Catholic vs Orthodox Spirituality?

[Livenotonevil]

One more post.
One thing that has me further convinced are allegations of the lack of piety of Roman Catholic Spirituality, arguing that such events like the flirtations and self-inflicting harm of Margaret Mary Alacoque, Theresa of Avila, and Faustina indicate a pride-based sense of spirituality, where the vision self-praises the person they are visiting and has them say some rather ridiculous things ("Jesus" to Faustina, "I will bring you closer to any other creature," and "Jesus" symbolically giving "his heart" to Margaret Mary Alacoque), arguing that it goes against the principles of prayer instructed by Christ - which should be based on repentance like the Publican, rather than self-flattery like the Pharisee.

(Ignore the disrespectful Protestant-esque thumbnail of the first video)




what would be a Catholic response to such allegations, in comparison to Orthodox spirituality?

[Vetus Ordo]

What would be a Catholic response to such allegations, in comparison to Orthodox spirituality?

I'm sure there's much that can be discussed but I would state, prima facie, that accusing Catholic spirituality of a perceived "lack of piety" is simply a proof of ignorance. Or perhaps misunderstanding.

All the lives of the saints point, not to themselves, but to the wondrous work that God operated in them. Lives of self-abnegation, sacrifice, prayer and charity.

Furthermore, by "self-inflicting harm" I suppose you refer to bodily mortification which is an ancient and venerable practice, duly tempered by one's spiritual counsellor.

[Livenotonevil]

What would be a Catholic response to such allegations, in comparison to Orthodox spirituality?

I'm sure there's much that can be discussed but I would state, prima facie, that accusing Catholic spirituality of a perceived "lack of piety" is simply a proof of ignorance. Or perhaps misunderstanding.

All the lives of the saints point, not to themselves, but to the wondrous work that God operated in them. Lives of self-abnegation, sacrifice, prayer and charity.

Furthermore, by "self-inflicting harm" I suppose you refer to bodily mortification which is an ancient and venerable practice, duly tempered by one's spiritual counsellor.

I was referring more to Margaret Mary Alacoque who "bled out the pain" of an incision that Christ allegedly gave her.

But if you have the time, watch these videos - if you can only pick one, choose the one about the life of Francis of Assisi by Father Seraphim Rose of Blessed Memory

[Vetus Ordo]

What would be a Catholic response to such allegations, in comparison to Orthodox spirituality?

I'm sure there's much that can be discussed but I would state, prima facie, that accusing Catholic spirituality of a perceived "lack of piety" is simply a proof of ignorance. Or perhaps misunderstanding.

All the lives of the saints point, not to themselves, but to the wondrous work that God operated in them. Lives of self-abnegation, sacrifice, prayer and charity.

Furthermore, by "self-inflicting harm" I suppose you refer to bodily mortification which is an ancient and venerable practice, duly tempered by one's spiritual counsellor.

I was referring more to Margaret Mary Alacoque who "bled out the pain" of an incision that Christ allegedly gave her.

But if you have the time, watch these videos - if you can only pick one, choose the one about the life of Francis of Assisi by Father Seraphim Rose of Blessed Memory

I don't really have much time now so would you be so kind as to summarize the main objections?

Besides corporal mortification, I already got that one.

[Livenotonevil]

What would be a Catholic response to such allegations, in comparison to Orthodox spirituality?

I'm sure there's much that can be discussed but I would state, prima facie, that accusing Catholic spirituality of a perceived "lack of piety" is simply a proof of ignorance. Or perhaps misunderstanding.

All the lives of the saints point, not to themselves, but to the wondrous work that God operated in them. Lives of self-abnegation, sacrifice, prayer and charity.

Furthermore, by "self-inflicting harm" I suppose you refer to bodily mortification which is an ancient and venerable practice, duly tempered by one's spiritual counsellor.

I was referring more to Margaret Mary Alacoque who "bled out the pain" of an incision that Christ allegedly gave her.

But if you have the time, watch these videos - if you can only pick one, choose the one about the life of Francis of Assisi by Father Seraphim Rose of Blessed Memory

I don't really have much time now so would you be so kind as to summarize the main objections?

Besides corporal mortification, I already got that one.

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.

He also near the end of his life said "I do not see in myself any sin which I have not expiated by confession and repentance. The Lord gave to me in prayer the ability to see what is pleasing to Him and what I've not been pleasing." This is spiritual self-satisfaction;
"I'm pure, I'm holy, I've sinned but I've made them up with some penances - I'm a pure man spiritually." This goes against the importance of repentance in Orthodox spirituality, and nobody is free of sin.
Compare this to Saint Sisoes, who was preparing to die but he lived a bit longer and said "I need to repent more before I can go to God; I've tried my whole life to please God, but I don't know if I'm pure enough to face judgment." He's lived a very holy and pure life, but this is the spirit of the Publican, who is sorry for his sins; Francis has the spirit of the Pharisee, who sees himself pure in the eyes of God.

On his deathbed, he said "Behold, God calls me, and I forgive all my brothers both present...and I remit their sins so far as it is in my power."
He was not a priest, so he had no theoretical authority to forgive sins - it is a startling concept to believe that one's own sanctity could heal someone of their sins by their intrinsic sanctity.

One more criticism is the fact that he tried to imitate Christ in a very outward and public manner; he had disciples which "spread the Gospel;" before he died, he imitated the Last Supper with his disciples;
And when "Christ" appeared to Him, He wanted to suffer like Christ - which is not spiritual striving, but rather it is a search for bodily sensations.

[Vetus Ordo]

Thanks for enumerating those, Livenotonevil.

I'll try to check it more in depth later.

[Xavier]

What temerity. Are such false utterances against the Saints to go unanswered?

It should be remembered that the schismatic Greek Orthodox deny the dogma of the Filioque, i.e. that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. The revelation of the Sacred Heart, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Fire of Love that is the Heart of Our Lord, is Heaven's sublime refutation of this Greek blasphemy - the blasphemy for which Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 on the feast of the Holy Ghost, and already confuted in the Athanasian Creed. Small wonder that some of those who falsely deem themselves "orthodox" dare with great temerity to presume to blaspheme the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Seraphim Rose has no authority whatsoever to speak so rashly against St. Margaret Mary and St. Francis of Assisi. How dearly Our Lord willed St. John the Apostle to be honored, known as the Apostle whom Jesus loved, the one most close to the Heart of the Savior, who leant on that very Sacred Heart and saw it pierced. Is it not His right to show His Love to whom He chooses and to refuse it to whom He wills? He chose St. Margaret Mary and He rejects those who blaspheme and dishonor His Saints, like Rose does. Even in Scripture the Heart of Jesus and the Merciful graces that flow from the Seat of His Love are evident. Finally in the Eucharistic miracle of Lepanto, from the first Christian millenium, before the Greek schism was consummated, the Sacred Host perceptibly turned into flesh from the Savior's Beating Heart. It is His Sacred Heart's Precious Life Blood that He has shed for us on our Altars. And since He gives His Heart and His Blood to all Christians, why should it be deemed offensive by schismatics that He gave His Heart to St. Margaret Mary?

The criticisms of so magnificent a man as St. Francis of Assisi - exemplar of monastic life, stigmatist, universally acclaimed as a Saint, praised by almost all monks who were his companions - is even more obscene.

What does it matter to you that he started a new rule, when he did so only with the full approval of his ecclesiastical superiors - at the time when schismatics like Caerularius in Constantinople were refusing to obey theirs? It was they who started the schism thst would then lead to heresy and then apostasy and all by rebelling against the Papacy and hierarchical order. This St. Francis never did. False and wretched accusations like Saint "Francis has the spirit of the Pharisee" are offensive and only betray a lack of Christ's Spirit in him who makes them.

[Serviam]

And all this from a man that deems it just to label St. Francis a prelest(!) while proclaiming Rasputin to be a holy man. A former homosexual that is currently being masqueraded as a "saint" with an almost cultish fervour by his followers while at the very same time being accused of nestorian and gnostic sentiment by other fellow schismatics.

There is also something very dishonest about your "what are you thoughts" approach, can't quite place my finger on it, if it comes from a genuine place of you simply being confused then so be it but be very careful where that inquisitive mind takes you, if it's already lead you to the vile garbage there is no knowing where it leads you next.

If however you are quite assured of your position and this "lets have a discussion" is merely an overt ploy in propagating error, presenting it more as simply a topic of discussion so the rest of us can be more susceptible to it, then I would much rather you come out and say just that to us that are so lacking in piety so you may illuminate our thoughts.

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

[abc123]

And all this from a man that deems it just to label St. Francis a prelest(!) while proclaiming Rasputin to be a holy man. A former homosexual that is currently being masqueraded as a "saint" with an almost cultish fervour by his followers while at the very same time being accused of nestorian and gnostic sentiment by other fellow schismatics.

I would recommend reading the man's autobiography and works before making such rash generalizations and veiled attempts at character assassination by bringing up his former life. A 5 minute google search isn't likely to give you a complete picture.

[Serviam]

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/

[nmoerbeek]

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/

Fr. Seraphim Rose was an incredible man, I studied his life and more specifically his biography at the suggestion of my confessor several years ago.  His spirituality went through many seasons, and in fact he did a great deal along with Archbishop John of Shanghai and San Francisco to promote and even attempt to reconcile western saints within the Orthodox Church. 

He also is a man who was has been greatly maligned and attacked by other Orthodox for various reasons, but especially because he at a time where the Orthodox too had been infiltrated by a spirit of modernism was standing fast against it by embracing Patristic teaching especially in regards to the doctrines concerning creation.

I don't see a need to attack him to defend a Saint such as St. Francis of Assisi.  St. Francis of Assisi is one of the most misunderstood Saints in history even by his own order (I am referring to the end fighting that occurred even during his life and immediatly after his death regarding the practice of poverty).

[nmoerbeek]

What would be a Catholic response to such allegations, in comparison to Orthodox spirituality?

I'm sure there's much that can be discussed but I would state, prima facie, that accusing Catholic spirituality of a perceived "lack of piety" is simply a proof of ignorance. Or perhaps misunderstanding.

All the lives of the saints point, not to themselves, but to the wondrous work that God operated in them. Lives of self-abnegation, sacrifice, prayer and charity.

Furthermore, by "self-inflicting harm" I suppose you refer to bodily mortification which is an ancient and venerable practice, duly tempered by one's spiritual counsellor.

I was referring more to Margaret Mary Alacoque who "bled out the pain" of an incision that Christ allegedly gave her.

But if you have the time, watch these videos - if you can only pick one, choose the one about the life of Francis of Assisi by Father Seraphim Rose of Blessed Memory

I don't really have much time now so would you be so kind as to summarize the main objections?

Besides corporal mortification, I already got that one.

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.

He also near the end of his life said "I do not see in myself any sin which I have not expiated by confession and repentance. The Lord gave to me in prayer the ability to see what is pleasing to Him and what I've not been pleasing." This is spiritual self-satisfaction;
"I'm pure, I'm holy, I've sinned but I've made them up with some penances - I'm a pure man spiritually." This goes against the importance of repentance in Orthodox spirituality, and nobody is free of sin.
Compare this to Saint Sisoes, who was preparing to die but he lived a bit longer and said "I need to repent more before I can go to God; I've tried my whole life to please God, but I don't know if I'm pure enough to face judgment." He's lived a very holy and pure life, but this is the spirit of the Publican, who is sorry for his sins; Francis has the spirit of the Pharisee, who sees himself pure in the eyes of God.

On his deathbed, he said "Behold, God calls me, and I forgive all my brothers both present...and I remit their sins so far as it is in my power."
He was not a priest, so he had no theoretical authority to forgive sins - it is a startling concept to believe that one's own sanctity could heal someone of their sins by their intrinsic sanctity.

One more criticism is the fact that he tried to imitate Christ in a very outward and public manner; he had disciples which "spread the Gospel;" before he died, he imitated the Last Supper with his disciples;
And when "Christ" appeared to Him, He wanted to suffer like Christ - which is not spiritual striving, but rather it is a search for bodily sensations.

As to Point 1: This is a very inaccurate way of describing how St. Francis came into establishing a new monastic rule.  He had started living in a certain manner and attracted followers.  He did not set out to even become a monk but started to Travel the Italian countryside and clean up dilapidated churchs and do manual labor into to raise money to buy new altar clothes, and worthy chalices for the celebration of Mass.  He preferred not ever taking money but working directly for either food, or supplies.  Over time this attracted followers and out of that flowed a need for Ecclestical approval.

Point 2: You mean establishment of Nativity Scenes in Churchs.

Point 3: That is an interesting objection.  In the ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus whose writings are greatly revered you can find many, many similar episodes.  Where the Holy Eastern Monks raised as example of St. John of Climacus wrong in their practice of humility?

It is also extraordinary to me that you are raising the point about forgiving sins without being a priest when the Eastern Orthodox behave in a very similar way through their monastic elders which often times are not members of the Priesthood such as several of the Elders of Optina.  He was not absolving as a priest, but pardoning them as a spiritual father.  This should not be something that scandalizes the Christian East which has held a more unbroken tradition of Monks providing spiritual fatherhood.

As to your other points about wanting to Spread the Gospel or behaving in like manner with the last supper I would have to see those in context (I have read several books on the life of St. Francis and do not recall though telling his brothers to Spread the Gospel hardly seems like something that we should be criticizing him on.

One last point:  There are many things that can be said are in harmony with Eastern Tradition in the life of St. Francis: he encouraged his followers to not share visions or dreams, he only revealed the Stigmata because after it happend to him he was full of terror and would not speak of it again, he stepped down from ruling his own order and retreated to become a hermit at the end of life, he was a man characterized by a constant desire to find true repentance.

I hope that you can be fair to St. Francis, and if you are greatly interested in him you might consider reading a more modern life put together by the most primitive sources.  It is not a puff piece on his life and reveals a man who (in my opinion) sought after God and repentance with all his heart.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801479061/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[bigbadtrad]

How in the world can Orthodox schismatics with heretical ideas get the temerity to lecture Catholics on a forum about saints. This is a monstrous perversion. None of the questions are in good faith, they are all with an angle to discredit.

Does anyone think the works and life of St. Francis can be explained by a schismatic liar like Seraphim who purposefully and willfully obfuscates facts?

It's amazing we pussyfoot around people who blaspheme saints and try to be kind to them and explain ourselves when they are just trying to infiltrate and damage Catholics through "innocent questions." There is not an ounce of innocence to these questions.

[Livenotonevil]

I haven't had a sufficient response to these allegations, and it's bad for my spiritual well being if I just accept a one sided viewpoint of these allegations without arguing them or defending them.

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.

[Maximilian]

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.