Topic: Is theosis possible for those in communion with Rome?

[Irish Hermit]

  And, quite frankly, whether in the afterlife one will behold the essence of God or communicate with His energies is a matter of speculative theology that has no consequences for how we live in this world. 

I imagine that those who live out of the world, people like the monks of Mount Athos, would not agree with you.

[Irish Hermit]

1.  So you are saying that all Catholic utterances, in word or print, unless part of the magisterium, are worthless?  Kinda sounds that way.  That's quite an assertion!!

I am not asserting it personally.  This is what we are told frequently on this forum by Catholic members.   Go back and find a thread on limbo, to take one example.


The Orthodox often forget the importance of the Magisterium for Catholics.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Tradition and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their tradition has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena-opinion.  Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived.  Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

There actually is a great gulf between our Churches on this matter.  The certainty of our faith is grounded in our Tradition,.  The certainty of the Roman Catholic faith is grounded in magisterial statements.  In other words, the faith is effectively taken out of the hands of the Church as a whole.  The faithful are disenfranchised and the faith is posited in the hands of a small elite group known as "the Magisterium."  I frankly would not wish to be in communion with a Church which has this disjunct between its upper echelon and the great majority of its members.

[Peter J]

I was under the impression that he did talk about "created grace", so I took a look (not a very thorough look tbh). I managed to find "Is there created grace in Christ?" Now I haven't analysed this very thoroughly, and I can think of a number of possible alternatives (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that "created grace" is actually a bad translation of something Aquinas said -- just consider situation with the phrase "praying to the saints"). But it appears to go against the idea that 'The phrase "created grace" comes later' than Aquinas.

Torrell would agree with you.  I suppose what I was remembering was the text of a lecture where the instructor indicated that the phrase created grace was never used by St. Thomas without the explanation that is offered in Torrell's text below.  I went back and listened to the pertinent section of the lecture and found that I had conflated two ideas and drawn the wrong conclusion.  Nevertheless the notion of created grace is not what Orthodox believers generally say that it is in fact:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9s4qJ78nzW8C&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Does+Aquinas+use+the+phrase+created+grace&source=bl&ots=rfgAVqHU82&sig=JdWlRNi-OYBUbDno6ITjxzUji4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QMcYT6O6JuHx0gGg2rjqCw&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Does%20Aquinas%20use%20the%20phrase%20created%20grace&f=false

I clicked on the link, but then I decided not to wade through several paragraphs. Perhaps you could tell us what conclusion you draw from that article. Does it support:

There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.

?

[Irish Hermit]

i am hearing the sound of hairs being split...

My brain has been working for decades, for sixty five years now!   I think it is quite grateful for the polemical interaction here because it may assist it to stave off the inevitable for more years to come.   

[Deacon Lance]

Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis? 

How many Orthodox would?  The ignorance of the majority does not make or break a teaching.

[Deacon Lance]

You [Fr. Ambrose] elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing.  They are not equivalent.

Hesychasm is the means of progressing in theosis on this earth. They are not equivalent but they are inseparable.   I do not know about progress in theosis in the afterlife.

I thought the Holy Mysteries were the means of theosis on this earth.  Given that 99.9% of all Orthodox aren't hesychasts I find your assertation unsustainable.  Saying the Jesus Prayer, even devoutly and often, does not make one a hesychast.  Only the monastic, poustinik, and pilgrim can attain the non-attachment, silence, and stillness necessary to become  a hesychast.

[Irish Hermit]

We were taught that hesychasm is the fast track of theosis.  it brings a greater measure of theosis into the earthly life of the hesychast than of your average Christian.

Think of it in a monastic environment...... yes, both monastics and laymen have access to the exact same Sacraments but the monastic benefits by living inside a system focused entirely on spiritual progress and the elimination of all extraneous hindrances.

You [Fr. Ambrose] elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing.  They are not equivalent.

Hesychasm is the means of progressing in theosis on this earth. They are not equivalent but they are inseparable.   I do not know about progress in theosis in the afterlife.

I thought the Holy Mysteries were the means of theosis on this earth.  Given that 99.9% of all Orthodox aren't hesychasts I find your assertation unsustainable.  Saying the Jesus Prayer, even devoutly and often, does not make one a hesychast.  Only the monastic, poustinik, and pilgrim can attain the non-attachment, silence, and stillness necessary to become  a hesychast.

[elijahmaria]

You and most of the Orthodox that I know treat the beatific vision as though it is a movie on a screen or a lovely sunrise or something to be viewed.  I suppose it is because of the word "vision"...

I've sent several links to this thread where it is clear that the beatific vision refers to our participation in the divine life, in life everlasting...We become both the image and likeness of God and we participate in his essential nature as adopted sons and daughters...greater even than the angels.

The Beatific Vision has been defined de fide as the contemplation and enjoyment of the Divine Essence.  Now you have extended that to participation in the Divine Essence!!?  Of course your additional assertion is not de fide and carries no significance beyond your personal opinion.

All the same it is astounding that we find a Ruthenian Catholic proclaiming something which is heretical in orthodox theology.

I guess I am only competent when you want to use me to attack Dragani...

Your tilting at Catholic magisterial teaching is pretty infantile...IMNSHO

M.

[elijahmaria]

  And, quite frankly, whether in the afterlife one will behold the essence of God or communicate with His energies is a matter of speculative theology that has no consequences for how we live in this world. 

I imagine that those who live out of the world, people like the monks of Mount Athos, would not agree with you.

I have always found it to be of great interest that St. Symeon the New Theologian, one of the very very few to be given the title "Theologian" stated quite clearly that only monastics were sufficiently disciplined to achieve the kind of sanctity required for theosis.  Not even bishops were automatically capable of being taken up into the union of theosis.

So your exemplars seem to be quite apt.

M.

[elijahmaria]

1.  So you are saying that all Catholic utterances, in word or print, unless part of the magisterium, are worthless?  Kinda sounds that way.  That's quite an assertion!!

I am not asserting it personally.  This is what we are told frequently on this forum by Catholic members.   Go back and find a thread on limbo, to take one example.


The Orthodox often forget the importance of the Magisterium for Catholics.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Tradition and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their tradition has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena-opinion.  Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived.  Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

There actually is a great gulf between our Churches on this matter.  The certainty of our faith is grounded in our Tradition,.  The certainty of the Roman Catholic faith is grounded in magisterial statements.  In other words, the faith is effectively taken out of the hands of the Church as a whole.  The faithful are disenfranchised and the faith is posited in the hands of a small elite group known as "the Magisterium."  I frankly would not wish to be in communion with a Church which has this disjunct between its upper echelon and the great majority of its members.

Nice cartoon but it doesn't say much about any Catholic reality.

If it entertains then I suppose there's no real harm done.

[FatherGiryus]

Mary, my sense is that we Orthodox see the Magisterium of Rome as the 'lynch pin' of Roman Catholic teachings.  There is a single point of reference, a single authority, for all teachings.

This has given the RCC the ability to conduct major changes in theology and practice in a very brief period of time, such as the Novo Ordo, which the Orthodox Church simply could never do even if a majority of the bishops resolved to do just that.  Our diversification of authority, through the notion of common Apostolic succession to all bishops, prevents such changes.

For this reason, we tend to look at RCC tradition as a dictate of the Magisterium.  All saints, all writings, all teachings come through this single entity, whereas Orthodox teachings come from a consensus perspective: we don't have a single interpretive office.

Now, there may be particulars in how that single office conducts business, and I imagine that given the size and history of the Vatican makes even small changes rather difficult, but they are certainly easier to accomplish than getting a room full of Russians and Greeks to sit down and agree to anything!   

1.  So you are saying that all Catholic utterances, in word or print, unless part of the magisterium, are worthless?  Kinda sounds that way.  That's quite an assertion!!

I am not asserting it personally.  This is what we are told frequently on this forum by Catholic members.   Go back and find a thread on limbo, to take one example.


The Orthodox often forget the importance of the Magisterium for Catholics.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Tradition and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their tradition has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena-opinion.  Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived.  Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

There actually is a great gulf between our Churches on this matter.  The certainty of our faith is grounded in our Tradition,.  The certainty of the Roman Catholic faith is grounded in magisterial statements.  In other words, the faith is effectively taken out of the hands of the Church as a whole.  The faithful are disenfranchised and the faith is posited in the hands of a small elite group known as "the Magisterium."  I frankly would not wish to be in communion with a Church which has this disjunct between its upper echelon and the great majority of its members.

Nice cartoon but it doesn't say much about any Catholic reality.

If it entertains then I suppose there's no real harm done.

[Irish Hermit]

Your tilting at Catholic magisterial teaching is pretty infantile...IMNSHO

M.

To a well formed Catholic conscience, the so-called Magisterium IS the teaching voice of Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

[xariskai]

Mary, my sense is that we Orthodox see the Magisterium of Rome as the 'lynch pin' of Roman Catholic teachings.  There is a single point of reference, a single authority, for all teachings.

This has given the RCC the ability to conduct major changes in theology and practice in a very brief period of time, such as the Novo Ordo, which the Orthodox Church simply could never do even if a majority of the bishops resolved to do just that.  Our diversification of authority, through the notion of common Apostolic succession to all bishops, prevents such changes.

Glory to God!

This for me is pivotal. There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians. There is no trace of papal infallibility or even the germ of what developed into it according to their own Cardinal/historian Yves Congar for over a thousand years. The notion that certain truths of morality may be arrived at by discursive reason apart from Roman Catholic faith, a dogma of the Catholic Church, is met with almost universal denial of this alleged ability by philosophers who are not Roman Catholics with the paradoxical result that Roman Catholics today are virtually alone in defending it. Aquinas according to Jesuit philosopher Fr. Frederick Copleston was majorly controversial in his own day, but all that changed after a single proclamation after 1869. It has formed the "basis" for Magisterial ethical pronouncements that have been rejected even by the vast majority of practicing Roman Catholics themselves. The notion that we can see the essence of God in Beatific Vision, which no first millennium father ever taught, is Roman Catholic dogma. We even have Roman Catholics on this forum arguing they reach "parity" with God in their own "theosis." Prooftexting from the fathers by amateur Catholic apologists with horrible attention to context is indistinguishable from fundamentalist prooftexting from the Bible (it begins to look like the same species a of fundamentalism). The recent fling with Calvinistic modeled liturgical innovation is a travesty to many thoughtful Roman Catholics themselves. Their concept of merit theology has been shown to have originated in the medieval period and all major contemporary Pauline scholars have abandoned the notion that it is found in the NT or the first Christian millennium, or that it is reasonable to suppose it properly interprets NT data. There are many other examples, but almost any one of the above alone would be a deal breaker for me personally. In the Orthodox Church I can worship with no dissent; in the Roman Catholic Church I would have to be a dissenter (with 90% of other Roman Catholics according to the most recent poll, but that still would give me little personal comfort). The Roman Catholic Church, its papacy, its Magisterium, its dogma, is a product of cultural development (to my mind devolution by accretion) *away* from the early church in the same way Protestantism is -no wonder Alexis Khomiakov  said Protestantism was hatched from the egg Rome laid- and despite the continual protests from Roman Catholics who say over and over again "we are the same! I see no difference between us! Let us redefine it all for you! What definition would you find acceptable? Why do you not join us under the pope?" The Roman Catholics excoriate the Protestants on a continual basis for departing from the faith of the early fathers and with hardly a blink tell Orthodox how foolish they are for questioning major aspects of their own faith of even more recent origin than the Reformation! All I can say -from a personal point of view- is thank God for the Orthodox Church!

[Cavaradossi]

i am hearing the sound of hairs being split...

I honestly would expect that such a sound would involve much fewer words than what I see here.

[mabsoota]

it's actually very tricky to split hairs, this is why i used that image.
 
may we all spend lots of time in prayer to God so He reveals to us all how we can and should get closer to Him.

[Peter J]

The Roman Catholics excoriate the Protestants on a continual basis for departing from the faith of the early fathers and with hardly a blink tell Orthodox how foolish they are for questioning major aspects of their own faith of even more recent origin than the Reformation!

That's one of the main things that troubles me about my fellow Roman Catholics (also one of the reasons I no longer participate on the Catholic Answers Forum).

[elijahmaria]

Your tilting at Catholic magisterial teaching is pretty infantile...IMNSHO

M.

To a well formed Catholic conscience, the so-called Magisterium IS the teaching voice of Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

That's right and I mean both statements. 

You demonstrate a clear ignorance of a principled and schooled understanding of the magisterial charge in the Catholic Church.

I do not know if that ignorance is real or contrived but you spend an awful load of words that signify nothing but a pandering to the cartoon of what makes the Catholic Church one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

You are quick to say that you don't believe we are one, holy, catholic or apostolic, so why would you express her teaching with anything approximating a principled approach?  There are excellent texts on the Internet to which I have directed your line of sight many times and you brush it all off like the texts are just so many flies on scat.

So if I show a dearth of respect for your presentation of Catholic truths...I believe there is justification for that lack which is real and profound.

If I were you I'd be shamed to have to hold a position by having to tell falsehoods about someone else.

When I started this journey of mine seventeen years ago, I thought Orthodoxy and the Orthodox were better than that.  Today I do not hold that same confidence.

Mary

[FatherGiryus]

What is also fascinating is that, despite a centralized system for recognizing and proclaiming dogmas, there is still a great deal of dissent and disagreement within RCC circles.  We have seen Mary and other RCs go at it here in ways that we Orthodox do without a single magisterium. 

I think the larger problem of the RCC and the protestants is one of approach: there is a great deal more emphasis on a singularity of authority, which led to extremes of Papal authority versus strictly personal authority. 

A few years ago, I heard a story about a convert Orthodox priest who took a doctorate in a European university.  His focus was on the writings of St. John Chrysostom. A member of his defense board asked him what was the compelling reason for reading St. John and, in essence, why should anyone care what St. John has to say about anything.  The priest, never having attended an Orthodox seminary and in many ways self-taught, replied that St. John was 'authoritative' in the Orthodox Church and that was enough of a reason.  The faculty, having little knowledge of Orthodoxy, went along with his argument.  If they had asked him for proof, he might well have flunked.  There is no 'authoritative declaration' on St. John, though any fool knows that St. John is taken extremely seriously.

Without a magisterium, we have done rather well with staying on a single theological track.  Even the RCC recognizes this.  I think their primary objections to us boils down to the acceptance of their magisterium, and are willing to even accept our rebellion against some of their dogmas (i.e. filioque, no purgatory, original sin as guilt, etc.).  But, herein lies the problem: if a dogma is a dogma, then shouldn't everyone follow it?  Is it true or isn't it?

And so we have the problem: it seems like the priority within the RCC is the magisterium, which can both pronounce and exempt dogmas, enforcing them here but permit their renunciation elsewhere.  So, a RCC priest may serve in a Latin Rite parish for many years and utter the filioque as fact, but then be reassigned to an Byz-Rite Catholic parish and skip over that dogma thus rejecting it.

This gets into the matter of authority: in the Orthodox Church, fact and authority are on an equal level.  Thus, an Orthodox bishop does not have the right by nature of his office to make theological pronouncements to redefine the faith.  At best, he can only defend what he has received, but to compose new revelations is outside his bounds.  Once he strays, he comes under scrutiny of all the other bishops.  Not even a patriarch can avoid being scrutinized. 

Whereas in the RCC, the bishop of Rome has supremacy over the communication of fact, since he defines and revises these communications.  The pope cannot be scrutinized.  His cardinals cannot disagree and forbid him in camera or out.  It is his name, not that of his synod, that is attached to doctrinal statements.

This relation of authority and fact is what is the primal separation between the RCC and the OC.

Mary, my sense is that we Orthodox see the Magisterium of Rome as the 'lynch pin' of Roman Catholic teachings.  There is a single point of reference, a single authority, for all teachings.

This has given the RCC the ability to conduct major changes in theology and practice in a very brief period of time, such as the Novo Ordo, which the Orthodox Church simply could never do even if a majority of the bishops resolved to do just that.  Our diversification of authority, through the notion of common Apostolic succession to all bishops, prevents such changes.

Glory to God!

This for me is pivotal. There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians. There is no trace of papal infallibility or even the germ of what developed into it according to their own Cardinal/historian Yves Congar for over a thousand years. The notion that certain truths of morality may be arrived at by discursive reason apart from Roman Catholic faith, a dogma of the Catholic Church, is met with almost universal denial of this alleged ability by philosophers who are not Roman Catholics with the paradoxical result that Roman Catholics today are virtually alone in defending it. Aquinas according to Jesuit philosopher Fr. Frederick Copleston was majorly controversial in his own day, but all that changed after a single proclamation after 1869. It has formed the "basis" for Magisterial ethical pronouncements that have been rejected even by the vast majority of practicing Roman Catholics themselves. The notion that we can see the essence of God in Beatific Vision, which no first millennium father ever taught, is Roman Catholic dogma. We even have Roman Catholics on this forum arguing they reach "parity" with God in their own "theosis." Prooftexting from the fathers by amateur Catholic apologists with horrible attention to context is indistinguishable from fundamentalist prooftexting from the Bible (it begins to look like the same species a of fundamentalism). The recent fling with Calvinistic modeled liturgical innovation is a travesty to many thoughtful Roman Catholics themselves. Their concept of merit theology has been shown to have originated in the medieval period and all major contemporary Pauline scholars have abandoned the notion that it is found in the NT or the first Christian millennium, or that it is reasonable to suppose it properly interprets NT data. There are many other examples, but almost any one of the above alone would be a deal breaker for me personally. In the Orthodox Church I can worship with no dissent; in the Roman Catholic Church I would have to be a dissenter (with 90% of other Roman Catholics according to the most recent poll, but that still would give me little personal comfort). The Roman Catholic Church, its papacy, its Magisterium, its dogma, is a product of cultural development (to my mind devolution by accretion) *away* from the early church in the same way Protestantism is -no wonder Alexis Khomiakov  said Protestantism was hatched from the egg Rome laid- and despite the continual protests from Roman Catholics who say over and over again "we are the same! I see no difference between us! Let us redefine it all for you! What definition would you find acceptable? Why do you not join us under the pope?" The Roman Catholics excoriate the Protestants on a continual basis for departing from the faith of the early fathers and with hardly a blink tell Orthodox how foolish they are for questioning major aspects of their own faith of even more recent origin than the Reformation! All I can say -from a personal point of view- is thank God for the Orthodox Church!

[FatherGiryus]

So, what you are saying is that in order to be fair about addressing something, one must first believe it to be true?

<snip>You are quick to say that you don't believe we are one, holy, catholic or apostolic, so why would you express her teaching with anything approximating a principled approach? 
<snip>

[J Michael]

Your tilting at Catholic magisterial teaching is pretty infantile...IMNSHO

M.

To a well formed Catholic conscience, the so-called Magisterium IS the teaching voice of Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

What is your point here?

These two statements from Mary are unrelated and in no way mutually exclusive.

[J Michael]

So, what you are saying is that in order to be fair about addressing something, one must first believe it to be true?

<snip>You are quick to say that you don't believe we are one, holy, catholic or apostolic, so why would you express her teaching with anything approximating a principled approach? 
<snip>

I know I'm slow and somewhat dense at times, but...how on earth did you reach *that* conclusion?

[Irish Hermit]

You are quick to say that you don't believe we are one, holy, catholic or apostolic, so why would you express her teaching with anything approximating a principled approach? 

But that is a horrendous thing to say of me and I expect that what you are doing is reflecting your own behaviour and assuming I act in the same way.  Just because one believes that one's Church is the true Church does not imply they will lie about other Churches  and their teaching.  I am astounded that you would have such a thought in your head.

[Irish Hermit]

I've sent several links to this thread where it is clear that the beatific vision refers to our participation in the divine life, in life everlasting...We become both the image and likeness of God and we participate in his essential nature as adopted sons and daughters...greater even than the angels.

Do we need a parallel thread to this one?

Is the contemplation of and participation in the Essence of God possible for the Orthodox?

"That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336):

"We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868)."

"Supernatural character of heaven and the beatific vision"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

[Irish Hermit]

Your tilting at Catholic magisterial teaching is pretty infantile...IMNSHO

M.

To a well formed Catholic conscience, the so-called Magisterium IS the teaching voice of Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

What is your point here?

I am not "tilting" at the Magisterium.

My point is that I am describing the Magisterium and its function in a way consistent with what Mary wrote of it.

[Deacon Lance]

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

What says the section on heaven in the new Ukrainian Catechism?  Do they follow Rome and speak of contemplating God's essence?

1 John 3:2 - Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 Cor 13:12 - For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/browse.html

You are saying that the Roman Catholic teaching that eternity is the contemplation of the divine essence in the Beatific Vision is also the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

I am saying I don't think the Eastern and Western traditions are opposed although they use different terminology and framework.

[Irish Hermit]

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

What says the section on heaven in the new Ukrainian Catechism?  Do they follow Rome and speak of contemplating God's essence?

1 John 3:2 - Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 Cor 13:12 - For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/browse.html

You are saying that the Roman Catholic teaching that eternity is the contemplation of the divine essence in the Beatific Vision is also the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

I am saying I don't think the Eastern and Western traditions are opposed although they use different terminology and framework.

The dogmatic teaching of Rome is clear - your people in heaven contemplate and enjoy the Divine Essence and Mary says they participate in it.

This goes way beyond terminology.

One presumes that Eastern Catholics have been obliged to accept this?  It has after all received papal definition.

[biro]

Let's remember, only Irish Hermit knows what Roman and Eastern Catholics actually teach and believe, and never mind if the actual experiences of those people should differ. 

[FatherGiryus]

Because she said, '...so why would you...'  She equated his disbelief with principles.

So, what you are saying is that in order to be fair about addressing something, one must first believe it to be true?

<snip>You are quick to say that you don't believe we are one, holy, catholic or apostolic, so why would you express her teaching with anything approximating a principled approach? 
<snip>

I know I'm slow and somewhat dense at times, but...how on earth did you reach *that* conclusion?

[Irish Hermit]

Let's remember, only Irish Hermit knows what Roman and Eastern Catholics actually teach and believe, and never mind if the actual experiences of those people should differ. 

Let's remember, only Irish Hermit knows what Roman and Eastern Catholics actually teach and believe, and never mind if the actual experiences of those people should differ. 

The teaching of the Catholic belief has been defined by the Pope.  See message 292.  I do at least afford him the courtesy of believing he is knowledgeable about his own belief system.   And I am not going to fudge it.  I know Roman Catholic belief somewhat thanks to passing through their primary, secondary and tertiary institutions.

[Irish Hermit]

If I were you I'd be shamed to have to hold a position by having to tell falsehoods about someone else.

I'd be shamed too, if I did it!

[FatherGiryus]

You and I have the distinction of both having defended Roman Catholic bishops against Mary!   

Let's remember, only Irish Hermit knows what Roman and Eastern Catholics actually teach and believe, and never mind if the actual experiences of those people should differ. 

Let's remember, only Irish Hermit knows what Roman and Eastern Catholics actually teach and believe, and never mind if the actual experiences of those people should differ. 

The teaching of the Catholic belief has been defined by the Pope.  See message 292.  I do at least afford him the courtesy of believing he is knowledgeable about his own belief system.   And I am not going to fudge it.  I know Roman Catholic belief somewhat thanks to passing through their primary, secondary and tertiary institutions.

[biro]

The teaching of the Catholic belief has been defined by the Pope.  See message 292.  I do at least afford him the courtesy of believing he is knowledgeable about his own belief system.   And I am not going to fudge it.  I know Roman Catholic belief somewhat thanks to passing through their primary, secondary and tertiary institutions.

...such as The College of Stuff You Heard Somewhere from Somebody.

[biro]

There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians.

Somebody better tell St. Pope Martin and the other Roman Popes who are still commemorated in the Orthodox Church.

[Irish Hermit]

There are excellent texts on the Internet to which I have directed your line of sight many times and you brush it all off like the texts are just so many flies on scat.

Mary,  I am not going to spend time reading through 40 pages of webtext, and I am not even sure that I will find whatever you want me to see.

You want to quote something?  Quote it.  Don't ask your correspondent to spend half an hour reading web material.

[Irish Hermit]

The teaching of the Catholic belief has been defined by the Pope.  See message 292.  I do at least afford him the courtesy of believing he is knowledgeable about his own belief system.   And I am not going to fudge it.  I know Roman Catholic belief somewhat thanks to passing through their primary, secondary and tertiary institutions.

...such as The College of Stuff You Heard Somewhere from Somebody.

Whatever! What an insolent little monkey... 

[FatherGiryus]

Ah, well, you know that the Church recognizes St. Augustine as a martyr, not as a theologian.  Sainthood does not make everything a saint did or said perfect...

There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians.

Somebody better tell St. Pope Martin and the other Roman Popes who are still commemorated in the Orthodox Church.

[biro]

Wow. You just called me a monkey.

The cake has been duly taken.

It's about time for that letter to my priest- and I'm sorry but neither him nor I are going to like it very much.

I just don't know what I'm going to do about the last two years of my life.

[biro]

Ah, well, you know that the Church recognizes St. Augustine as a martyr, not as a theologian.  Sainthood does not make everything a saint did or said perfect...

There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians.

Somebody better tell St. Pope Martin and the other Roman Popes who are still commemorated in the Orthodox Church.

Ah, the old codicil, the ever-so-valuable eraser: "When is a saint not a saint? When I don't like him very much..."

[Irish Hermit]

Somebody better tell St. Pope Martin and the other Roman Popes who are still commemorated in the Orthodox Church.

Here is a listing...

The Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome

See message 128
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13801.msg305418.html#msg305418

[FatherGiryus]

How about this one: 'Never confuse a Holy Father with the Holy Spirit.'?

No saint is infallible.

Ah, well, you know that the Church recognizes St. Augustine as a martyr, not as a theologian.  Sainthood does not make everything a saint did or said perfect...

There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians.

Somebody better tell St. Pope Martin and the other Roman Popes who are still commemorated in the Orthodox Church.

Ah, the old codicil, the ever-so-valuable eraser: "When is a saint not a saint? When I don't like him very much..."

[biro]

How about this one: 'Never confuse a Holy Father with the Holy Spirit.'?

No saint is infallible.

Ah, well, you know that the Church recognizes St. Augustine as a martyr, not as a theologian.  Sainthood does not make everything a saint did or said perfect...

There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians.

Somebody better tell St. Pope Martin and the other Roman Popes who are still commemorated in the Orthodox Church.

Ah, the old codicil, the ever-so-valuable eraser: "When is a saint not a saint? When I don't like him very much..."

Okay. I give up. Shame we make all those saints when they're not saints, or something.

[FatherGiryus]

Biro, saints aren't perfect.  They are 'being perfected' and are much further along than we generally are, but that does not make them 'perfect.'  They are humans who lived as we do and had their own shares of defeats as we all do.

As you progress in your catechism, you'll understand this.  We cannot idealize anyone.  Only God is perfect: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How about this one: 'Never confuse a Holy Father with the Holy Spirit.'?

No saint is infallible.

Ah, well, you know that the Church recognizes St. Augustine as a martyr, not as a theologian.  Sainthood does not make everything a saint did or said perfect...

There are far too many things taught by the Roman Catholic Magisterium as dogma that there is no scrap of whatsoever in the entire first Christian millennium. The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians.

Somebody better tell St. Pope Martin and the other Roman Popes who are still commemorated in the Orthodox Church.

Ah, the old codicil, the ever-so-valuable eraser: "When is a saint not a saint? When I don't like him very much..."

Okay. I give up. Shame we make all those saints when they're not saints, or something.

[Ortho_cat]

I knwo enough about Orthodoxy to say that "contemplating and seeing the divine essence of God" is completely opposite/heretical to Orthodox teaching. Some may call it splitting hairs, but if I ever heard an Orthodox person teach or claim such, I would be dumbfounded.

[biro]

So when you 'go to Heaven'  and 'enter the Presence of God,' what is it? A test pattern? 

[Wyatt]

So when you 'go to Heaven'  and 'enter the Presence of God,' what is it? A test pattern? 

Apparently you won't ever get to fully experience God, not even in heaven, since there is a part of God known as His "essence" that is forever hidden from us.