tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post2493392033652999551..comments2024-03-07T00:43:49.073-08:00Comments on a..sinner: A Response to Dr. Carson--Thoughts on the Orthodox Catholic Faith--Part IISophocleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-49992520729327679252008-07-29T23:46:00.000-07:002008-07-29T23:46:00.000-07:00Also,John and Jay,I am not against systemitising p...Also,<BR/><BR/>John and Jay,<BR/><BR/>I am not against systemitising per se but I hold to your view, John, above.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-42390207594590301322008-07-29T23:28:00.000-07:002008-07-29T23:28:00.000-07:00John,Thank you for your comments. I am in complet...John,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comments. I am in complete agreement with everything you said<BR/><BR/>What I was attempting to capture in this post in part was the view or condition of the human being at the very specific point in time the Lord became Incarnate and to convey that another reason this Faith we speak of and hold is called "Orthodox" is not only does it properly maintain and proclaim God in the Persons of the Trinity in their Nature and relation One to Another but that also the correct, or "Orthodox" view of the human condition as encountered by Christ is also properly maintained and proclaimed. Without this condition what it means to "be saved" is itself in danger of being fully known and experienced by Fallen Man.<BR/><BR/>I think you rightly point out that "East and West" is far deeper than to merely imply geography but you ably point out what I hope I showed in the first part of my essay of there being a such thing as a Faith not necessarily contingent on which Place that Faith presently subsists in. <BR/><BR/>You state:<BR/><BR/><I>"It could well have been the other way around if the East had moved from the Catholic (Orthodox) Faith and the West remained faithful." </I><BR/><BR/>I appreciate your comments in regards to philosophy and its use or purpose in and by the Church.<BR/><BR/>As well, a very good observation about how the East and West shared that one Mind at one time but now do not and this being an evidence or proof that indeed we are possessed of a different faith.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-91336511552448163172008-07-29T23:00:00.000-07:002008-07-29T23:00:00.000-07:00Jay, Thank you, I am doing well. I hope you are a...Jay,<BR/> <BR/>Thank you, I am doing well. I hope you are also. <BR/><BR/>Several things.<BR/><BR/>Quickly, I wish you to know how this essay came into being so that first and foremost it may not be construed by you in a personal fashion as against you or your decision.<BR/><BR/>I wrote my initial response to your "Retraction" and was content to leave it at that.<BR/><BR/>When Professor Carson wrote his article, "Real Catholics" and used my essay as a backdrop for his own article's intent, this set off many ideas inside me that I felt needed to be put in print to better help my own understanding.<BR/><BR/>I was able to do this because at just about this time I was hospitalized and the recovery time(out of work) was over three weeks.<BR/>This gave me the precious commodity I previously lacked(time) to undetake a response of Dr. Carson's response of my response to your "Retraction".<BR/><BR/>As I began writing I realized I had alot to say and that one post containing the whole article would be too long. That is why I have notified you each time there has been a different post. <BR/><BR/> As of now, I am still working on the third part and I may do a 4th if I feel it is warranted.<BR/><BR/>The initial impetus to spur this writing was that in his article, Dr. Carson missed my speaking of a Faith which was not dependent on Place, though again, the two may converge and subsist in time and space. I used this to speak specifically of Professor Carson's use of something I said in my original article to something you spoke of in your "Retraction"(this tracing itself is sort of complex- Whew!) The quote of mine he alluded to:<BR/><BR/><I>"The citations Jay provides were written at a time when Rome herself was indeed Orthodox, and from the high remarks lavished on her in lieu not only of her position as the First See but also because of her exemplary Orthodoxy and the keeping of that one salvific Faith preserved and undiminished when other Sees were beset with heresy.<BR/><BR/>Rome was Orthodox and this is why the East "tolerated" her position because they were brethren, confessing one and the same Faith together and gladly accorded primacy, as it, primacy, existed then in its proper context."</I><BR/><BR/>I spoke on "Faith" and "Place" to speak of specifically of there being a such thing as a Faith to be had which did not necessarily(though it does not exclude)necessitate it subsisting in Place and this with the above quote Dr. Carson used as the context to make once again the statement that the Faith Rome once held is the Faith still maintained by the Church today which calls itself "Orthodox".<BR/><BR/>As you noticed I did not offer by way of explanation how Rome ceased to be Orthodox but the record shows historically that what today the "West" regards as "Eastern", or "Orthodox" is in fact the "West's" Mother Faith, or Original Faith.<BR/><BR/>So in this sense I believe you have misunderstood of this Faith as being something separate and distinct which one may have or possess or not. I think this may offer some explanatory power by way of your using the Uniates and Coptic Catholics as a way of collapsing two separate themes running through these two first parts(though they are not unrelated), namely, speaking of the Faith and secondly speaking of the "Mind of the Church" or the "Eastern Mind" into one theme> <BR/><BR/>I am developing two separate and distinct ideas here. <BR/><BR/>I believe John's post, the one after yours has great merit and fills in significant gaps in what I did not say in speaking of this Eastern Mind.<BR/><BR/>And to further note, just because this "Mind of the Church" is elusive is not to say that it does not exist nor that it is impossible to attain.<BR/><BR/>This "Mind" in Eastern writing is synonymous with the "Mind of Christ" which the great ascetical masters have shown is possible to possess as the Gospel commands us to possess this Mind.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I too hold that Christ's Church and Her Faith does transcend East and West.<BR/><BR/>I may in the future elaborate further on this theme of "East" and "West" more along the lines of John's post.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-30867979128619650522008-07-29T15:23:00.000-07:002008-07-29T15:23:00.000-07:00I believe the issue between East and West lies in ...I believe the issue between East and West lies in something deeper that being East and West. The Eastern mind is not more Orthodox because it is Eastern but because the Eastern Churches continue to experience the presence of the Holy Spirit as He is specifically present in the Church since Pentecost. This presence remains in the Eastern Churches but not in those that were once in the West. The real difference of mind is between that of the Spirit and that of the flesh. It could well have been the other way around if the East had moved from the Catholic (Orthodox) Faith and the West remained faithful. Earlier one can see the same mind both in Eastern and Western Churches.<BR/><BR/>The effects of the loss of the Spirit can be seen in the way that theology and especially the ascetic struggle are approached as a general trend, exceptions I am sure can be found. The academic approach to the Fathers reflects this as well as forms of monastic life and church structure. This does not mean that there are not many sincere people in the west trying to follow the way of Christ but, being outside the Church, this following of Christ lacks the depth of Life and experience that is known in the East, although it may still be that much of the way of thinking of the Fathers can be maintained to a degree, such as in the Uniate churches. Of course, to those that have not experienced the depth of Life in the Spirit, it is difficult to see how "champions of faith" may be possibly less true Christians than the Saints. Who can tell the potential of humanity even without the Spirit, consider Buddhist and other ascetics and gurus. Very impressive by some standards. But in Christ? I struggle to see that this would be the case.<BR/><BR/>I believe that the Christian Faith is unified and in some sense able to be "systematised" but it cannot be contained in a system nor is it a system as such because it is a person, Christ. St John of Damascus demonstrates this well. The Church encompasses the fullness of humanity thought and understanding but it is not limited to being mere philosophy. In other words, it can be philosophical but not limited to being a school of philosophy.<BR/><BR/>The Church is indeed neither Eastern nor Western as the Saints in the West testify. It is Catholic. Yet, this does not mean that all those claiming to be Christian are indeed in the Church nor that the present western "churches" are in fact Churches in Christ. If they were then there would be a genuine oneness of mind with the Churches in the East but I don't see this. The true Church is not captive to the "eastern mind" but the "eastern mind", of which is talked, is the mind of the Spirit because this is where the Catholic Churches are found. Outside the Life of the Church this mind is indeed elusive; it cannot be understood fully outside the Church but enough can be grasped to bring one into the Church.<BR/><BR/>The Church being the Incarnate presence of Christ has place even though it is able to be in all places. It is not only something that is restricted to the East but presently its Churches are largely found there, although Orthodox Churches are now found in all parts of the world with "western" members. Thus, the Church has place and so in a sense so has Faith but it is not restricted to a particular place whether it be Jerusalem or Rome.Fr Patrick Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18160878170759493280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-25236772987604547852008-07-29T10:01:00.000-07:002008-07-29T10:01:00.000-07:00Sophocles,Hope you are well. I have heard many ti...Sophocles,<BR/><BR/>Hope you are well. I have heard many times in Orthodox circles the standard criticisms you have given: we are too scholastic, "western" minded, too cataphatic, too academic, etc. And so, to solve all this, all reply we must have an "eastern," "orthodox mind," which usually ends up meaning "stop quoting church fathers to me that back up your position." <BR/><BR/>I don't mean to be rude, but I've read enough Eastern Fathers with the intent of imbuing myself in their Faith (and not just academia) to know that actively engaged in a quite philosophical apologetic. All Eastern Orthodox must admit that St. John Damascene is also a father of medieval scholasticism: he's one of the most quoted in St. Thomas' Summa. To this and examples such as the Confession of Dositheos, it is often replied, "well, those all mean different things to us: you have encased them in a false, western context."<BR/><BR/>I don't buy any of this. Are Uniates western minded? What about Coptic Catholics? How could that even exist, given your analysis? My love is for both East and West, and in Pauline fashion, I exhort you to consider that Christ's true Church is neither East nor West, but surpasses them both, being universal. Doesn't it seem that the true Church would be able to transcend the confines of this elusive, "eastern mind" that everyone harps about, but elevates to almost an impossible attainment?<BR/>Must I move to Athos to truly know Christ? How have you not now fallen into your own criticism that we prefer "place" to the faith?<BR/> <BR/>JayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-39091793123881071382008-07-28T14:10:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:10:00.000-07:00Andrea,Your observations are so spot on.The attain...Andrea,<BR/><BR/>Your observations are so spot on.<BR/><BR/>The attaining of ecstacy is I perceive altogether different than what we in the West believe it to be. Perhaps one of the elements of this ecstacy is once having been set free from the necessity of being surprised and finding something new, we may also cease from our surprise of experiencing this new liberty.<BR/><BR/>And I agree with you about the existential conundrum the human being faces in dealing with freedom and that actually, we fear freedom and are not at ease in it. <BR/><BR/>St. Paul speaks of the great liberty to be enjoyed by the sons of God in Christ. <BR/><BR/>Your observation about Catholicism's filling the need for the giving up of human freedom speaks to the "natural" bent of the fallen condition which gravititates towards the passions, or passivity in it is easier to be a slave to an external authority(and therefore have all your needs taken care of by someone else) than to be a slave of Christ in God in that we are called to put on Christ(He, Himself with all that that encapsulates in His freedom of offering Himself willingly to His Father and to His Father's will).Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-70163754456347283942008-07-28T06:11:00.000-07:002008-07-28T06:11:00.000-07:00Sophocles,I have a sense that personal freedom is ...Sophocles,<BR/><BR/>I have a sense that personal freedom is the thing that is hard to handle when becoming an Eastern Christian. Calvinism certainly negates this, and without freedom there is no responsibility. It is also my impression that Catholicism offers a certain deliverance from freedom as well as seen in Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor and in how I read their ideas of the Church's power to bind and loose. Freedom from freedom is also in their ideas of guaranteed succession regardless of the maintenance of the faith once delivered. <BR/><BR/>Freedom means that I choose intimacy with God by denying myself and my impulsive desires, in order to gain relationship with God who is unchanging. I think in the western quest for knowledge we are continually searching for something new to surprise us. We fear sitting still and dwelling in what we already have - life in Christ. Not that this implies passivity. But in letting Him show us ourselves, we stop and look and have to decide against entertainment and thrills. We have to learn a new way - courage to say no to distracting stimuli - that is the beginning of repentance. To learn that it's not about exciting ecstasy - though Eastern Ascetics do speak of attaining a certain state of that, I think it is different than what westerners imagine. We also fear pain. We have to learn that pain is not to be avoided at all cost and pleasure is not to be sought at all cost. These sensations are not It. They must be subjugated through determining that we will seek Christ no matter what, and let Him sort out the effects. "Thou He slay me, yet will I trust Him," as Job says. Not that we seek out suffering either. We just seek Christ. We have to relearn what love and life is. We've been looking for them in all the wrong places.<BR/><BR/>It is hard when our friends and family wont come with us though. I pray that Jay changes his mind. Some are like the rich young ruler and we watch them go away with sadness. Hey, Luke 18 begins with, "Then he told them a parable about the necessity for them to pray always without becoming weary."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com