Why not Orthodox?

[StAugustine]

Out of Curiosity, the Assyrians often say that the Christological differences they have with the miaphysites is linguistic.

But what about the Syriac Orthodox??? They are miaphysite and speak the same language as the Assyrians- Syriac. So what was the difference there if not linguistic? Let me guess, the Assyrians objected to “one nature and one qnome”, not understanding this as a composite qnome (hypostasis) in accordance with St. Cyril?

It just seems that if the difference is purely linguistic it should have been resolved in the Syriac sector by now. Why isn’t it?

 

[StAugustine]

Do you know why the lamb is on the shoulders? Because the shepherd breaks the legs to prevent it from wandering further. That’s real.

 

[StAugustine]

8. The principal adversaries of Palamism | De unione ecclesiarum

Of course, no dispute. But that is not positing a real distinction, it is simply saying we know God by his operations.

Now, God always acts purposefully, not needlessly, and when God acts in a thing, that is when we perceive the activity of the divine essence.

Therefore the energies of God can only be perceived in creatures, because they are only observed in their terminus, where they are affecting change.

For example- You have never seen “walking” conceptually speaking as an abstract act. But you have seen feet hitting the pavement. And you also cannot conceive of the act apart from a creature acting.

Similarly no one has seen any act of God considered abstractly. You have not seen “sustainment” in how he holds everything in existence. But you have seen existing things. You have never seen “justice” considered abstractly, but you have seen God punish the Egyptians.

And Palamas has never seen “energy” or “light” uncreated of the Godhead itself, because this would simply be the divine essence in motion.

But what he COULD have seen is the light of “divinization,” grace active in the soul purifying it from sin that reveals itself in the created form of “light.” This is what St. Symeon the New Theologian is talking about when he says he looks at himself and sees Christ flash. It’s the light of theosis, but this is STILL a created EFFECT of the uncreated God ACTING in a creature.

There is no direct perception of a really distinct energy perceived outside of its activity in creatures. That’s the main point, not the fact of some kind of distinction, either formal or virtual.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Do you know why the lamb is on the shoulders? Because the shepherd breaks the legs to prevent it from wandering further. That’s real.

Uh… In my story, the shepherd is Jesus. He doesn’t go around breaking lamb legs.

 

[StAugustine]

But that’s what the shepherds of Israel did to protect the wild lambs, and HE compares himself to THEM. Something to consider.

 

[Justin_Mary]

But that’s what the shepherds of Israel did to protect the wild lambs, and HE compares himself to THEM. Something to consider.

Oh… I, uh… guess their legs will be stronger when they’re healed…then… I guess.

 

[StAugustine]

THe point is that love does not discount severe discipline, and to bring back a schismatic into the true Church does not mean everything will be easy for them, that’s all. There’s reparation to be made.

 

[dochawk]

Uh… In my story, the shepherd is Jesus. He doesn’t go around breaking lamb legs.

And He was quite specifically spared that specific indignity . . .

Oh… I, uh… guess their legs will be stronger when they’re healed…then… I guess.

Uhm . . . I seriously doubt they would get a chance to heal. I suppose that you could split the legs and so forth, but there is another far more likely disposition . . .

 

[StAugustine]

“Thy Rod and thy staff, they comfort me.”

I like siding with the saints, personally, like St. Augustine’s Commentary-

“ 4. Yea, though I walk in the midst of the shadow of death Psalm 22:4. Yea, though I walk in the midst of this life, which is the shadow of death. I will fearno evil, for You are with me. I will fearno evil, for You dwell in my heart by faith: and You are now with me, that after the shadow of death I too may be with You. Your rod and Your staff, they have comforted me. Your discipline, like a rod for a flock of sheep, and like a staff for children of some size, and growing out of the natural into spiritual life, they have not been grievous to me; rather have they comforted me: because You are mindful of me.”

 

[Wandile]

The EO are most definitely outside the church. They are in schism. If they were part of the church they would have perfect communion with us and concelebrate officially with us other than in exceptional cases.

That’s why we are trying to urge towards reunion through ecumenism. They are even addressed as “our separated brethren”.

The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. Only she and no other is the Church of Jesus Christ. Vatican II went on to emphasize this truth when it said even more definitively that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Subsistence is a reality which can only and exclusively be experienced or lived in one thing and Vatican II said this is the Catholic Church.

 

[Wandile]

There is no schismatic in existence who has not justified their schism by one heresy or another.

 

[Vonsalza]

There is no schismatic in existence who has not justified their schism by one heresy or another.

That’s right.

My favorite example that comes to mind is when this one group split out of Judaism and started calling themselves “Christians”.

 

[Isaac14]

There is no schismatic in existence who has not justified their schism by one heresy or another.

What is the heresy of the Orthodox?

 

[Vonsalza]

Wandile:

There is no schismatic in existence who has not justified their schism by one heresy or another.

What is the heresy of the Orthodox?

Their understanding of the Church’s power to “bind and loose” is more in light of Matthew 18:18. The “correct” view (said very tongue-in-cheek) is the Matthew 16:19 view of it.

Even though Christ used the same phrase, He meant something different in Matt 18:18. Or so I’m told.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

There is no schismatic in existence who has not justified their schism by one heresy or another.

What is the heresy of the Orthodox?

• Denial of the Filioque against the clear teaching of the Latin, Alexandrian and even Greek fathers
• Denial of Purgatory
• Denial of orginal sin as taught by the ecumenical councils (which accepted the Council of Carthage’s definition as de fide)
• Denial of the legitimacy of Unleavened bread as valid for the Eucharist
• Denial of Papal primacy (as understood by the CC) and infallibility
• Denial of the Immaculate conception
• Denial of Indulgences
• Allownace of 3 marriages against the explicit teaching of our Lord forbidding any subsequent marriage while your spouse still lives.
• Allowance of contraception against the tradition of the church and teaching of the fathers.

 

[Isaac14]

Denial of the Filioque
…etc, etc, etc.

What you seem to be saying is that as long as the Orthodox are only “East” on the outside, but become “Latin” at heart then all will be good.

Doesn’t your list condemn the Eastern Catholics just as strongly as it does the Orthdox?

 

[ziapueblo]

Speaking as a Byzantine Catholic, it is not denial of the Latin Church’s theological perspective. It is when it is pushed on us as Easterners. We have our own theology, spirituality, etc. As @Isaac14 noted, it seems that some Roman Catholics are fine with our Eastern “look” as long as we are Roman Catholics in belief. Unfortunately, to do so would be going against the teachings of Vatican II as well as the teachings of the Popes the last 100 years or so.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

The EO are most definitely outside the church.

Outside of the Church?!?! That’s hard for me to believe. How can one be “outside” of the Church if one has valid Apostolic succession? How can one be “outside” of the Church if on has a valid Eucharist and Sacraments? Not in full communion with Rome, yes, but not outside. Does there still need to be dialogue about the role of the Pope of Rome and the Eastern Churches? Yes, but outside the Church, no!

The “schism” is internal. It is an issue with upper management. Rome, Moscow and Constantinople do not play nice with each other. Theologically, Rome teaches that the Orthodox are sound in their beliefs.

ZP

 

[StAugustine]

You have to establish the eastern traditions you adhere to are not deviations. The Byzantines shouldn’t take authentic eastern traditions as carte Blanche to side with eastern orthodox deviations.

Again, Akindynos vs Palamas. Prochoros and Demetrius Kydones vs Palamas. Bekkos vs Gregory of Cyprus.

Who is authentic? Does your bishop in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy anathematize Bekkos? Does he anathematize Prochoros Kydones? The Orthodox do. But these are heroes who struggled for unity with the Pope.

Carte Blanche on the adoption of Orthodox theology as a whole is theological suicide. Just ask the men tormented and persecuted for fighting against it!

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Denial of the Filioque
…etc, etc, etc.

What you seem to be saying is that as long as the Orthodox are only “East” on the outside, but become “Latin” at heart then all will be good.

What I’m saying is they must be catholic and teach as the church has always taught in scripture, tradition and the fathers. On those key points, they have deviated.

Doesn’t your list condemn the Eastern Catholics just as strongly as it does the Orthdox?

No because Eastern Catholics believe all of the items listed above. They just express them differently.