You Heard It Here First

For the thinkers, theologians, philospophers.
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2825
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 392 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by Del »

mcommini wrote: 02 Jan 2024, 17:29 Oh, well, first I meant Newman. I'm mainly typing from my tablet these days and constantly fighting autocorrect! Cardinal John Henry. Oh, apparently a Saint for you these days, as of 2019.

The two little words being "Doctrinal Development". From my perspective as an Orthodox Christian these contribute to certain unfortunate declarations of your communion at Vatican I and dear Lord what a field day did they have with them at Vatican II and since.
Oh. "Doctrinal Development" is a lot older than the 1800's.

If Jesus Himself had remained on earth to rule over His Church, even He would have eventually invented words like "Trinity" and "Transubstantiation" and "Immaculate Conception" to describe more clearly what has been revealed.

If the Orthodox have a different opinion, I'm okay with that.

I can't think of any "developments of doctrine" since Vatican II. But there sure was been a lot of forgetting what we know and how we live it, such as filling our seminaries with gay men and whistling past the graveyard regarding the obvious consequences of that decision. Our Francis apparently wasn't paying attention through any of that. We need to put our disciplines back in line with our ancient faith.

Messing with disciplines is nearly as harmful as messing with doctrine, because lex orandi, lex credendi. So I am not dismissing your concerns.

If your Orthodox eye can clearly see actual 'doctrinal developments' in the last 60 years of the Western Church, I would like to hear about them.
mcommini
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 138
Joined: 12 Jul 2022, 15:56
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 41 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by mcommini »

The development my eye discerns are things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception- I don't see too much in the way of development since Vatican II so much as an idea of doctrinal irrelevance, which I think is best exemplified by the current papacy, though I can point to a fair number of Catholic theologians since the 60s who went completely off the reservation and were favored tutors of Pope Francis's favored cardinals.

As far as development itself, a certain amount of explication must occur of course, when error starts to creep in. The Shepherd of Hermas can use Adoptionist language because adoptionism was not yet a thing- it was one of a range of biblical analogies to describe how humanity is united to God in the Son. Once adoptionism is a thing- once a sect takes the analogy and tries to make it the doctrine, that's when the Church steps in and says "not this, that". Begotteness wasn't developed, Begotteness was always there as THE doctrine of the Church, it just wasn't as evident until it was challenged.

Likewise the Trinity- Christian worship had always been in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it is in that Name Christians had always been baptized since the Great Commission, and it had always been a singular Name followed by a plurality of... well, we don't have a word for that yet.

The doctrine of the Trinity didn't need development, it needed definition. We knew He Is One God in Three, it's how we knew to throw Arius out on his rear. But the words... 'omoousion, prosopon, consubstantialem (though we really think you should have translated it coessential, but what do we know), persona, 'ypostasis. The words were not developed, they were treasures plundered from the Egyptians, and used to fashion the borders of the Tabernacle- this far and no further.

And so it always has been. We don't develop, we define. We chip carefully away at this marble to reveal the image of His Bride, we don't add to it.

We can debate whether or not papal infallibility has any grounds in the long debate over primacy until we both turn blue, but the Immaculate Conception is a very good example that I don't think will get too contentious. You show it to us like, "Hey, beardy Catholics, we did a development, isn't it great?" And we don't get it. The level of development to require something like the Immaculate Conception is so far from Eastern doctrines of Original Sin, Anthropology, Christology, Mariology, and Ecclesiology that it does not fit in our context at all. And you know we've been down with the Theotokos since day one, homie.
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2825
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 392 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by Del »

mcommini wrote: 02 Jan 2024, 23:12 BOOM!
Thanks for that response. I am totally on the same page with you now! We should sit down and have a smoke sometime. (I've been meaning to make a pilgrimage to Santa Fe to visit the St. Joseph Stairway and a taste of authentic Chili Colorado, anyhow.)

"Denial of Doctrine" and lax attention to discipline is a big problem. A couple of generations have lukewarm Catholic families simply wandered out of the Church because it no longer seemed to matter whether one participated or not. If I don't have to believe and repent and reform my life, why must I bother setting my butt in a pew?
==================

I am troubled by the filioque, but I am not troubled by the Immaculate Conception. I could be, as it appears (as you say) that the process of development got ahead of its skis. However, I am fully comforted by Mary's Apparitions.

In 1830, Mary appeared to St. Catherine Labouré at a convent chapel in Paris. She ordered that a medal be mass produced with the image of her apparition and the words "O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee." These medals produced so many miracles that it has come to known as the Miraculous Medal. St. Catherine's body is incorrupt.

I think this was the final encouragement that pushed Pope Pius IX to finally declare the ancient analogy as a dogma in 1854.

When Mary appeared to St. Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858 (and created the miraculous healing spring there), Mary identified herself saying, "I am the Immaculate Conception."

St. Bernadette is also incorrupt.

So with all due respect to Orthodoxy's objections regarding any overreach of authority by a papal declaration, I'm sticking with Mary and her miracles on this one.
mcommini
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 138
Joined: 12 Jul 2022, 15:56
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 41 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by mcommini »

Del wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 05:48
mcommini wrote: 02 Jan 2024, 23:12 BOOM!
Thanks for that response. I am totally on the same page with you now! We should sit down and have a smoke sometime. (I've been meaning to make a pilgrimage to Santa Fe to visit the St. Joseph Stairway and a taste of authentic Chili Colorado, anyhow.)

"Denial of Doctrine" and lax attention to discipline is a big problem. A couple of generations have lukewarm Catholic families simply wandered out of the Church because it no longer seemed to matter whether one participated or not. If I don't have to believe and repent and reform my life, why must I bother setting my butt in a pew?
==================

I am troubled by the filioque, but I am not troubled by the Immaculate Conception. I could be, as it appears (as you say) that the process of development got ahead of its skis. However, I am fully comforted by Mary's Apparitions.

In 1830, Mary appeared to St. Catherine Labouré at a convent chapel in Paris. She ordered that a medal be mass produced with the image of her apparition and the words "O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee." These medals produced so many miracles that it has come to known as the Miraculous Medal. St. Catherine's body is incorrupt.

I think this was the final encouragement that pushed Pope Pius IX to finally declare the ancient analogy as a dogma in 1854.

When Mary appeared to St. Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858 (and created the miraculous healing spring there), Mary identified herself saying, "I am the Immaculate Conception."

St. Bernadette is also incorrupt.

So with all due respect to Orthodoxy's objections regarding any overreach of authority by a papal declaration, I'm sticking with Mary and her miracles on this one.
Would you believe we are highly suspicious of the apparitions as well? And its not us (well, not all of us) being mean or contrary. There is a whole laundry list of things associated with your post- schism saints and miracles and apparitions that are not only foreign to the Orthodox experience but sometimes run directly counter to it.

Stigmata would be an example of something foreign- some of us really like what Francis of Assissi had to do and say but pause before suggesting he might be a Saint out of communion like Isaac of Nineveh because in 2000 years of Church history we have never had a single case of stigmata. It's a sign, sure, but of what?

Your Marian apparitions are all over the place, but by and large, when Mary appears to you guys, she doesn't say the same things she says to us. When Mary speaks to us she rarely uses the word "I" though she often uses the word "my". She never tells us what to pray but shows up already in prayer and intercession. Occasionally she'll be a typical Jewish mother and just show up to tell us that while she really likes the icon of her, she really thinks it would look better somewhere else on the monastery or cathedral grounds.

When God wishes to reveal something to us about the Theotokos herself, He never sends her to us. He sends Gabriel.

Now, for something that really runs counter to Orthodoxy and saintliness... Our saints see visions, sure. But they never go seeking visions. They actively avoid visions whenever possible, going so far that when they enter the prayer of the Heart they banish mental imagery as much as possible. When a vision appears, the first thing an Orthodox saint does is doubt what he's seeing and makes the sign of the Cross over the apparition- and even then he doubts until the vision is absolutely explicit that it comes from God. But one thing our Tradition makes absolutely clear is that the person who seeks after visions will be lead into delusion.

Some of your saints do seek after visions. Your St Catherine prayed to see a vision of the Theotokos. That, for us makes the vision so entirely suspect that we might as well be discussing a pious psychological disorder - and being Orthodox we do mean "psychological" with all its possible definitions- there might be some things of value in there, but they'll be the things from a very devout woman's heart, and jumbled together with all forms of nonsense.
User avatar
Wosbald
Door Greeter
Door Greeter
Posts: 1041
Joined: 15 Nov 2022, 10:50
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 59 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
mcommini wrote: 02 Jan 2024, 23:12 The development my eye discerns are things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception- I don't see too much in the way of development since Vatican II …

[…]
Assuming I'm reading you aright, I'd say that this is an unnecessarily restrictive understanding of Doctrinal Development.

Infallible Magisterium (whether Ordinary or Extraorinary) may well be the most definitive manifestation of Development, but Vat2 (Dei Verbum, §8) certainly seems to speak of Development-of-Doctrine as living dynamism which — though periodically instantiated at various gradations of definitivity or authoritativeness — is continually in-process across the Church:
[T]here is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
:confusion-shrug:


Image
mcommini
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 138
Joined: 12 Jul 2022, 15:56
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 41 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by mcommini »

Wosbald wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 10:59 +JMJ+
mcommini wrote: 02 Jan 2024, 23:12 The development my eye discerns are things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception- I don't see too much in the way of development since Vatican II …

[…]
Assuming I'm reading you aright, I'd say that this is an unnecessarily restrictive understanding of Doctrinal Development.

Infallible Magisterium (whether Ordinary or Extraorinary) may well be the most definitive manifestation of Development, but Vat2 (Dei Verbum, §8) certainly seems to speak of Development-of-Doctrine as living dynamism which — though periodically instantiated at various gradations of definitivity or authoritativeness — is continually in-process across the Church:
[T]here is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
:confusion-shrug:
Look, Wos, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the Orthodox understand or don't understand about Doctrinal Development. You can assemble all your most gifted Byzantinists and craft a document that explains Doctrinal Development in terms that would make St John Chrysostom weep at the truth and beauty of the contents inside. But the debate will never truly be about whether doctrine can develop, but about the developments themselves. And that is the problem.

We left you guys a nice large park with a beautiful fountain in the middle- there had been some disagreement with management of the park overall, so we left you with your section and the fountain, which had been falling into disrepair. Then one day you guys come running up to us- "Ortho guys! We fixed the fountain!" That's beautiful, we love the fountain, so we come check it out.

And yeah, that fountain sure is pretty gorgeous. But... guys, this is in the middle of a strip mall. Now, you can tell me all about the strip mall, how all the building materials came directly from the park, it's completely green, and has zero carbon footprint. And sure it's a nice mall. But we don't want the mall in our park, can't rejoin our parks together while the mall is there, and really, what made you think you needed a mall to begin with?
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2825
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 392 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by Del »

mcommini wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 10:40 Would you believe we are highly suspicious of the apparitions as well? And its not us (well, not all of us) being mean or contrary. There is a whole laundry list of things associated with your post- schism saints and miracles and apparitions that are not only foreign to the Orthodox experience but sometimes run directly counter to it.
You Orthodox are suspicious to the point of paranoia, and you are proud of it. We count that as one of your delightful little quirks.
mcommini wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 10:40Stigmata would be an example of something foreign- some of us really like what Francis of Assissi had to do and say but pause before suggesting he might be a Saint out of communion like Isaac of Nineveh because in 2000 years of Church history we have never had a single case of stigmata. It's a sign, sure, but of what?
I can relate to that. What the heck does oil dripping from an icon mean?

My personal opinion is that God gives us what we need, in a way that we can understand (after time, perhaps). American Pentecostals are awash in Tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit. They actively seek these gifts and miracles, and God grants them abundantly. If I didn't have the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ, and the ability to receive my Savior in the Eucharist, and access to forgiveness through sacramental Confession -- I would seek gifts and miracles too.
mcommini wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 10:40Your Marian apparitions are all over the place, but by and large, when Mary appears to you guys, she doesn't say the same things she says to us. When Mary speaks to us she rarely uses the word "I" though she often uses the word "my". She never tells us what to pray but shows up already in prayer and intercession. Occasionally she'll be a typical Jewish mother and just show up to tell us that while she really likes the icon of her, she really thinks it would look better somewhere else on the monastery or cathedral grounds.

When God wishes to reveal something to us about the Theotokos herself, He never sends her to us. He sends Gabriel.

Now, for something that really runs counter to Orthodoxy and saintliness... Our saints see visions, sure. But they never go seeking visions. They actively avoid visions whenever possible, going so far that when they enter the prayer of the Heart they banish mental imagery as much as possible. When a vision appears, the first thing an Orthodox saint does is doubt what he's seeing and makes the sign of the Cross over the apparition- and even then he doubts until the vision is absolutely explicit that it comes from God. But one thing our Tradition makes absolutely clear is that the person who seeks after visions will be lead into delusion.

Some of your saints do seek after visions. Your St Catherine prayed to see a vision of the Theotokos. That, for us makes the vision so entirely suspect that we might as well be discussing a pious psychological disorder - and being Orthodox we do mean "psychological" with all its possible definitions- there might be some things of value in there, but they'll be the things from a very devout woman's heart, and jumbled together with all forms of nonsense.
I try to avoid judging another culture or Christian Tradition too harshly for being different from my own. The biblical advice is to judge any such claims to visions and miracles by their fruits. I hold fast to this test.

The Orthodox have preserved the Apostolic Faith for centuries. You have persevered through long persecutions. You have nurtured generations of families in holiness. You have produced enduring works of art -- from icons to Dostoyevsky -- that have enriched mankind in faith and goodness.

So even if I do not understand such things as your devotion to icons, I can still say with confidence that Orthodox Tradition is good. As in Godly Good. Orthodoxy is certainly attractive, and you deserve the converts that you earn.

Even the American Pentecostals.... in spite of being riddled with Protestant errors, having no knowledge of the Eucharist and the Theotokos, and a scandalous level of chaos in their 'worship' and discipline, Pentecostals are producing many holy saints and converts. Their missionary zeal is admirable. If it weren't for their own fierce dogma stating that the Apostolic Church is "unbiblical," they would make great Apostolic Christians.

All I can say is that God gives us what we need, in whatever tradition He finds us.

Perhaps the best example of this is Mary's Apparition at Guadalupe. Missionaries had labored for 40 years in the New World, with little to show for it. Then Mary appeared, and left us an icon that could be read by the native peoples. A Mexican friend tells me that God had also prepared the way with native legends about great signs concerning "flowers in winter." Within a few years, a whole continent was baptized.
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2825
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 392 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by Del »

mcommini wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 13:05 We left you guys a nice large park with a beautiful fountain in the middle- there had been some disagreement with management of the park overall, so we left you with your section and the fountain, which had been falling into disrepair. Then one day you guys come running up to us- "Ortho guys! We fixed the fountain!" That's beautiful, we love the fountain, so we come check it out.

And yeah, that fountain sure is pretty gorgeous. But... guys, this is in the middle of a strip mall. Now, you can tell me all about the strip mall, how all the building materials came directly from the park, it's completely green, and has zero carbon footprint. And sure it's a nice mall. But we don't want the mall in our park, can't rejoin our parks together while the mall is there, and really, what made you think you needed a mall to begin with?
RUMBLE AT THE GAZEBO!!!!

I can't express how much I have missed the Gazebo! THANK YOU!
mcommini
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 138
Joined: 12 Jul 2022, 15:56
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 41 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by mcommini »

Del wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 13:49
mcommini wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 10:40 Would you believe we are highly suspicious of the apparitions as well? And its not us (well, not all of us) being mean or contrary. There is a whole laundry list of things associated with your post- schism saints and miracles and apparitions that are not only foreign to the Orthodox experience but sometimes run directly counter to it.
You Orthodox are suspicious to the point of paranoia, and you are proud of it. We count that as one of your delightful little quirks.
It's not paranoia when they're constantly out to get you! When we're not dealing with Venetians razing our cities, the Turkish yoke, Ceasars and Tsars trying to muck about with things, and Communists, we have these pesky demons that like to show up in the form of angels, saints, the Theotokos, or even Christ Himself and try to get us to do things like submit to pride or skip prayers or judge brothers. Constant vigilance!
Del wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 13:49
mcommini wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 10:40Stigmata would be an example of something foreign- some of us really like what Francis of Assissi had to do and say but pause before suggesting he might be a Saint out of communion like Isaac of Nineveh because in 2000 years of Church history we have never had a single case of stigmata. It's a sign, sure, but of what?
I can relate to that. What the heck does oil dripping from an icon mean?

My personal opinion is that God gives us what we need, in a way that we can understand (after time, perhaps). American Pentecostals are awash in Tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit. They actively seek these gifts and miracles, and God grants them abundantly. If I didn't have the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ, and the ability to receive my Savior in the Eucharist, and access to forgiveness through sacramental Confession -- I would seek gifts and miracles too.


going to have to address a few things- I am by and large in agreement with your opinion. Your saints get stigmata when they draw closer to Christ, ours shine with the Uncreated Light of Tabor.

I think ya'll might have gotten the short end of the stick that time :lol:

But yes, I think it's possible to see God working in mysteriously different ways across these strange denominations you guys birthed.

Though I really feel that American Pentecostals are a better example of why *not* to go seeking miracles. Don't get me wrong- I've known plenty of individual Pentecostals who are dearly sincere Christians and closer to sainthood than I'll ever be. But I've never known a Pentecostal congregation where just about everything wasn't deeply disordered, abusive, and oftentimes heretical by the most generous metric.

Del wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 13:49
mcommini wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 10:40Your Marian apparitions are all over the place, but by and large, when Mary appears to you guys, she doesn't say the same things she says to us. When Mary speaks to us she rarely uses the word "I" though she often uses the word "my". She never tells us what to pray but shows up already in prayer and intercession. Occasionally she'll be a typical Jewish mother and just show up to tell us that while she really likes the icon of her, she really thinks it would look better somewhere else on the monastery or cathedral grounds.

When God wishes to reveal something to us about the Theotokos herself, He never sends her to us. He sends Gabriel.

Now, for something that really runs counter to Orthodoxy and saintliness... Our saints see visions, sure. But they never go seeking visions. They actively avoid visions whenever possible, going so far that when they enter the prayer of the Heart they banish mental imagery as much as possible. When a vision appears, the first thing an Orthodox saint does is doubt what he's seeing and makes the sign of the Cross over the apparition- and even then he doubts until the vision is absolutely explicit that it comes from God. But one thing our Tradition makes absolutely clear is that the person who seeks after visions will be lead into delusion.

Some of your saints do seek after visions. Your St Catherine prayed to see a vision of the Theotokos. That, for us makes the vision so entirely suspect that we might as well be discussing a pious psychological disorder - and being Orthodox we do mean "psychological" with all its possible definitions- there might be some things of value in there, but they'll be the things from a very devout woman's heart, and jumbled together with all forms of nonsense.
I try to avoid judging another culture or Christian Tradition too harshly for being different from my own. The biblical advice is to judge any such claims to visions and miracles by their fruits. I hold fast to this test.

The Orthodox have preserved the Apostolic Faith for centuries. You have persevered through long persecutions. You have nurtured generations of families in holiness. You have produced enduring works of art -- from icons to Dostoyevsky -- that have enriched mankind in faith and goodness.

So even if I do not understand such things as your devotion to icons, I can still say with confidence that Orthodox Tradition is good. As in Godly Good. Orthodoxy is certainly attractive, and you deserve the converts that you earn.

Even the American Pentecostals.... in spite of being riddled with Protestant errors, having no knowledge of the Eucharist and the Theotokos, and a scandalous level of chaos in their 'worship' and discipline, Pentecostals are producing many holy saints and converts. Their missionary zeal is admirable. If it weren't for their own fierce dogma stating that the Apostolic Church is "unbiblical," they would make great Apostolic Christians.

All I can say is that God gives us what we need, in whatever tradition He finds us.

Perhaps the best example of this is Mary's Apparition at Guadalupe. Missionaries had labored for 40 years in the New World, with little to show for it. Then Mary appeared, and left us an icon that could be read by the native peoples. A Mexican friend tells me that God had also prepared the way with native legends about great signs concerning "flowers in winter." Within a few years, a whole continent was baptized.
I'm glad you brought up Mary of Guadalupe- a lot of us recognize Our Lady of Guadalupe because we can recognize Our Lady in Our Lady of Guadalupe, and I don't just mean the fact that she's a perfectly Orthodox icon that wouldn't be out of place in any one of our churches. Mary showing up and leaving icons of herself is something she does all the time.

Typical Jewish mother- wants to make sure we all get the latest Christmas photo.
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2825
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 392 times

You Heard It Here First

Post by Del »

mcommini wrote: 03 Jan 2024, 14:53 I'm glad you brought up Mary of Guadalupe- a lot of us recognize Our Lady of Guadalupe because we can recognize Our Lady in Our Lady of Guadalupe, and I don't just mean the fact that she's a perfectly Orthodox icon that wouldn't be out of place in any one of our churches. Mary showing up and leaving icons of herself is something she does all the time.

Typical Jewish mother- wants to make sure we all get the latest Christmas photo.
On Judgment Day, Jesus will separate the Apostolic Christians and Evangelicals.

To those of Apostolic Faith He will ask, "Why did you perform your Christian mission so poorly after you were given so much?"

To the Evangelical Christians He will ask, "How come you never bothered to pick up the phone and talk to Mom?"
Post Reply