Why I converted from Orthodoxy, by Gideon Lazar, Catholic University of America.

Started by Xavier, November 25, 2019, 03:45:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kreuzritter

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 12:01:50 PM
Here is how I would answer.   The Popes have consistently taught at least since Trent

Indeed. All the more reason to suspect them. No pope can bind me to the tenets of a pagan philosophy.

Quotethat natural law ethics is sound Catholic philosophy

Am I supposed to be awed by this when these same popes were raised and educated in that Hellenised philosophy?

QuoteAND that Catholic philosophy is integral to understanding questions of Catholic faith and morals. 

1,000 years of Christianity without Scholasticism ...

QuoteEven the Early Church Fathers (of the West and East) often embraced philosophy, especially of the Greeks. 

I know. I already gave the crypto-Stoic Jerome as just one such example, a Helleniser par excellence who regarded marriage as an evil and all sex as defilement.

QuotePope John Paul II, for all his progressive orientations, taught in Fides et Ratio what Pope Leo XIII taught in Aeternae Patris:  that the sphere of faith and the sphere of reason, by divine design, are to be in harmony;  that the basic "preambles of faith," ie the basic moral teachings, can be proven by reason itself.   

Scholastic "proofs" of moral propositions by "natural law" theory are demonstrably unsound; derivation of moral imperatives from these is demonstrably impossible.

QuoteBy "reason alone" I was not meaning "reason separate from faith," but "reason standing on its own, enlightened by faith."   The Popes taught this too, that fundamental moral doctrines can be proven by reason itself, even within the context of the Church.  Regardless of your opinion about scholasticism, that is what Tradition and the Magisterium teaches. 

"Can be". Even if they "can be", they never have been.

QuoteAnswering your objections:

1.  The "realm of reason" is not something separate from the authority of the pope (or Church for that matter).  The pope has the authority to teach the veracity of the natural law, and recommend it.  That is the point.   That is where we Catholics should begin

If you have to appeal to papal teaching to establish your claim, you are not demonstrating it "by reason alone". You are depending upon an alleged fact of divine revelation. It was your own contention that marriage being indissoluble by nature can be proved "by reason alone", and this point does not do that.

Quote2.  a) Adults are always maturing spiritually and morally, needing on occasion the counsel of their parents, which is why by natural design marriage is for lie 

Adults do not need married parents for this.

Quoteb)  The primary purpose of marriage is actually not mere biological procreation, but the moral education of their offspring, and that education does not end when the child becomes an adult; 

Which does not require married parents.

Quotec) grave abuse of a spouse is grounds for separation, not divorce.

This assertion doesn't change my point. Divorce of parents can, depending on circumstances, be more beneficial to a child than their remaining married.

And still, regardless of any of these points being true or not, they do not "prove" that marriage is "indissoluble" by "natural law".

More ironically, Catholic tradition and historical practice flatly contradicts this, that it is "indissoluble".

Quote
3. See what I wrote above about natural law/philosophy.

There is no response to my point in it.

QuoteConclusion:  if you are biased against the natural law and philosophy,

I am not "biased" against it any more than I am "biased" against metaphysical naturalism or flat earth theory; it is demonstrably false and fails to meet its stated objective.

Quotethen there is no argument with you from reason itself.   Hence the sarcasm of my syllogism.  You're not being intelligent or logical here about a serious Catholic subject.

I see. If you don't accept Stoic philosophy and Scholastic language games, you're not being "logical" or "intelligent"; that is the beginning and end of your argument.


Kreuzritter

There are of course two camps here: those Roman Catholics who knowingly embrace Greek pagan philosophy and those who are unaware of the degree to which Western theology, mainly from the Middle Ages, but already in Patristic times, was shaped by it. It shocked me when I had understood the extent of it, how much of Rome's theology is transplanted Greek philosophy, and how much it radically diverges from the world view of the ancient Hebrew.

Kreuzritter

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 12:47:01 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 12:29:04 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 12:06:45 PM
bingo.  Which is the whole point of the argument.  We're not just spinning our wheels for the kick of it.   If marriage for life is a "law of supernature" then the Eastern Orthodox Church is violating a divine, supernatural revelation by allowing divorce and remarriage (Without annulment).   You've just proven that they are in a state of doctrinal contradiction! well done!   you can have the last word...

No, that doesn't follow, and no, I haven't.

::)

No, it doesn't. I didn't propose this as a "moral" law but as a supernatural reality: it is a "divine law" in the sense that the nature of the divine energies infused in the sanctified man enable and drive him toward such having such love and commitment. It doesn't follow from my willing, by divine grace, to commit to someone in that manner, that this is under all circumstances indissoluble. It only follows that, insofar as I remain in this grace, that impetus for dissolution should not come from me. If the bond is shattered from the other side, and shattered it then is, how should this fact bind me to marriage any more than Christ's love binds him to save a reprobate from hellfire?

Yeah, I suppose I'm to,say, watch a sociopathic spouse I wed out of naivety and ignorance wantonly destroy a marriage and then go on to remarry and lead the life of a sodomite, and I will have to live the rest of my life as a monk in a vow of chastity out of some pointless loyalty to a reprobate. The traditional Orthodox perspective of Oikonomia makes more sense and makes more sense of the Gospel of Matthew (i.e., it doesn't flatly contradict it).

Sins against the marrriage bed should be forgiven; but sometimes forgiveness is not even WANTED. Sometimes mercy is FLATLY REJECTED. Sometimes the offender WANTS destruction. Applied to his own mercy, God calls it  an unpardonable sin. Why should he hold man to a higher standard?

christulsa

I won't argue anymore about the divorce question, but I will say from reading the forums the last year you seem to be considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy.  This is a sad trend for me to witness year after year, trad Catholics going Orthodox.   It seems as the OP said largely because of the liturgical abuse, but also getting burnt out on traditionalism and yearning for the spiritual simplicity that Orthodoxy seems to offer.  I don't know your reasons, if its because you are divorced and want to remarry and still receive the sacraments, or because you're more a right-brained, mystical kind of thinker than the more left-brained, analytical, Thomistic kind of thinkers.   But I would warn you not to be bitter against the Catholic Church as the impulse of leaving it.  I hope that's not the direction you're headed.

Kreuzritter

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
I won't argue anymore about the divorce question, but I will say from reading the forums the last year you seem to be considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Thank you. I assure you, I am not. I am not looking to or considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy

QuoteI don't know your reasons, if its because you are divorced and want to remarry

No.

Sempronius


Xavier

Yes, trads lapsing into the Greek Schism of Photian so-called "Orthodoxy" is a real problem, and we've seen some go on to become faithless Protestant heretics, and others secularist pagan apostates, right here on this very forum. It shows the wicked fruits of neglecting Marian Devotion, Devotion to Christ in the Eucharist, other necessary Catholic Devotions, and also due respect and reverence to the Successors of the Apostles. The Catholic Church is the only Universal Church, the only Church that fulfills the prophesy of Mal 1:11 on the Universal Sacrifice of Holy Mass - the Church alone that offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from sunrise to sunset, Mal 1:[11] "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." [11] "A clean oblation": Viz., the Precious Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/44001.htm

""Did you ever think that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is being offered in some part of the world every hour of your life? When it is midnight in New York, Masses are beginning in the churches of Italy. There ancient altars, at which Saints have knelt, are lit up with tapers, and the Vicar of Christ and thousands of priests are lifting holy hands up to Heaven. A little later and the bells of a thousand towers of France begin to sprinkle the air with holy sounds; and in every city, town and hamlet, kneeling crowds adore the chastening hand of God and pray for sinners who despise His ordinances ... "When midnight sounds again in New York, the silver bells are tinkling again in every chancel in Rome. And so it goes on; the divine Host is constantly rising like the sun in its course around the earth. Thus are fulfilled the words of the prophet Malachias [1:11]: 'From the rising of the sun even to the going down thereof, My name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a clean oblation: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." "Not an instant of time passes that Mass is not offered, and the Host not adored. Talk of an Empire on which the sun never sets, of the British reveille drum ever beating as our planet revolves on its axis and the day chases night around the globe; what is that to the unending oblation of the Catholic Church?" http://slatts.blogspot.com/2008/06/in-every-place-there-is-sacrifice.html

I wrote an article on the Filioque to help address the problem of trads lapsing into Orthodoxy, and already 2 Orthodox I'm aware of happily returned to the Catholic Church after reading it. That's online here: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/

"Orthodoxy" was always about Photius, and Photius' heretical denial of a foundational Dogma of Catholic Faith, already taught in the Athanasian Creed, and in 5 Ecumenical Councils, several centuries before the great heresiarch. If Catholics are properly catechized about this heresy and the strict need to avoid it all costs, they would be much better equipped not to fall prey to its modern proponents.

"[1] Five Ecumenical Councils approved a letter of Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria that taught the Dogma of the Filioque!

Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine gives a manifest proof establishing the doctrine from the authority of five ecumenical councils:

Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, 'The Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is Truth, and so He proceeds from Him likewise as from the Father.' This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods. We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?"

St. Robert's excellent work is on Catholic Apologetics here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Xavier

1. More from St. Robert: "Ninth [of Fifteen Latin Fathers, beside Fifteen Greek Fathers, and the Five Ecumenical Councils we saw above] Blessed Leo, "There is one who generates; another who is generated; another who proceeds from both." And this is that Leo the Great whom in the fourth Synod 630 Bishops, almost all Oriental, extolled with the greatest praise, and about whom they repeated again and again that as Leo believes so also do we believe ...

The Disputation is Concluded with a Divine Testimony

At the end of the whole disputation it has been pleasing now to note a divine judgment or testimony. For God has shown in many ways after the rise of the schism who is in error, the Greeks or the Latins. For up to the time of the schism Greece flourished with learned and holy men, so that all the general Councils were celebrated among the Greeks; but after the schism for almost 800 years they have had no Council, no holy man famous for miracles, very few learned men. But the Latins at this time have had twelve general Councils and innumerable particular ones. Again in each age there have been men very famous for miracles, new orders of religious, many learned men ... "

2. Conclusion from St. Alphonsus: "he was anathematized [at the Eighth General Council] in these words : "Anathema to Photius the invader, the schismatical tyrant, the new Judas, the inventor of perverse dogmas." In these and such like terms was he condemned, and, together with him, Gregory of Syracuse, and all their followers, who persevered in their obstinacy (4). Twenty-seven Canons were promulgated in this the Eighth General Council ... https://sensusfidelium.us/apologetics/history-of-heresies-their-refutation-st-alphonsus/the-errors-of-the-greeks-condemned-in-three-general-councils/

St. Robert and St. Alphonsus prove that Photius' Heresy was not some small matter, but a very grave form of crypto-Macedonianism. Those who want to safeguard their Faith and save their souls will steer well clear of such dangerous errors and the eternally harmful consequences of falling into it.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

james03

QuoteOkay. Let's recapitulate. You stated that fornication is sex between unmarried people. If the people, or one of them, were married, we'd call it adultery. And note, both words "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the cite. While fornication has acquired the specific meaning of sex between unmarried people in English, this was a recent development. Both fornication and adultery generally meant illicit or unlawful sexual immorality.

No.  Fornication is sex outside of marriage.  Adultery is sex outside of marriage by at least one married person.  Jesus switches terms to make His point.  In the case of fornication you can grant a bill of divorce.  This is referring to the virginity test in jewish law.  This comment only appears in the jewish gospel of Matthew.

Even if we grant that fornication is some sort of other morality for the sake of argument, you still arrive at annulment.  Husband forgot to tell his fiancee he was a closet homosexual.  Wife forgot to tell her fiancee she was a prostitute.  Constitutes deception and fraud, and thus grounds for annulment.  And this is taking your interpretation.

But your argument still eventually fails as the orthodox don't limit divorce to adultery.  Which itself would be absurd as if you wanted to divorce your wife and stay in the Church, just rent a prostitute one night.

"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

QuoteJerome lost every right to speak on anything concerning marriage by calling it and the sexual act evil.
Except Jerome wasn't speaking on anything.  He was translating.  And he was the best translator the Church has ever had merely for the reason that he was working circa 400 A.D. when many more texts were available to him and Koine Greek was still a common tongue.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

christulsa

Quote from: james03 on December 04, 2019, 06:23:08 PM
QuoteOkay. Let's recapitulate. You stated that fornication is sex between unmarried people. If the people, or one of them, were married, we'd call it adultery. And note, both words "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the cite. While fornication has acquired the specific meaning of sex between unmarried people in English, this was a recent development. Both fornication and adultery generally meant illicit or unlawful sexual immorality.

No.  Fornication is sex outside of marriage.  Adultery is sex outside of marriage by at least one married person.  Jesus switches terms to make His point.  In the case of fornication you can grant a bill of divorce.  This is referring to the virginity test in jewish law.  This comment only appears in the jewish gospel of Matthew.

Even if we grant that fornication is some sort of other morality for the sake of argument, you still arrive at annulment.  Husband forgot to tell his fiancee he was a closet homosexual.  Wife forgot to tell her fiancee she was a prostitute.  Constitutes deception and fraud, and thus grounds for annulment.  And this is taking your interpretation.

But your argument still eventually fails as the orthodox don't limit divorce to adultery.  Which itself would be absurd as if you wanted to divorce your wife and stay in the Church, just rent a prostitute one night.

I'll put to you another case James, for which I would imagine the EO would have their own particular answer.  I've actually known of several couples in this situation.

Two Catholics get married in the Catholic Church.  Both tell each other and the priest before taking their vows that they intend to be open to life, to render the marriage debt to each other (except for grave reasons), to act in conformity with the Church's teaching about the purposes of marriage, especially the procreation of children.  Nothing else is said before the ceremony to the contrary.

But then weeks and months after the wedding the man (let's say its the man in this example though I can easily imagine this being more likely on the part of the wife) starts refusing the marriage debt to his wife, showing no willingness or interest in his wife sexually or in other physically intimate ways.   The reasons he gives can be shown not to even remotely constitute a grave reason.  And this pattern continues for years even, with little or no sexual relations/sexual intimacy with the same excuse and behavior.  From the beginning even he acts distant to her, spends a lot of time with friends outside of the home.  In this scenario the wife is at least basically doing her duties and is living consistent with a Catholic life as a person and as a wife.  Taking of courses consideration of the complexities of personality differences, biological issues, hardships, etc.

Besides common sense, could we prove that is grounds for a declaration of nullity, that the relationship at least up until that time does not constitute a valid, sacramental marriage?

Nazianzen

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
I won't argue anymore about the divorce question, but I will say from reading the forums the last year you seem to be considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy.  This is a sad trend for me to witness year after year, trad Catholics going Orthodox. 

Has anybody seen a single case of this in the real world, or is it purely a "forum" phenomenon (you know, yet another variety of vanity, as if the Devil had not already invented enough of them).

christulsa

Quote from: Nazianzen on December 04, 2019, 07:15:17 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
I won't argue anymore about the divorce question, but I will say from reading the forums the last year you seem to be considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy.  This is a sad trend for me to witness year after year, trad Catholics going Orthodox. 

Has anybody seen a single case of this in the real world, or is it purely a "forum" phenomenon (you know, yet another variety of vanity, as if the Devil had not already invented enough of them).

A family who attended our local SSPX chapel left the Church and converted to Orthodoxy through an Old Calendar Russian Orthodox chapel which is about ten miles from my house.  Right before they left, the husband was questioning a lot the scandals surrounding Francis and doubts about the Catholic teachings on the papacy because of it.  They were hard core trads for years.  Its as if the Francis Effect is bringing conservative Catholics back to Tradition en masse, while on the other end it (he) is driving many trads into Orthodoxy.   

Nazianzen

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 07:19:00 PM
Quote from: Nazianzen on December 04, 2019, 07:15:17 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
I won't argue anymore about the divorce question, but I will say from reading the forums the last year you seem to be considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy.  This is a sad trend for me to witness year after year, trad Catholics going Orthodox. 

Has anybody seen a single case of this in the real world, or is it purely a "forum" phenomenon (you know, yet another variety of vanity, as if the Devil had not already invented enough of them).

OK, so not "theological" but "practical."

Reminds me of Fulton Sheen's comment - nobody awakes one morning with sudden doubts about the mystery of the Trinity; what actually happens, is a man wants to marry his neighbour's wife, and doubts about the Trinity are summoned to pave the way.

christulsa

Quote from: Nazianzen on December 04, 2019, 07:48:48 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 07:19:00 PM
Quote from: Nazianzen on December 04, 2019, 07:15:17 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 01:50:04 PM
I won't argue anymore about the divorce question, but I will say from reading the forums the last year you seem to be considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy.  This is a sad trend for me to witness year after year, trad Catholics going Orthodox. 

Has anybody seen a single case of this in the real world, or is it purely a "forum" phenomenon (you know, yet another variety of vanity, as if the Devil had not already invented enough of them).


OK, so not "theological" but "practical."

Reminds me of Fulton Sheen's comment - nobody awakes one morning with sudden doubts about the mystery of the Trinity; what actually happens, is a man wants to marry his neighbour's wife, and doubts about the Trinity are summoned to pave the way.

Exactly.  We were actually friends w them outside of church.  The husband thought Francis, the NO, and most trads (including the locals) were not conservative enough in their lifestyle choices.  It was a pattern that kept coming up in our conversations.  Then one day they were gone.  When I finally was able to get a hold of him, he gave a short explanation, that he no longer believed in the claims of Rome and the papacy and they were going Orthodox.  Despite future efforts, we never heard from them again.  I concluded that they left the chapel and Church for personal reasons, needing to fit in with a traditional liturgy church where the people seemed to them more conservative, and for that reason mainly they started to doubt the papacy.  It was convenient for them, at least at that moment in their lives.   It was a sad loss too on a personal level.  So yeah, I think this is more than what goes down in the forums.  These trads that come here bitter at the Church, flirting w Orthodoxy, I'm afraid are following the same trend out there in the "real world."