mfbukowski Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 This is an utterly fantastic discussion. Thank you, Spammer, for sharing your views from the Orthodox point-of-view. And thank you, Rory, for sharing the traditional Catholic point-of-view. I want to add more, but that will have to wait until later when I have more time. Until then, I want to say that I feel like much truth has been said in this discussion. To use our LDS friends' parlance, I have most certainly felt the Spirit. The East-West schism is one of the great tragedies of Christianity and I believe that both sides share blame. It is sad that issues that were only a few degrees apart from each other (to use a compass metaphor) have, after 1000 years, seemingly driven an irreparable wedge between us. I hope and fervently pray for unification, however God wills it. If that means we Catholics have overstated the role of the Bishop of Rome, so be it (as long as God wills it). If it means that Orthodoxy has greatly understated the role of the Bishop of Rome, so be it (as long as God wills it). I pray for God's will, so that we all may be one. As a traditionally leaning Catholic, I absolutely believe that we Westerners have much to learn from the Eastern Church's resistance to the modernization of liturgy. And I am pleased to see, Spammer (and others), that you recognize that our traditional Latin liturgy is a more traditional, Catholic, and efficacious rite than the current one. In closing, thank you once again, LDS friends, for indulging us non-LDS Christians space on your board for these discussions. You certainly show your Christ-like charity here and I am pleased to be a part of this board. It is a testament to your devotion to Our Lord's teachings that, when many would show derision and contempt, you show love and respect. + pax vobiscum +Et cum spiritu tuo ! I am enjoying it at least as much as you!
Spammer Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Wow Spammer... I love love love your last paragraph. I have heard of Soloviev...favorably...but it seems like he wouldn't be totally satisfactory to all of my crowd either. And that might be a good recommendation. I think I could be very happy with his model as you describe it, and maybe that is where God is pushing us all. Here's a link to a pdf of his book on Orthodoxy and the Papacy. It seems to be more highly regarded in Catholic circles. Not very surprising, actually. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Solovyev--Russia_Universal_Church.pdf You probably already know this, but Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Constantinople (Istanbul) are meeting in Jerusalem on May 24-26. Pope and Patriarch last met in 1964, when the two churches lifted the mutual anathemas in place since the Great Schism. That was the first time in 500 years the two bishops had met. I'm optimistic that further progress will be made at this meeting. This will be followed in 2016, when the patriarchs of every Orthodox jurisdiction will meet in council together, the first time this has happened in 1200 years. Interesting things are happening.
Spammer Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 This is an utterly fantastic discussion. Thank you, Spammer, for sharing your views from the Orthodox point-of-view. And thank you, Rory, for sharing the traditional Catholic point-of-view. I want to add more, but that will have to wait until later when I have more time. Until then, I want to say that I feel like much truth has been said in this discussion. To use our LDS friends' parlance, I have most certainly felt the Spirit. The East-West schism is one of the great tragedies of Christianity and I believe that both sides share blame. It is sad that issues that were only a few degrees apart from each other (to use a compass metaphor) have, after 1000 years, seemingly driven an irreparable wedge between us. I hope and fervently pray for unification, however God wills it. If that means we Catholics have overstated the role of the Bishop of Rome, so be it (as long as God wills it). If it means that Orthodoxy has greatly understated the role of the Bishop of Rome, so be it (as long as God wills it). I pray for God's will, so that we all may be one. As a traditionally leaning Catholic, I absolutely believe that we Westerners have much to learn from the Eastern Church's resistance to the modernization of liturgy. And I am pleased to see, Spammer (and others), that you recognize that our traditional Latin liturgy is a more traditional, Catholic, and efficacious rite than the current one. In closing, thank you once again, LDS friends, for indulging us non-LDS Christians space on your board for these discussions. You certainly show your Christ-like charity here and I am pleased to be a part of this board. It is a testament to your devotion to Our Lord's teachings that, when many would show derision and contempt, you show love and respect. + pax vobiscum + Ditto to everything you've said. As a former Mormon, I'm keenly aware of how careful I need to be here. Turning away from your heritage and culture in search of truth roils the emotions. I'm very grateful for how kind and patient the LDS church members have been with my posts.
Spammer Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Those are also very LDS notions. On this device it's kind of hard to link, but we believe that the elements have some degree of intelligence, and they obeyed Jesus's commands. We believe spirit is material, but refined matter. Google the hymn "Peace, Be Still" and read the lyrics Guys like Cleon Skousen have written books on this subject. Not doctrinal but clearly in the culture. I remember the song as "Master, the Tempest is Raging". Same song, right? I agree the LDS and traditional Orthodox-Catholic views are very similar, but with a subtle difference rooted in our divergent conceptions of the divine. I think I'm correct in saying that LDS theology does not contain the idea that Jesus's divine nature also transcends time and space, that it was simultaneously beyond time and space and united with his human body within time, extending out beyond his human body to encompass and sustain the entire material cosmos, including the very elements he commanded on the Sea of Galilee, as remembered in the church hymn. I think the absence of LDS belief in the complete transcendence and immateriality of the divine being is what really distinguishes our two theologies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the LDS church teaches that refined spirit matter is still matter and is part of space and time, even if not subject to its effects. That's how I understood the teaching for most of my life - the time when I was still LDS. Edited April 30, 2014 by Spammer
mfbukowski Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I remember the song as "Master, the Tempest is Raging". Same song, right? I agree the LDS and traditional Orthodox-Catholic views are very similar, but with a subtle difference rooted in our divergent conceptions of the divine. I think I'm correct in saying that LDS theology does not contain the idea that Jesus's divine nature also transcends time and space, that it was simultaneously beyond time and space and united with his human body within time, extending out beyond his human body to encompass and sustain the entire material cosmos, including the very elements he commanded on the Sea of Galilee, as remembered in the church hymn. I think the absence of LDS belief in the complete transcendence and immateriality of the divine being is what really distinguishes our two theologies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the LDS church teaches that refined spirit matter is still matter and is part of space and time, even if not subject to its effects. That's how I understood the teaching for most of my life - the time when I was still LDS.Yep that's the song all right- I probably misquoted the title. The winds and the waves shall obey thy will:Peace, be still.Whether the wrath of the storm-tossed seaOr demons or men or whatever it be,No waters can swallow the ship where liesThe Master of ocean and earth and skies.They all shall sweetly obey thy will:Peace, be still; peace, be still.They all shall sweetly obey thy will:Peace, peace, be still.But I think you are wrong about the Light of Christ (our term for his power which extends forth physically from him to fill all that is) not extending "beyond" space and time. At some point of course this becomes totally semantic. What does "beyond space and time" mean? How can humans know anything about what might or might not go on "beyond space and time"? As always I will ask what practical difference does it make to we who are ant-brained little nematodes? On the other hand one could clearly postulate that since who say that there is a sense in which we can say that even God had a father, was HE "beyond space and time"? He must have existed in another "eternity" beyond our space/time reference. We use "eternity" in the plural, "eternities" and speak of worlds without number. Cathoics, I think tacitly do as well - at least did so in Latin. (I love the literal translation of the Latin "per omnia saecula saeculorum" taken to simply mean "forever", yet literally, if my High School Latin still serves- and I am open to correction- it means "through all the worlds of worlds". Per= through, omnia=all, saecula= (singular)- world, saeculorum= (genitive plural of saecula, meaning) "of the worlds" Should one desire to, one can see this all in the context of successive "big bangs" where the matter of the universe explodes out of a singularity, expands then collapses back into another singularity, repeating the process in "generations" Furthermore, clearly God would have to be "outside" space/time in order to "organize" it. I personally see our era as one of many successive universes, which is also a very Buddhist notion. Each level of a pagoda is another universe, each turn of the prayer wheel is another universe. So frankly, considering the enormity of the ambiguous linguistic abstractions strung together in trying to describe anything meaningful on this subject, I for one am willing to contract it all into "No, we believe the same thing". We believe in divinity but not divine "nature" in any way separated from human nature, though. We believe that we are all divine, potentially- which is also close to what you guys believe- but we do not believe in two natures. We are little germ-cell gods trying to swim upstream to get the opportunity to grow up into big Gods, and not many of us will make it. (some will disagree with that) But our essential "nature" is also the same as God's nature
mfbukowski Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Ditto to everything you've said. As a former Mormon, I'm keenly aware of how careful I need to be here. Turning away from your heritage and culture in search of truth roils the emotions. I'm very grateful for how kind and patient the LDS church members have been with my posts. Oh yeah? Try to be a former Catholic with a thousand years of ancestors who were Catholics- all the time hoping there are not ticked off at you. People talk about being a "sixth generation Mormon"- I am probably at least a former four- hundred-generation Catholic! Dang, I hope i got it right! But they keep bugging me to get their work done, so I think I am safe. I have seen miracles happen. How likely is it for me to randomly run into a guy in my stake who's father has hundreds of records of Bukowskis from the exact little town my people come from?? Going back hundreds of years? When my family had tried for 50 years to get those records and could not find them because they were all lost after the war?? They had been moved to another location for safe keeping but we could not find out where. I get baptized, and up pops this guy!! He has relatives in this region and hired a Polish guy over there to track down the records of the region. It's those kind of tender mercies that are the tiny testimonies that build the big ones.
EllenMaksoud Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 This topic came up in a somewhat unrelated thread so I though I'd start a new one. At one point in unrighteousness does an LDS priesthood holder lose priesthood authority? I ask because I've heard some people explain the apostasy in terms of righteousness -- priesthood authority was removed because of the unrighteousness of those holding it. Since they lost the authority, they then could no longer pass this authority on. Another question would be how does this affect LDS ordinances? What if a priesthood leader was secretly having a long term affair. Are those he baptized not really baptized? What about those he ordains to the priesthood? If they're not really ordained, then all of the ordinances they perform wouldn't really be ordinances either. And if the secret persists long enough, this could really explode exponentially. The Catholic Church very early on declared it a heresy to believe that a Sacrament (ordinance) was invalid because of the unrighteousness of the priest or bishop. What's the LDS take on this? Thanks!Though I lack a reasonable explanation, I have seen that Mormon priesthood authority is uneque in my experience. There are times when I wanted to argue and lost my peace until I listened. I was baptised 4 times, once in the River Jordan in Israel and it was not until a Mormon Missionary baptised me that I got the healing I had so sought. I am not on very good terms with the church right now, but I can not argue with the authority. http://mytwistedwall.blogspot.com/
Spammer Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Yep that's the song all right- I probably misquoted the title. But I think you are wrong about the Light of Christ (our term for his power which extends forth physically from him to fill all that is) not extending "beyond" space and time. Ok, I see where you're coming from. Interesting. When I grew up, I always understood the Light of Christ as a kind of mental illumination that church members carry with them by virtue of their membership. In my mind, it was always connected in some way to the countenance of church members, the 'Mormon glow'. At some point of course this becomes totally semantic. What does "beyond space and time" mean? How can humans know anything about what might or might not go on "beyond space and time"? As always I will ask what practical difference does it make to we who are ant-brained little nematodes? On the other hand one could clearly postulate that since who say that there is a sense in which we can say that even God had a father, was HE "beyond space and time"? He must have existed in another "eternity" beyond our space/time reference. Yup, it comes down to axioms. Do we posit the unknowable 'beyond' as immaterial or material? It all depends on prior philosophical commitments, which are unprovable. We use "eternity" in the plural, "eternities" and speak of worlds without number. Cathoics, I think tacitly do as well - at least did so in Latin. (I love the literal translation of the Latin "per omnia saecula saeculorum" taken to simply mean "forever", yet literally, if my High School Latin still serves- and I am open to correction- it means "through all the worlds of worlds". Per= through, omnia=all, saecula= (singular)- world, saeculorum= (genitive plural of saecula, meaning) "of the worlds" In Orthodoxy, we use εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, "unto the ages of ages". It's the same concept as in the Latin and refers to plural eternities. Should one desire to, one can see this all in the context of successive "big bangs" where the matter of the universe explodes out of a singularity, expands then collapses back into another singularity, repeating the process in "generations" Furthermore, clearly God would have to be "outside" space/time in order to "organize" it. I personally see our era as one of many successive universes, which is also a very Buddhist notion. Each level of a pagoda is another universe, each turn of the prayer wheel is another universe. So frankly, considering the enormity of the ambiguous linguistic abstractions strung together in trying to describe anything meaningful on this subject, I for one am willing to contract it all into "No, we believe the same thing". Agreed. Whether we posit an original immaterial Reality or succession of 'big bangs' or eternal progression of pagoda levels, what is outside, before, and beyond our own particular space/time is unknowable and thus basically the same thing. We believe in divinity but not divine "nature" in any way separated from human nature, though. We believe that we are all divine, potentially- which is also close to what you guys believe- but we do not believe in two natures. We are little germ-cell gods trying to swim upstream to get the opportunity to grow up into big Gods, and not many of us will make it. (some will disagree with that) But our essential "nature" is also the same as God's nature Yes, that's the big difference. We believe that the divine essence is uncreated and infinite. As infinity cannot be subdivided, reduced, increased, partitioned, etc., so the divine essence must necessarily be One. There is God and then there is everything else. Only the infinite divine essence is uncreated. That conception of ours creates an absolute ontological gap between us and God. Thus, we're not little germ-cell gods trying to swim upstream (since our germ-cells or inner essences are finite and therefore not divine) but created, finite beings who have the opportunity to participate in God's communicable attributes.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Ok, I see where you're coming from. Interesting. When I grew up, I always understood the Light of Christ as a kind of mental illumination that church members carry with them by virtue of their membership. In my mind, it was always connected in some way to the countenance of church members, the 'Mormon glow'. It sound like you are describing the "Mormon glow" as having His countenance engraved on our image. Or IWO having the Spirit. The light of Christ, as the LDS understand it is that everyone is given this light wand what it is is to know good from evil. You don't even need to be a member to have it.
Spammer Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 It sound like you are describing the "Mormon glow" as having His countenance engraved on our image. Or IWO having the Spirit. The light of Christ, as the LDS understand it is that everyone is given this light wand what it is is to know good from evil. You don't even need to be a member to have it. Yes, that's how I always understood it.
Spammer Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Oh yeah? Try to be a former Catholic with a thousand years of ancestors who were Catholics- all the time hoping there are not ticked off at you. People talk about being a "sixth generation Mormon"- I am probably at least a former four- hundred-generation Catholic! Dang, I hope i got it right! But they keep bugging me to get their work done, so I think I am safe. I have seen miracles happen. How likely is it for me to randomly run into a guy in my stake who's father has hundreds of records of Bukowskis from the exact little town my people come from?? Going back hundreds of years? When my family had tried for 50 years to get those records and could not find them because they were all lost after the war?? They had been moved to another location for safe keeping but we could not find out where. I get baptized, and up pops this guy!! He has relatives in this region and hired a Polish guy over there to track down the records of the region. It's those kind of tender mercies that are the tiny testimonies that build the big ones. Cool story. I never made to Poland when I lived in Deutschland. I always wanted to go, but the powers that be decided to save the American taxpayer money and shorten our time there. Oh well. Assuming the Tea Party doesn't get its way and shut down the federal government for good ( ), I'll get over there again some day.
mfbukowski Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Yes, that's the big difference. We believe that the divine essence is uncreated and infinite. As infinity cannot be subdivided, reduced, increased, partitioned, etc., so the divine essence must necessarily be One. There is God and then there is everything else. Only the infinite divine essence is uncreated. That conception of ours creates an absolute ontological gap between us and God. Thus, we're not little germ-cell gods trying to swim upstream (since our germ-cells or inner essences are finite and therefore not divine) but created, finite beings who have the opportunity to participate in God's communicable attributes.At this point I think it becomes a philosophical difference, to me not to be worried about between us. But I could never accept that. It's pure medieval philosophy. That is essentially why I am not Catholic. It does not resonate for me at all, because in my opinion it is linguistic confusion. But I love ya anyway!
Spammer Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) At this point I think it becomes a philosophical difference, to me not to be worried about between us. But I could never accept that. It's pure medieval philosophy. That is essentially why I am not Catholic. It does not resonate for me at all, because in my opinion it is linguistic confusion. But I love ya anyway! Lol, yup! For the record, I really like Rorty and agree with you that we can never get 'out of our own heads', i.e., we can't bridge the gap between appearances and reality and just have to make do. That sits side by side with my inability to conceive of the divine as anything other than infinite. The rest follows logically in my mind. The relationship between those two propositions in my mind explains why I find Orthodox spirituality to be so fascinating. The Eastern church fathers claimed that by uniting yourself to the divine essence you can pierce through appearances and penetrate to reality and in a flash directly perceive the inner essences of all created things. They claimed that's the experience of those who have been divinized (theosis). Spiritual practices thus completely obviate the need for any philosophical attempt to deduce the essences through reasoned discourse, in fact engaging in such reasoning can be spiritually harmful. All philosophy is language- and concept-based and we're trapped in our concepts. Using philosophy to try to find truth runs the risk of converting concepts into idols. It's better to just fast, pray, go to church, and wait for the divine revelation to your innermost being. So there you have it. Yet more similarity! Edited May 1, 2014 by Spammer
mfbukowski Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Lol, yup! For the record, I really like Rorty and agree with you that we can never get 'out of our own heads', i.e., we can't bridge the gap between appearances and reality and just have to make do. That sits side by side with my inability to conceive of the divine as anything other than infinite. The rest follows logically in my mind. The relationship between those two propositions in my mind explains why I find Orthodox spirituality to be so fascinating. The Eastern church fathers claimed that by uniting yourself to the divine essence you can pierce through appearances and penetrate to reality and in a flash directly perceive the inner essences of all created things. They claimed that's the experience of those who have been divinized (theosis). Spiritual practices thus completely obviate the need for any philosophical attempt to deduce the essences through reasoned discourse, in fact engaging in such reasoning can be spiritually harmful. All philosophy is language- and concept-based and we're trapped in our concepts. Using philosophy to try to find truth runs the risk of converting concepts into idols. It's better to just fast, pray, go to church, and wait for the divine revelation to your innermost being. So there you have it. Yet more similarity! Great stuff- and thanks for all that. Of course as I see it, once one is divinized one still has spiritual experiences based on what God gives their minds, so that doesn't make the problem go away. I guess the idea of "perceiving an essence" is what is problematic for me, since in my mind, the word MEANS something created in the mind. To me the "essence" of say, cars, is an abstract idea of "carness" which is essentially made up of a list of all words which pertain to cars and nothing else. Headlights, tail lights, engine size, perhaps etc. That is what the word "essence" means to me. It is an abstraction, not a perception or an experience. It is a definition really. I would say we could see with the mind of God, but for me God is also human in some sense. Anyway, yep we are very close, but I could never give up our temple for anything. I find it endlessly challenging symbolically. Oh and here is an official link on the Light of Christ https://www.lds.org/topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng The Light of Christ is the divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things. The Light of Christ influences people for good and prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost. One manifestation of the Light of Christ is what we call a conscience. Additional Information The Light of Christ “proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” It is “the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed” (D&C 88:12-13; see also D&C 88:6-11). This power is an influence for good in the lives of all people (see John 1:9; D&C 93:2). In the scriptures, the Light of Christ is sometimes called the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, or the Light of Life. The Light of Christ should not be confused with the Holy Ghost. It is not a personage, as the Holy Ghost is. Its influence leads people to find the true gospel, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (see John 12:46; Alma 26:14-15). Conscience is a manifestation of the Light of Christ, enabling us to judge good from evil. The prophet Mormon taught: “The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. . . . And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged” (Moroni 7:16, 18).So there it is- very similar to the idea you brought up above a few posts Edited May 1, 2014 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts