That's It I"m Becoming Eastern Catholic

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1633256' date='Aug 20 2008, 11:16 PM']This statement is false, for as St. John Damascene said, ". . . we do [b]not[/b] speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son."[/quote]

All Western Fathers taught the Filioque, and numerous Eastern Fathers taught it as well. We have to keep this in mind when we read St John Damascenes quote, and here is what St Thomas has to say about it:

[color="#0000FF"][b]Objection 3.[/b] [i]Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.[/i]

[b]Reply to Objection 3[/b]. The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.[/color]

[quote]That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son does not mean that He takes His origin from the Son. There is only one cause, one principle of origin within the Godhead, and that is the person of the Father.[/quote]

The Spirit's origin is not in the Father alone but in the Father and the Son. This does not mean the Spirit has two origins, on the contrary, the procession of the Spirit is as one Principle. In other words, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The phrase, "Father and Son" emphasizes the consubstantial reality between Persons, whereas the phrase "Father through the Son" emphasizes the monarchy of the Father. They are two sides of the same coin.

Here are some quotes from the Fathers:

Maximus the Confessor: "By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).

Hilary of Poiters: "Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

Epiphanius of Salamis: "The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan: "The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120)

Gregory of Nyssa: "[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382])


This should be sufficient to show the idea the Spirit proceeds from the Father *alone* is false.
[quote]Finally, as I have already said, there is absolutely no opposition in God, not between the persons of the Trinity, nor between the persons and the divine essence. Thus, there is no place in Christian theology for the metaphysics of Aristotle.[/quote]


Aristotle is not the source of this *dogma*, the Holy Spirit is.

The Divine relations are revealed through the Personal names of God. The names, "Father" and "Son" denote a relation. The Father can't be begotten nor can the Son be unbegotten, thus the existence of opposing relations.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1629038' date='Aug 16 2008, 04:40 PM']Sadly, the Maronites have been heavily Latinized over the centuries, and exposition of the Eucharistic elements is one example of that problem within that particular Church.

That said, even some of the Byzantine Catholic Churches (e.g., the Ukrainians) have had Eucharistic exposition, but that type of para-liturgical service and many other things (e.g., delaying chrismation and first communion to the age of reason, celibate parish priests, stations of the cross, use of musical instruments during the divine liturgy, statues, the rosary, etc.), which are contrary to our tradition, have been or are in the process of being suppressed as Latinizations.[/quote]
Interesting. But celibate priests is far from a BAD thing. Bishops (eparchs?) must be celibate, correct?

btw, what's the correct way of addressing an eparch? I know you kiss a (western) Bishop's ring...

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1633282' date='Aug 20 2008, 11:40 PM']There is a real distinction, without a separation, between God's essence and His energies, and your position is not supported by the Eastern Fathers, because it is a pagan notion adopted from the metaphysics of Aristotle.[/quote]

God is pure spirit, there is no composition in Him. This is not pagan philosophy, it is revealed truth and [b]dogma[/b]. Ironically the Greeks and those influenced by them are absorbed with neoplatonic idea distinguishing a transcendent and imminent notion of God.

Scripture says, "God is Love," "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." Not, "God has love, has the way, has the truth, has the life."

[quote]Below is a quotation from one of St. Gregory of Nyssa's writings that touches on this topic:[/quote]

St Gregory is simply saying we can't comprehend the Essence of God on earth. Even though God is love, and I can understand love to some extent, this does not mean I've comprehended God!

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1633289' date='Aug 20 2008, 10:44 PM']St. Basil says:

[God's] energies are various, and [His] essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.

[St. Basil, [i]Letter 234[/i]][/quote]

How does this contradict the Western teaching which says we don't have an *immediate* knowledge of God on earth, but only a mediate and abstractive knowledge through created things?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1633317' date='Aug 20 2008, 10:39 PM']How does this contradict the Western teaching which says we don't have an *immediate* knowledge of God on earth, but only a mediate and abstractive knowledge through created things?[/quote]
God's energies are not created, and so although we see them by looking at creation, that is not the same thing as theosis; instead, theosis is a direct participation in the divine nature through the uncreated divine energies, and that participation begins here and now in the liturgy, and so it is not merely realized in the eschaton as the Scholastics mistakenly believed.

There is no such thing as "created" grace in the Eastern tradition.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1633314' date='Aug 20 2008, 10:31 PM']God is pure spirit, there is no composition in Him. This is not pagan philosophy, it is revealed truth and [b]dogma[/b]. Ironically the Greeks and those influenced by them are absorbed with neoplatonic idea distinguishing a transcendent and imminent notion of God.

Scripture says, "God is Love," "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." Not, "God has love, has the way, has the truth, has the life."[/quote]
God is love, but love is not the divine essence. The divine essence is heteroousios in relation to creattion, and so it cannot be known at all by man.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1633314' date='Aug 20 2008, 10:31 PM']St Gregory is simply saying we can't comprehend the Essence of God on earth. Even though God is love, and I can understand love to some extent, this does not mean I've comprehended God![/quote]
St. Gregory holds that man, like the angels, will never see the divine essence, and if you had read his [i]Sermons on the Beatitudes[/i], his [i]Homilies on Ecclesiastes[/i], and his [i]Commenteries on the Canticle of Canticles[/i], you would understand that. Another text that helps to explain the Eastern position on the vision of God is St. Gregory's "The Life of Moses," for in that text he says that, it is only in ". . . leaving behind everything that is observed, not only what sense comprehends but also what the intelligence thinks it sees," that man can penetrate deeper into the mystery of God, ". . . until by the intelligence’s yearning for understanding it gains access to the invisible and the incomprehensible, and there it sees God. This is the true knowledge of what is sought; this is the seeing that consists in not seeing, because that which is sought transcends all knowledge, being separated on all sides by incomprehensibility as by a kind of darkness. Where John the sublime, who penetrated into the luminous darkness, says, 'No one has ever seen God,' [b]thus asserting that knowledge of the divine essence is unattainable not only by men but also by every intelligent creature[/b]." [St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]The Life of Moses[/i], no. 163]

Nowhere in the wiritings of St. Gregory does he say that man -- once he is in heaven -- will see the divine essence, for in the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers neither man, nor the angels, can see, or particpate in, the divine essence, not now nor in the eschaton.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Apotheoun

[abercius24]

[quote name='mortify' post='1632219' date='Aug 19 2008, 09:56 PM']The Holy Spirit worked throughout Christendom until the various schisms. It does not necessarily mean He totally abandoned the schismatics, but certainly any development of theres after the fact needs to be re examined.[/quote]

Not all Eastern Churches became schismatic. And if you follow Eastern tradition, they really haven't changed their doctrine at all since before the Great Schism. In fact, that's something they are proud of, and something the Orthodox criticize the West of lacking.

[quote name='mortify' post='1632219' date='Aug 19 2008, 09:56 PM']I just don't understand why people can't see it's the Roman rite that's threatened by a complete loss of its traditions and not the East.

We are in far more need of securing our rite than the East is.[/quote]

I suspect that it is because you are not very familiar with the Eastern Church. They have been persecuted and subjugated for centuries by manipulative, self-absorbed and overly-political members of the Western Church. The West, on the other hand, has only had problems in the last 50-some years. The difference is quite striking when you see it all together.

[servus Mariae]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1627692' date='Aug 14 2008, 11:01 PM']Sometimes I wish I'd been inducted into the Eastern Church so that I could become a priest and still be married, as I feel a strong call to both positions.
But alas, I'd miss the Latin Rite too much, I think. I don't know, though...you know, I've never attended an Eastern rite mass![/quote]


Well if you thnk about it....becoming a priest is such a greater vocation than entering into marriage. Plus, when you're a priest....you are married- to Christ. The Church becomes your family! A priest gives himself fully to Christ and His CHurch....entering into the sacrament of marriage would hinder you from giving Him everything! He must be your one love...your only love!

Pax tecum!

[mortify]

Apotheoun, if you want to reject Catholic Dogmatta, that is your choice, you certainly have many Catholics on this board coming to your defense. All I can say is, as a supposed Eastern Catholic you are not helping the Orthodox come back into union.

God knows best and He will judge us.

[mortify]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1633447' date='Aug 21 2008, 07:27 AM']Not all Eastern Churches became schismatic. And if you follow Eastern tradition, they really haven't changed their doctrine at all since before the Great Schism. In fact, that's something they are proud of, and something the Orthodox criticize the West of lacking.[/quote]

Friend, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

[quote]I suspect that it is because you are not very familiar with the Eastern Church. They have been persecuted and subjugated for centuries by manipulative, self-absorbed and overly-political members of the Western Church. The West, on the other hand, has only had problems in the last 50-some years. The difference is quite striking when you see it all together.[/quote]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Edited August 21, 2008 by mortify

[lilac_angel]

[quote]Not all Eastern Churches became schismatic. And if you follow Eastern tradition, they really haven't changed their doctrine at all since before the Great Schism. In fact, that's something they are proud of, and something the Orthodox criticize the West of lacking.[/quote]

I've seen many Eastern Orthodox saying that homosexuality is fine. One (homosexual Orthodox) guy even was so arrogant as to say that they were the one true Catholic Church, and "Romanism" isn't Catholic, let alone Christian.

Since they don't have one authority, they can pick and choose which bishops or Church Fathers to believe.

The Eastern Orthodox Church [b]believes in the possibility of a "change of situation" for the souls of the dead through the prayers of the living and the offering of the Divine Liturgy[/b] -- yet they don't believe in Purgatory. Many Orthodox, especially among ascetics, hope and pray for a general apocatastasis.

In other words, man can save man and oppose another man's free will of rejecting God. The earliest church, well before the schism, taught that once a man is dead, he is immediately judged.

I wonder how they interpret "cleansing fire" from the Bible?

The two different wordings of the Holy Spirit were both used in very early Christianity. I've seen ours used even more, personally. But my point is that sometimes I think Eastern Orthodox (or even possibly Eastern Catholics) may misunderstand how we view the Trinity and not realize just how similar it is, despite the different wording.

Edited August 21, 2008 by lilac_angel

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1633854' date='Aug 21 2008, 04:36 PM']I've seen many Eastern Orthodox saying that homosexuality is fine. One (homosexual Orthodox) guy even was so arrogant as to say that they were the one true Catholic Church, and "Romanism" isn't Catholic, let alone Christian.[/quote]
I have no doubt that there are many misguided individuals in the Orthodox Church, who -- like the man you mentioned in your post -- believe that homosexual desires are not intrinsically disordered in their finality, and who also believe that homosexual acts are not gravely sinful; but of course I have met Catholics who hold the same untenable position. The fact that some people are in error on moral issues -- both Catholic and Orthodox -- hardly impugns the authority of either ecclesial body as a whole.

By the way, many of the Catholics that I have met who believe that the homosexual condition is a "gift" and that homosexual acts are not gravely immoral are priests, including the co-founder of the [i]National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries[/i] (NACDLGM), who told me that the homosexual inclination is a gift of grace, and that the Church must encourage the "gay" gifts of God's children as a sign of our acceptance of their homosexual identity. Now, I refuse to judge the Catholic Church as being in error because of the erroneous positions taken by many bishops, priests, and members of the laity on touchy moral issues like homosexuality, contraception, and abortion.

I will respond to some of your other comments in a future post.
[mod]removal of scandalous link - Lil Red[/mod]

Edited August 24, 2008 by Lil Red

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1633854' date='Aug 21 2008, 04:36 PM']The Eastern Orthodox Church [b]believes in the possibility of a "change of situation" for the souls of the dead through the prayers of the living and the offering of the Divine Liturgy[/b] -- yet they don't believe in Purgatory. Many Orthodox, especially among ascetics, hope and pray for a general apocatastasis.

In other words, man can save man and oppose another man's free will of rejecting God. The earliest church, well before the schism, taught that once a man is dead, he is immediately judged.[/quote]
[i]Apokatastasis[/i] is misunderstood by most Western Christians and even by a few Eastern Christians, but anyone who rejects the doctrine of [i]apokatastasis[/i] -- properly understood -- is ultimately denying a fundamental teaching of sacred scripture (cf. Matthew 17:10-11 and Mark 9:11-12, Acts 3:20-21, and 1st Cor. 15:28) and of the early Church Fathers.

That said, there are important distinctions that must be made if one is to avoid the heretical notion that hell is only temporary, and these necessary theological distinctions were expressed most clearly by St. Maximos the Confessor, who said that, "The Church knows three [i]apokatastases[/i]. One is the [[i]apokatastasis[/i]] of everything according to the principle ([i]logos[/i]) of virtue; in this [i]apokatastasis[/i] one is restored who fulfills the principle of virtue in himself. The second is that of the whole [human nature] in the Resurrection. This is the [i]apokatastasis[/i] to incorruption and immortality. The third, in the oft-cited words of Gregory of Nyssa, is the [i]apokatastasis[/i] of the powers of the soul which, having lapsed into sin, are again restored to that condition in which they were created. For it is necessary that just as the entire nature of the flesh hopes in time to be taken up again into incorruption in the [i]apokatastasis[/i], so also the powers of the soul, having become distorted during the course of the ages had instilled in it a memory of evil, so that at the end of ages, not finding any rest, will come to God Who has no limit. And thus the distorted powers of the soul will be taken up into the primeval [i]apokatastasis[/i], into a merely discursive knowledge of, but not into the participation in, the good things [of God], where the Creator is known yet without being the cause of [their] sin." [St. Maximos, [i]Thalassium[/i], PG 90:796BC]

Now in addition to this threefold distinction, which corresponds to salvation, redemption, and damnation, it is also necessary that one make a real distinction between person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) and nature, because all of human nature has been restored through the incarnation of the eternal Logos (i.e., it has been redeemed), and is thus given ever-being (i.e., both the saved and the damned will exist forever); but only the man whose will is personally conformed to virtue through the power of the divine energy will receive ever-well-being (i.e., salvation), while the man who chooses to live a life of evil will receive ever-ill-being (i.e., damnation).

Finally, I will -- for the sake of clarity -- recapitulate (pun intended) what I have stated in the above paragraphs: (1) the first [i]apokatastasis[/i] concerns the possibility of the restoration of virtue in all men brought about by the incarnation of the eternal Logos, who is the principle of virtue in all men, but this [i]apokatastasis[/i] is only experienced by those who actually live virtuously in synergy with God during their earthly life; while (2) the second [i]apokatastasis[/i] is the restoration of all of human nature to ever-being, because both the saints and the damned will now exist forever, since Christ has reversed (i.e., He has destroyed death by death) the process of the dissolution of created existence begun by Adam through the ancestral sin; and finally, (3) the third [i]apokatastasis[/i] concerns the intellectual knowledge of the good possessed by the damned, who -- because they did not live virtuously during their earthly lives -- will not share in [i]theosis[/i], but who will nevertheless be restored in the sense that they will have a discursive knowledge of the good, even though they did not participate actively in the good during their earthly life.

Now, to fail to accept this biblical and patristical doctrine is to become a Manichaean dualist, because such a viewpoint (i.e., believing that the damned somehow remain evil) involves the false idea that evil and sin will somehow persist after the [i]parousia[/i], and that is simply not possible, for as St. Paul said, "When all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." [1st Corinthians 15:28]

Edited August 23, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

Apotheoun, I'm sorry, but every time you post, I end up getting confused beyond any chance of figuring it out. You know waaaaaay more than I can fit through my eyes into my brain.
I don't think I can become a theologian.