Catholic vs Orthodox Spirituality?

[Vetus Ordo]

In fact what is sufficient criteria for Catholic spirituality to be legitimate is something that has been ambiguous to me personally - with people using various criteria for Faustina for example.

It is sufficient that the Church approves it.

[nmoerbeek]

I am never able to respond to posts which occur frequently here on SD which lead off with personal attacks on the previous poster, and then move on to perhaps perfectly legitimate theological points. I don't want to seem to be agreeing with the personal attacks while discussing the theology.

If that is the case with ordinary people on the forum, then imagine how that is 1,000 times more true if the person being attacked are canonized saints! I would not like to associate myself in any way with the slanders directed towards St. Francis or St. Teresa by dignifying these assaults with a response.

It's a pity too, because the subject of spiritual delusion is a very intriguing one, and the topic of the role of the imagination in the spiritual life is one in which I have a deep interest.

If, as the Orthodox sources recommend, one is to start categorizing things as delusions of the devil, and closing one's mind to them rather than give them consideration, then I choose to start first of all with calumnies against the saints towards whom I have a great devotion.

It's like when someone slanders your mother. You don't get into a philosophical discussion with them. You punch them in the nose.

If I have developed the habit of replying to pointed nasty questions regarding canonized saints I have formed the habit through posting on Catholic forums defending Saints like St. Faustina from the barbed attacks of other Catholics. Often times these attacks come from people who have been informed on her life by a handful of sources that are polemic.  Whether or not to reply to someone under such circumstances really boils down to an individual judgement informed both by prudence and charity.   

I understand the desire to rend our garments when something holy is attacked, but Our Lord Jesus Christ did choose to respond many times to questions posed to him even in bad faith.  Not every episode in the life of Christ was Him chasing the money changers out of the temple.

[Vetus Ordo]

In the case of Francis of Assisi,

1. Rather than looking into the Tradition of Christianity, he did what the Protestants did and used his own subjective interpretation of the Bible in order to "live like the life of the Apostles" - even though, later on, they of course owned property when they traveled around the world establishing communities in the known world. It also suggests pride to believe that the monks aren't living poorly like Christ enough that he would need to establish a new rule. Although there is nothing wrong with establishing a new rule, it raises eyebrows as to - given the vast Tradition of monasticism in the Latin church, pre-schism, the Egyptian monasticism, and the Benedictine rules, that he would feel the need to establish a new rule.

2. The establishment of the Western Nativity play - as if liturgy is not enough to live the life of Christ, and the belief that "we have to make mass interesting and 'with the times'," which such a precedent would only harm Rome liturgically in the long run.

3. His humility does not indicate authentic meekness - for example, there was an instance where he ate meat when he was sick, and he felt like he sinned so much that he got two of his "disciples" to put a rope around his neck and pour ash on him in front of a bunch of people, with him saying "see, you think I'm supposed to be such a holy man, when I'm a sinner." According to authentic Orthodox humility, this is inaccurate - rather than acting like the Publican, where he repents to God, and its all the better if people think he acted in an evil manner - he acts like the Pharisee, only caring about what other people think. He's self aware of other people's perception of how holy he is supposed to be, but this does not indicate humility or repentance.

Well, Nmoerbeek already made an excellent job of answering your questions. I would just add the following:

1. The special charism of the Poverello was poverty. Or 'Lady Poverty' as he affectuously called it. He had no intention of breaking up or condemning the Church. He received a special mission from God, duly approved by the authorities in Rome, to revitalize and rebuild through preaching and example a society and a Church that had gone lukewarm. This, he and his beloved Friars Minor did with tremendous success. They were reformers in the truest sense of the word. I think it beggars belief to associate the mission and the charism of the Poverello with the formal principles of the Protestant Reformation in regards to Scripture. It doesn't add up in any dimension you can think of.

2. The establishment of the Western Nativity play has had no liturgical impact whatsoever. This is a completely failed objection.

3. Francis was a living example of humility. Even a cursory reading of his life demonstrates it to be so. He set the bar so high in terms of following the charism of poverty and humility that very few after him have been able to faithfully follow in his footsteps. Even his own order. Yes, he wanted to imitate Christ. It is the noblest of purposes, not an objection to his sanctity. Remember the words of the Apostle: "And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered himself for me." (Gal. 2:20) This was Francis. Not a Pharisee eager for public recognition, but a humble sinner, a faithful son of the Church, who gave up everything to follow his master. EVERYTHING. How many of us are willing to do it?

"If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me." (Matt. 19:21)

The young man in the Gospel found these words too harsh, turned back and went away from Christ. Francis, on the other hand, obeyed them to the letter and came running. He gave up all his possessions. He lived with beggars and leppers. He rebuilt churches with his own hands. Humbly worked for anyone for food. Despite receiving the tonsure for the diaconate, he did not aspire to receive the holy orders of priesthood out of a profound sense of unworthiness and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. God's grace changed his life in such a radical manner that even the most impenetrable of hearts were moved by him. Have you truly medidated on what he was able to do, starting with nothing at his beloved Porziuncola? How come is this not of God? His life was a touching and living testimony of the Gospel. An unmistakable example to all of us of the supernatural realities of grace and faith. The order he founded has been one of the greatest blessings for mankind. Orthodox spirituality, if true, must have a place for the Poverello. All of us should, if we be worthy of the name of Christians.

[abc123]

Right, all that after only 5 minutes on Google!

Wonder by how much the accusations would multiply if had spent say 10 minutes looking him up or if I were to read his biography, though I have not the slightest inclination to do so and will keep to the biographies of proven Saints, thank you.

Seems enough has been said by his detractors
https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/fr-seraphim-rose-and-the-dogma-of-redemption/

Pointing to a reference which uses Lev Puhalo as a source doesn't do your argument much good. Are you familiar with the background and history between them as well as Puhalo's own theological proclivities?

I also didn't suspect that you would have an inclination to read the man in his own words. That would force you to be more objective in your appraisal of him.

[Serviam]

I also didn't suspect that you would have an inclination to read the man in his own words. That would force you to be more objective in your appraisal of him.

I just did... those videos in the op.
Or are you suggestion I need to go and read his autobiography to be able to form an objective opinion on the man?

Pointing to a reference which uses Lev Puhalo as a source doesn't do your argument much good.

Did you read his biography?

[Vetus Ordo]

Still on the topic of St. Francis being discussed, let us medidate:

"The Saint is a medicine because he is an antidote. Indeed that is why the saint is often a martyr; he is mistaken for a poison because he is an antidote. He will generally be found restoring the world to sanity by exaggerating whatever the world neglects, which is by no means always the same element in every age. Yet each generation seeks its saint by instinct; and he is not what the people want, but rather what the people need."

~G.K. Chesterton: 'St. Thomas Aquinas,' Chap. I.

[abc123]

I also didn't suspect that you would have an inclination to read the man in his own words. That would force you to be more objective in your appraisal of him.

I just did... those videos in the op.
Or are you suggestion I need to go and read his autobiography to be able to form an objective opinion on the man?

Pointing to a reference which uses Lev Puhalo as a source doesn't do your argument much good.

Did you read his biography?

I believe you would have a more objective opinion of Blessed Seraphim if you knew his background, journey and ultimately his monastic vocation. I think this is a reasonable position when critiquing him. His biography (I mis-spoke when I said autobiography) is titled Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works.

Lev Puhalo does not have a biography. He does, however, have a youtube channel and publishing house wherein he spews his opinions. His checkered history moving among various jurisdictions, both canonical and schismatic, are also well known.

[bigbadtrad]

...defending Saints like St. Faustina from the barbed attacks of other Catholics. Often times these attacks come from people who have been informed on her life by a handful of sources that are polemic.  Whether or not to reply to someone under such circumstances really boils down to an individual judgement informed both by prudence and charity.

You can't equate arguments between an Orthodox slam on saints that have no basis in tradition of the Catholic faith, with Sr. Faustina who has a history of being on the Index and being brought back with a Polish pope, who by and large I have less in common with than the Metropolitan of Moscow on faith and morals. If I have less in common with JPII than Kirill of Moscow I can't take the rehab and canonization without question, not to mention I read her diary before I discovered traditional polemics and found it completely bizarre.

Attacks by the Orthodox on Catholic saints in which there is no confusion cannot be equated with modern pontificates that have only brought confusion. Not only does this obfuscate the original point, but it's unfair to people who do have questions on Faustina, Escriva, Gregory Narek, et al. based on the amount of confusion sown recently.

I've read your wife's article and while I found her desire edifying and charitable I disagree with her based on principles I don't think is fair to discuss in this conversion. I've found you to be edifying and charitable as well but I don't agree with you on a few things based on principle although I think you are a good example on Catholic forums.

[Livenotonevil]

...defending Saints like St. Faustina from the barbed attacks of other Catholics. Often times these attacks come from people who have been informed on her life by a handful of sources that are polemic.  Whether or not to reply to someone under such circumstances really boils down to an individual judgement informed both by prudence and charity.

You can't equate arguments between an Orthodox slam on saints that have no basis in tradition of the Catholic faith, with Sr. Faustina who has a history of being on the Index and being brought back with a Polish pope, who by and large I have less in common with than the Metropolitan of Moscow on faith and morals. If I have less in common with JPII than Kirill of Moscow I can't take the rehab and canonization without question, not to mention I read her diary before I discovered traditional polemics and found it completely bizarre.

Attacks by the Orthodox on Catholic saints in which there is no confusion cannot be equated with modern pontificates that have only brought confusion. Not only does this obfuscate the original point, but it's unfair to people who do have questions on Faustina, Escriva, Gregory Narek, et al. based on the amount of confusion sown recently.

I've read your wife's article and while I found her desire edifying and charitable I disagree with her based on principles I don't think is fair to discuss in this conversion. I've found you to be edifying and charitable as well but I don't agree with you on a few things based on principle although I think you are a good example on Catholic forums.

Margaret Mary Alocque I would argue had as much of a controversial life as Faustina - and the Sacred Heart devotion was rejected by Pope Benedict XIII on much of the same grounds that the Orthodox reject it.

[bigbadtrad]

Margaret Mary Alocque I would argue had as much of a controversial life as Faustina - and the Sacred Heart devotion was rejected by Pope Benedict XIII on much of the same grounds that the Orthodox reject it.

That's not a statement based on knowledge but conjecture and ignorance of the facts. Her writings were not condemned by the Holy Office, nor was she and her writings re-written with 100's of edits, and the subsequent popes were not raving modernists. Please also show us the proof linking Benedict XIII rejecting her writings I'm interested to see it.

Also, you are playing the sniping game right now. You stay on top, snipe a debate point and stay on the top while we play defense. I'm an old dog, I know this game well.

Before you go any further tell us how the Orthodox can lay any claim to legitimacy while rejecting their previous beliefs on contraception and divorce and in some areas counseling for abortion and why anyone should pay any attention to Orthodoxy after changing their moral teachings. I think that kind of trumps arguing over art, primacy and saints just by a little bit don't you?

[ermy_law]

Before you go any further tell us how the Orthodox can lay any claim to legitimacy while rejecting their previous beliefs on contraception and divorce and in some areas counseling for abortion and why anyone should pay any attention to Orthodoxy after changing their moral teachings.

I don't know what you're referring to with regard to abortion, but there is a very compelling historical argument that the church of the first millennium, both East and West, accepted divorce in some circumstances. As far as I'm aware, the practice did not pose a problem at the attempted reunion councils, for whatever that is worth.

But, as with all of these arguments, you must address the practical issues presented at present: namely, in order to argue against Orthodox divorce praxis in favor of perceived Roman orthodoxy on that subject, you have to address the reality that annulments are routinely granted in the Roman Church of the present. One could argue that this is merely divorce by another name, but without the Orthodox requirement of repentance that is associated with the second marriage.

The contraception issue is the more worthwhile argument that you've made here. You must also address the reality that, while it is true that contraception is barred by Roman doctrine, even that doctrine has changed in the past century so that one now has a hard time setting forth any meaningful difference between NFP and contraception, assuming a lack of abortifacient quality in the latter (Compare Casti Connubii with Humanae Vitae). One could turn your argument around and ask, "Why should anyone pay attention to [Roman Catholicism] after changing their moral teachings?"

Furthermore, the vast majority of Roman Catholics contracept even in the face of the doctrine, and they do so without consultation with a confessor for the most part. On the Orthodox side, one finds a general condemnation of contraception, and the strong suggestion that one should consult with one's confessor about it.

Again, your argument, to be compelling, must account for the present reality and the things that have happened in Roman Catholicism over the past 50 years.

[bigbadtrad]

Before you go any further tell us how the Orthodox can lay any claim to legitimacy while rejecting their previous beliefs on contraception and divorce and in some areas counseling for abortion and why anyone should pay any attention to Orthodoxy after changing their moral teachings.

I don't know what you're referring to with regard to abortion, but there is a very compelling historical argument that the church of the first millennium, both East and West, accepted divorce in some circumstances. As far as I'm aware, the practice did not pose a problem at the attempted reunion councils, for whatever that is worth...
Again, your argument, to be compelling, must account for the present reality and the things that have happened in Roman Catholicism over the past 50 years.

So I said it's not right for Orthodox to invade a Catholic forum and just find holes to attack and your response is I need to defend the Catholic Church? Are you sure you were confirmed in the Catholic faith? You do realize that's exactly what I said I WOULDN'T do right? Also, I would not think I need to make a compelling argument to a Catholic against Orthodox apologetics. A bit odd...

First, regional acceptance of divorce is not a teaching. Abuses, false teachings, etc. have crept in even in the cases of saints before things were declared heterodox. In logic you cannot use a specific and apply it to the general. If John likes ice cream everyone does not need to like ice cream. Read this article on a heresy believed by saints before it was a declared heresy: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm   I cannot imagine anyone using the like argument to bring back Apocatastasis in the Church because of regional errors.

Next, my friend saw the same issues a lot of Catholics do: annulments as de facto divorces, ecumenism, etc.. so he tried going Orthodox and discovered problems he thought he escaped from Catholicism. He even tried ROCOR.

So then he thought he liked Pope Shenouda in Egypt and wanted to be in communion with that sect and on their site they discuss as a matter of principle discernment with the priest on getting an abortion and I read it to him and to my shock it said this. Abortion is not a discernment it's murder. Also, it lists divorce as valid as well as contraception.

The difference of the 2 religions could be down to the technicality of principle: one allows divorce but discourages it (Orthodox), the other denies the toleration but abuses what is in fact legal through technicalities and abuse (Catholicism). Annulments are not divorces, and yes it's abuse calls into the question the principles, but it doesn't destroy a Divine command by virtue of the law. While seemingly hypocritical in the face of widespread abuse, it is still a distinction that does not violate a Divine command while the Orthodox definitely does break a Divine command. This cannot be left hanging out while I continually defend Catholicism. It must be addressed. 

I'll summarize my answer by saying one does not snipe and snipe and snipe playing offense without addressing those deficiencies to us. I refuse the idea of constantly playing defense because I've learned there is always the next "A-HA" moment and people rarely, if ever, admit they are wrong on a forum in a debate. So in order for me to discuss any further I want concrete answers or I'm just cat juggler avoiding one claw to the eye after the next.

[ermy_law]

So I said it's not right for Orthodox to invade a Catholic forum and just find holes to attack and your response is I need to defend the Catholic Church? Are you sure you were confirmed in the Catholic faith? You do realize that's exactly what I said I WOULDN'T do right? Also, I would not think I need to make a compelling argument to a Catholic against Orthodox apologetics. A bit odd...

I've been confirmed in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, actually. But that is beside the point.

My principle point is not to argue the specific topic at issue but to suggest that, as Catholics, we need to account for the last 50 years of Catholic history and practice when formulating apologetical arguments in favor of Catholicism. Otherwise, the argument is incongruous with reality and is not persuasive.

Also, I agree that it's not right for Orthodox to invade a Catholic forum and start arguments.

[nmoerbeek]

...defending Saints like St. Faustina from the barbed attacks of other Catholics. Often times these attacks come from people who have been informed on her life by a handful of sources that are polemic.  Whether or not to reply to someone under such circumstances really boils down to an individual judgement informed both by prudence and charity.

You can't equate arguments between an Orthodox slam on saints that have no basis in tradition of the Catholic faith, with Sr. Faustina who has a history of being on the Index and being brought back with a Polish pope, who by and large I have less in common with than the Metropolitan of Moscow on faith and morals. If I have less in common with JPII than Kirill of Moscow I can't take the rehab and canonization without question, not to mention I read her diary before I discovered traditional polemics and found it completely bizarre.

Attacks by the Orthodox on Catholic saints in which there is no confusion cannot be equated with modern pontificates that have only brought confusion. Not only does this obfuscate the original point, but it's unfair to people who do have questions on Faustina, Escriva, Gregory Narek, et al. based on the amount of confusion sown recently.

I've read your wife's article and while I found her desire edifying and charitable I disagree with her based on principles I don't think is fair to discuss in this conversion. I've found you to be edifying and charitable as well but I don't agree with you on a few things based on principle although I think you are a good example on Catholic forums.

Thank you for your kind words about my wife and myself.  I agree that it would go to off topic to delve into the other area. 

As to my thinking or equating.  Max stated that when one of our beloved Saints are attacked our inclination should be one of combative defense and it seemed that more or less this opinion was affirmed by several others.  I was trying to provide a context why I decided to engage in discussion so that my own behavior does not scandalize you or the other posters who I also have respect for.

[Lynne]

Also, I agree that it's not right for Orthodox to invade a Catholic forum and start arguments.

I wonder why it's allowed?