Catholic Problems

[robrecht]

Are you referring to the recognition by the Roman Church of the sacraments performed by some branches of the Orthodox Church?

And some of the Anglican Church as well, I believe.

[TimelessTheist]

You (and CL) are ignoring the strong language used where Honorius was singled out for especial condemnation.

Once again, that's pretty much the point. The fact that he wasn't condemned with the other heretics shows his crime was different than theirs.

Look, either the letter was heretical (per Pope Agatho and the Council) or it wasn't (CL). You can't have it both ways. I'll go with the sources most intimately familiar with the question and the languages used over some modern blogger.

Well, that would be a problem if Agatho condemned Honorius as a heretic, but, as explained before, he didn't. He simply condemned Honorius' letters for the fact that he chose to keep silent on the issue.

Mere silence (which is inherently ambiguous) would hardly qualify as "in all respects" (which emphasizes the particular).

Which is why I said if the word used was "views" instead of "view", then I'd be in trouble. They could simply be talking about Sergius' view that the Church should keep silent on this issue, which, in that case, he absolutely supported it.

[TimelessTheist]

In the Orthodox tradition, both the priest and the people are generally facing East ("as the lightning flashes from the east to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be"). Then again, in the Orthodox tradition both the priest and laity are actively participating in and must be present at the liturgy. The priest isn't there to perform for the people but to offer service to God; other than brief blessings, the priest only faces the people to read the Gospel and preach the homily.

Oh yeah, and I remember asking you before about where the teaching of how the imagination is susceptible to demons comes from? That's a teaching of the East, right? I believe the Catholic Church teaches that, to the contrary, all demonic possession is a result of consent of the will to some degree.

[TimelessTheist]

Simon Tolkien on his grandfather, JRR Tolkien:

Eh, I honestly don't see a problem with translating them into English. After all, the liturgies often have more effect on people when they can actually understand them.

[One Bad Pig]

Oh yeah, and I remember asking you before about where the teaching of how the imagination is susceptible to demons comes from? That's a teaching of the East, right? I believe the Catholic Church teaches that, to the contrary, all demonic possession is a result of consent of the will to some degree.

Demonic influence is not necessarily possession. Demons will attack someone in prayer with the hope of influencing them. To the extent they succeed, it is indeed due to a degree of consent of the will.

The Orthodox attitude was something I picked up in my general reading, probably from works like The Art of Prayer by Igumen Chariton, so I don't have any specific examples handy to give you. Here is a decent article I found on mental imagery in prayer from the Orthodox perspective.

Does that help?

I'm inclined to drop the other conversation, as I don't see any profit in continuing it.

[RBerman]

Eh, I honestly don't see a problem with translating them into English. After all, the liturgies often have more effect on people when they can actually understand them.

A life of experience causes people to confuse the familiar with the good. It happens to the best of us. Pretty much every generation sees the ways of the next generation as a threat to the universe, even though their own ways were once novel to a previous generation.

[Just Some Dude]

No problem.

Absolutely not.

I understand your suspicion but I do not share it.

Acceptance into monasteries or religious life is completely different from holy orders. The process of joining a religious order or monastery requires several years, typically at least 7 years, but mistakes can be made, eg, Martin Luther.

Exercise caution with a source that you know to be biased.

In the Catholic Church, Holy Orders is fully conferred with ordination to the diaconate (at which time one can administer some but not all sacraments and preach), after which time a deacon may be tasked with additional priestly duties, up to and including presiding over the public celebration of the Eucharist and episcopal service (bishop). We do know that there were deaconesses in the New Testament (Phoebe in Romans 16,1) and subsequently in the early church.

I confused Holy Orders with taking the monastic vows. Mistake on my part. Although I don't share your view with Martin Luther being a mistake, even though I don't agree with all of his theology.

Biased the missionary may be, he's also truthful and trustworthy. If he says something is happening in his area, then it is happening in his area.

As for the diaconate, did the early deaconesses perform all of the modern functions of a deacon, up to and including the preaching (although a prophet preached anyways) and presiding over Eucharist? I was under the impression that the early deaconesses had a much more limited role.

[Just Some Dude]

The Orthodox attitude was something I picked up in my general reading, probably from works like The Art of Prayer by Igumen Chariton, so I don't have any specific examples handy to give you. Here is a decent article I found on mental imagery in prayer from the Orthodox perspective.

Does that help?

Any other sources (earlier the better) for this attitude towards prayer? Not taking sides one way or the other, as I generally avoid letting my mind wander during prayer anyways, but I'd like to know how far back this eastern tradition goes.

[robrecht]

I confused Holy Orders with taking the monastic vows. Mistake on my part. Although I don't share your view with Martin Luther being a mistake, even though I don't agree with all of his theology.

I think I am merely agreeing with Martin Luther about this. If he did not think it was a mistake for him to have sought and have been accepted into monastic vows, then why did he leave?

Biased the missionary may be, he's also truthful and trustworthy. If he says something is happening in his area, then it is happening in his area.

Obviously, I do not know the guy from Adam, but I did not mean to imply that he might not be truthful. But if you say he is biased against Catholicism, then I would expect his interpretation to be biased. For example, if a parishioner is becoming a little obsessed with numerology or controversies about the Book of Revelation, and a pastor tells him not to worry so much about such interpretations of the Bible but to focus rather on the fruits of the spirit. Is that telling him not to read scripture? It could be seen that way, perhaps even by the parishioner who ignores this advice and comes to your missionary friend looking for the correct interpretation. 'Finally, I have found someone who explains the scriptures so that I can understand them. My old pastor just told me not to read the Bible.' That's what I mean by exercising caution with interpretations from a source you know to be biased.

As for the diaconate, did the early deaconesses perform all of the modern functions of a deacon, up to and including the preaching (although a prophet preached anyways) and presiding over Eucharist? I was under the impression that the early deaconesses had a much more limited role.

We really do not know. Some do not think Phoebe was a deacon or deaconess, just that she was somehow serving her local church. I think there's just no way of knowing at this point.

[Just Some Dude]

I think I am merely agreeing with Martin Luther about this. If he did not think it was a mistake for him to have sought and have been accepted into monastic vows, then why did he leave?

Obviously, I do not know the guy from Adam, but I did not mean to imply that he might not be truthful. But if you say he is biased against Catholicism, then I would expect his interpretation to be biased. For example, if a parishioner is becoming a little obsessed with numerology or controversies about the Book of Revelation, and a pastor tells him not to worry so much about such interpretations of the Bible but to focus rather on the fruits of the spirit. Is that telling him not to read scripture? It could be seen that way, perhaps even by the parishioner who ignores this advice and comes to your missionary friend looking for the correct interpretation. 'Finally, I have found someone who explains the scriptures so that I can understand them. My old pastor just told me not to read the Bible.' That's what I mean by exercising caution with interpretations from a source you know to be biased.

We really do not know. Some do not think Phoebe was a deacon or deaconess, just that she was somehow serving her local church. I think there's just no way of knowing at this point.

Ahh, I thought you were just taking a general stab at Martin Luther. My mistake.

Thank you for the perspective, although the man I am referring too is one I think would see through an issue like that. Still, I'll keep what you said in mind.

There's also the apostle Junia, though I have no idea what her role was or wasn't either. Like I said previously though, without positive confirmation from Scripture or the early church on the matter, I still stand against women's ordination. Smells like simply a way of trying to be "culturally relevant," as opposed to simply living what was passed down to us. That, and I'm suspicious that part of the reason its become an issue is because too many churches are becoming social clubs for women. If that wasn't a problem, I suspect that women's ordination wouldn't be an issue and wouldn't be something people cared about fighting for.

[One Bad Pig]

Any other sources (earlier the better) for this attitude towards prayer? Not taking sides one way or the other, as I generally avoid letting my mind wander during prayer anyways, but I'd like to know how far back this eastern tradition goes.

The article references sources as far back as the 4th century (St. Macarius of Egypt). My reading of the church fathers is far from complete, so my knowledge is not comprehensive (to say the least). It's possible that St. Clement of Alexandria or Origen had something to say on the topic in the 2nd/3rd century.

A quick search yields a bit:
and

Prayer, then, may be uttered without the voice, by concentrating the whole spiritual nature within one expression by the mind, in un-distracted turning towards God.

[TimelessTheist]

Demonic influence is not necessarily possession. Demons will attack someone in prayer with the hope of influencing them. To the extent they succeed, it is indeed due to a degree of consent of the will.

The Orthodox attitude was something I picked up in my general reading, probably from works like The Art of Prayer by Igumen Chariton, so I don't have any specific examples handy to give you. Here is a decent article I found on mental imagery in prayer from the Orthodox perspective.

Thanks for that information.

Does that help?

I'm inclined to drop the other conversation, as I don't see any profit in continuing it.

Well....okay then. You were the one who brought it up in the first place.

[One Bad Pig]

Well....okay then. You were the one who brought it up in the first place.

True. I just didn't want to leave you hanging. Aside from the articles I find unpersuasive on papal infallibility, IMO there's too much potential for abuse. Lucky for you that John XXII was too busy hanging out with his mistresses to worry overmuch about promulgating theology. Most of your recent popes have been decent, but I'm not sure yet about the current one.

[TimelessTheist]

Lucky for you that John XXII was too busy hanging out with his mistresses to worry overmuch about promulgating theology.

Actually, wait a second. Which Pope John XXII are you talking about?

[robrecht]

... but I'm not sure yet about the current one.

I will let him know--I'm sure he will try to do better! ;)