? Please tell me if you do. If you can’t know for sure then how can you distinguish between it and what EO individuals say? I’m not going to concede that this is a bad thing for the EO however.
As I see it we EO tried this magisterial approach with some of the Ecumenical Councils and it was a mistake that I hope we learn from. EO blindly follow the decrees of an Ecumenical Council as infallible dogma with the same fervor that a RC does with the papal dogmas! As I’m sure you know I believe the 4th Ecumenical made a mistake! It was a small mistake, but it was enough to convince me that there is nothing that is absolutely certain until the final judgement day, not even pronounced dogma. Whether it be RC or EO that do it, it has no spiritual profitability. If we think we know the truth on some point with absolute certainty then all that does is make us prideful (which is an evil thought) and judgmental of others who believe otherwise, hence it becomes damaging to our soul. So, if God gave us the “gift” of infallibility, it wouldn’t be a “gift”, it would be a “curse”! Like the Law of Moses it should be nailed to the Cross of Christ.
Thank you my brother in Christ!In any case, I have never felt an erg of animosity towards you, so it’s unlikely any animosity has transferred.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother JesusforMadrid,
A wonderful response.
Think about it. Dogma was established by the Ecum Councils for the very purpose of distinguishing Orthodoxy from heresy. The very purpose of Dogma is to delineate this separation. That is exactly what many EO do today with doctrines that have never been declared “dogma” by the Church. As stated, you can rationalize as much as you want that EO do not call these particular doctrines “dogma,” but these doctrines are in fact used by many EO in a dogmatic way as a basis for separation from Catholics.
Blessings,
Marduk
A wonderful response.
I have no idea if EO consider it a matter of salvation or not. But many use it to incite division against Catholics. Do you deny that? Once someone says, “You are separated from our Church because you do not believe in the Essence/Energy distinction,” once someone says, “What you teach is heresy because you fail to believe in the Essence/Energy distinction,” then whether or not you call that doctrine a dogma is utterly beside the point, because that doctrine has become dogmatic for all other practical and intensive purposes.
I am not aware that any EO uses this doctrine as a basis for division with the Catholic Church. Are you? Given that, I would not say the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness is dogmatic in the EO. I think you might be missing the point by bringing this up.
Again, Eastern, Oriental and Western Catholics discuss/debate amongst ourselves over the doctrines that are peculiar to each others’ Churches, but none of us call any of the others “heretic” or would say, “you are separated from us because you do not believe this.” But many EO do this very thing with regards to the Essence/Energy distinction when they debate with Latin Catholics.
Sure. I’m game – but probably on another thread. And next weekend would be a better time for me.
The relationship is not reflexive. Dogma need not inspire zeal. But if one is zealous over a matter, then it can come to have dogmatic importance, especially if one uses it as a basis for division - which many EO do with regards to the Essence/Energy distinction, as well as a lot of other doctrinal matters that they would not call “dogma”. As stated, these doctrines that many EO use as a basis for separation are dogma in all things except name.
Shown what exactly?
How a doctrine is declared dogma is beside the point. I’m not the one blurring the distinction. To use an example already given, consider the Latin doctrine of purgatorial fire. It is not a dogma in the Latin CC, but only doctrine. The Latins do not use it to separate themselves from their Eastern and Oriental Catholic brethren, nor do the Latins impose it on us, and neither do Eastern and Oriental Catholics use the fact that they don’t believe in it as a basis for separation from our Latin brethren, nor do we seek to impose our lack of belief in it on the Latins. But many EO do in fact use their lack of belief in it as a basis for separation. They have made their lack of belief in it a dogmatic matter. If anyone is doing the blurring here, it is the EO polemicists who use doctrines (that they pretend are not dogmas) as a basis for separation.
Not all EO are polemical. Many EO know enough not to condemn, or consider as heretical, Catholics, the Catholic Church, or her beliefs based on things that have never been dogmatized by the Ecum Councils. These are the EO who are willing to engage Catholics in dialogue. On the other hand, there are EO, like those at Orthodoxinfo.org, who are — different. If you stick with the sensible ones, you won’t need to accept “a whole litany of dogmatic principles” that are not actually dogma. But if you fall into the Orthodoxinfo crowd, you might begin to acquire a mindset that assigns dogmatic importance to things that are not dogma at all.
Think about it. Dogma was established by the Ecum Councils for the very purpose of distinguishing Orthodoxy from heresy. The very purpose of Dogma is to delineate this separation. That is exactly what many EO do today with doctrines that have never been declared “dogma” by the Church. As stated, you can rationalize as much as you want that EO do not call these particular doctrines “dogma,” but these doctrines are in fact used by many EO in a dogmatic way as a basis for separation from Catholics.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Adrian,
I know disagreements, even strong ones, can occur between the best of friends. I’ve never felt inclined to take a person off my Friends List over a strong disagreement. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever used the “ignore” feature of CAF (I did recently, though, but it was not by virtue of a disagreement, but what I felt like was a really bad demonstration of character by that person). I believe disagreements can help a person grow, so I am not automatically inclined to get mad about disagreements.
Blessings,
Marduk
I have strong disagreements with several members here in CAF. But I have rather thick skin.
I know disagreements, even strong ones, can occur between the best of friends. I’ve never felt inclined to take a person off my Friends List over a strong disagreement. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever used the “ignore” feature of CAF (I did recently, though, but it was not by virtue of a disagreement, but what I felt like was a really bad demonstration of character by that person). I believe disagreements can help a person grow, so I am not automatically inclined to get mad about disagreements.Right back atcha!
TBH, I don’t what what the EO teach magisterially either. That’s why, if you’ll notice, I always preface remarks about EO teaching with phrases like “it seems” or “some EO” or “many EO” or “I have heard” or “I have read somewhere” or some such similar phrase. To my knowledge, I have never asserted “the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches…,” except when referring to teachings from the 7 Ecumenical Councils. That’s why I said I am always careful to distinguish between what I have acquired from individual EO, on the one hand, and EO magisterial teaching, on the other - precisely because I don’t know what the EO teaches magisterially.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing either. The only time it gets under my skin is when some EO use the aphoristic principle to hurl judgments at Latin Catholics - which is really, really ironic (if not downright inconsistent).
We don’t agree on this point, but I really, really respect the fact that you are consistent. I have met EO who complain that the dogmatism of the CC causes separation, but consistently (or, rather, inconsistently) have no problem with the dogmatism of the early Church which also caused separation. Again, my respect for you has increased.:bowdown:
Despite the new dogmas, and despite the old ones, I believe that the CC is more discerning than others, with the principle of invincible ignorance. The CC is not so quick to judge others JUST BECAUSE there is disagreement or because there is a lack of belief. She recognizes that there might be mitigating reasons for that lack of belief, and so don’t immediately condemn JUST BECAUSE OF that lack of belief (though I’ve noticed that many Traditional Catholics don’t share this principle of mercy).
Blessings,
Marduk
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I don’t know my brothers and sisters. I think the first mistake is in the assumption that the vatican is running off scholastic/thomistic thinking 100% of the time. Of course there are some who subscibe to this thinking still. But as a whole thats simply not true.
Ths first and most important issue always is the rulers of the world from our perspective as Christians and how we fit into their society. I listened to the verbal conversation from Conclave 82. Amazing I found it, we don’t realize how little value is placed on the West as the USA anymore. 82 was a heated debate over Christology being incapatible with the direction we continue to travel in the US. And now Obama saying “We are no longer just a Christian country” as if that was a major accomplishment? And the crowd gives him a Standing Ovation? As we move even futher from that period of conclave 82.
The Essence/Energy distinction I see as following mans movement as in a chess game. Whats law is law, whats theory is theory. Obviously the jury is still out in factual thinking thus “law”.
Again what I fail to see is why divide over an issue such as this? You know what dawned on me the other day in the conversations of the EO and CC, is the Biblical story of the Jews and Samaritans. All Jews conflicting over re-building the Temple after bondage and slavery for centurys.
Lot of good people and great minds here. We have a rare window of opportunity left to really turn Christianity into something. But we can’t build the Temple debating about building the Temple. What little we do have some control over we are losing yearly. To continue at this pace takes away the opportunity to choose what church you want to worship in. Today you have an opportunity. How many times in Biblical history has that been taken away already with GOD showing man a lesson, that even in slavery you can live, survive and worship GOD and He will not abandon His followers.
I think its interesting to talk, debate all these issues. But at the end of the day my real concern becomes “always” is how we as Christians can develope the decline of the USA by the majority of Protestants, Atheist, Secular and every other type of “anything goes” society we’ve become.
We talk about communion. Really how much do you care where I worship? Or visa versa? What I care about is we have two of close churchs in GODs Universe by History and the Apostles. That cannot make a difference for a better mankind. And we have the opportunity today as we have had for the last 50-years. Sand slipping through our fingers. I don’t see communion as really the issue. I see working together as imperative. We as christians period. No longer have the opportunity in the West USA to say “let them do their thing and we’ll do ours”. No big deal. If Europe isn’t an indication of whats coming to the USA. I don’t what its going to take to seriously grasp just how bad the situation is getting here in the USA. If “we” don’t make the change in Christology here. Then without Gods Grace and Mercy it can’t happen anywhere, and it back to bondage.
The writting is on the wall Mene, Mene, Tekel, Peres. Weighed, Divided, Inadaquate! Those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Anyway God Bless, have a great day. Gary
Ths first and most important issue always is the rulers of the world from our perspective as Christians and how we fit into their society. I listened to the verbal conversation from Conclave 82. Amazing I found it, we don’t realize how little value is placed on the West as the USA anymore. 82 was a heated debate over Christology being incapatible with the direction we continue to travel in the US. And now Obama saying “We are no longer just a Christian country” as if that was a major accomplishment? And the crowd gives him a Standing Ovation? As we move even futher from that period of conclave 82.
The Essence/Energy distinction I see as following mans movement as in a chess game. Whats law is law, whats theory is theory. Obviously the jury is still out in factual thinking thus “law”.
Again what I fail to see is why divide over an issue such as this? You know what dawned on me the other day in the conversations of the EO and CC, is the Biblical story of the Jews and Samaritans. All Jews conflicting over re-building the Temple after bondage and slavery for centurys.
Lot of good people and great minds here. We have a rare window of opportunity left to really turn Christianity into something. But we can’t build the Temple debating about building the Temple. What little we do have some control over we are losing yearly. To continue at this pace takes away the opportunity to choose what church you want to worship in. Today you have an opportunity. How many times in Biblical history has that been taken away already with GOD showing man a lesson, that even in slavery you can live, survive and worship GOD and He will not abandon His followers.
I think its interesting to talk, debate all these issues. But at the end of the day my real concern becomes “always” is how we as Christians can develope the decline of the USA by the majority of Protestants, Atheist, Secular and every other type of “anything goes” society we’ve become.
We talk about communion. Really how much do you care where I worship? Or visa versa? What I care about is we have two of close churchs in GODs Universe by History and the Apostles. That cannot make a difference for a better mankind. And we have the opportunity today as we have had for the last 50-years. Sand slipping through our fingers. I don’t see communion as really the issue. I see working together as imperative. We as christians period. No longer have the opportunity in the West USA to say “let them do their thing and we’ll do ours”. No big deal. If Europe isn’t an indication of whats coming to the USA. I don’t what its going to take to seriously grasp just how bad the situation is getting here in the USA. If “we” don’t make the change in Christology here. Then without Gods Grace and Mercy it can’t happen anywhere, and it back to bondage.
The writting is on the wall Mene, Mene, Tekel, Peres. Weighed, Divided, Inadaquate! Those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Anyway God Bless, have a great day. Gary
V
Vico
Guest
Daniel 5:25 -30 (NAB) “This is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, TEKEL, and PERES. These words mean: MENE, God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it; TEKEL, you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; PERES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” Then by order of Belshazzar they clothed Daniel in purple, with a gold collar about his neck, and proclaimed him third in the government of the kingdom. The same night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was slain:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
— Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner’s, 1905, p. 284
We also know that those that do remember yet that lack self control or resolve or a remedy are condemned (doom or punishment) to repeat it.
- Status