www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The East-West schism...

...why are we arguing?

I had a long discussion with my Byzantine Church tutor just now about the essay I just wrote on the Council of Florence and I feel almost enlightened for it. Dr M.C. Steenberg [monachos.net] is not just a good scholar, he is a great scholar because he is a great man. His eyes can penetrate appearances and get to the essence of things. I wish I could express to him how much I admire him.

Why are arguing? Seriously? I mean on a human level. Not on the abstract level but honestly what is our argument about: East and West. Moreover, what is our argument achieving? Who are arguing on behalf of? This a question especially to the theologians and apologists. What are we doing?

Sitting here thinking of all the arguments I've been having lately I am wondering now seriously what is it all in aid of? Is this argument worth anything, is it going anywhere? The more and more I think about it the more I think Sergei Bulgakov was right about these 'divisive issues'.

Ignoring the fact that for example St Cyril of Alexandria explicitly teaches the filioque and its only the West teaching it. Then what? What difference does that make really? Sitting here thinking about it, to me it doesn't make much of a difference at all. This is my question: who are aruging for? Who are we defending?

And resolving this argument on paper, which many theologians have, then what? What does that achieve? Everyone's right or your wrong and we're right? And then...? What difference does that make? Does the ordinary lay person suddenly get a theological doctorate and understand the complexities of the debate? Would they all of a sudden loose their ingrained dislike of the 'other'. All our oecumenical dialogue really is vanity. It convinces us that we're actually doing something when in fact it doesn't have the slightest impact at all.

Having argued constantly here constantly as of late about East-West issues its become increasingly apparent that nobody's stance has changed one iota. I am unconvinced that the Latin Church has made a mistake or is misinterpreting Cyril, nor am I convinced that the Byzantines are erring or that there is need to interpret Cyril according to Blymmedes, Gregory II and Gregory Palamas. But so what? Nobody else has changed their mind either and even if they had what would it change? Apoutheon and Jason have said the East will never change its view of the Latins. But who is the East? Plenty of people here who are not just Greek Catholic but Orthodox and who feel differently. All this has convinced me that reunion will not be drawn out on a discussion table.

Closed ears will remain closed regardless of whether you can prove a theological point or not. Just as some people will always think the very idea of reunion is anathema others will always be more open to it. In the end all the theologians do is give words to those willing to recieve them. Thats all. We sow seeds on fertile soil and nothing else. People who read Garrigou-La Grange wont read de Lubac, those who read Von Balthasar wont read Rahner, those who read Romanides wont read Zizioulas. The whole oecumenical venture rises and falls not on the efforts of the theologians but on the hearts of the people.

For all our studying, reading, arguing and whatever. We are achieving nothing. Its just a lot of writing that serves no real purpose outside of the few that share our standpoint. Rather than helping the Oecumenical venture our discussions even those carried out chartiably are simply creating parties and factions. There will always be those reactionaries who sneer at joint-statements of that, that, or the other point and who team up with others who feel the same. Likewise, there will always be those unionists who link arms with others like themselves. This simply serves to aggrevate the situation. A bunch of us agree, so a bunch of people elsewhere disagree. Thats just the way it is. Things will only change when people want them to change. Fin. What we nod our heads and shake them to doesn't change a thing. Our voices are not what will change the era.

I started reading Theology because I wanted to learn more about God and wanted to share that knowledge to bring people to Christ. But all this is not helping anyone at all. The only thing that'll do that is peaceful co-existence between Catholics and Orthodox until the time has come for us to be willing to let each other to express our ways of approaching the Ultimate Mystery in our own idioms and let it be.

As Alice and others have testified to, Fr Benedict Groeschel, though he is not an academic theologian of world renown has done more for East-West relations just by being holy than a lot of other people. He has shown the jewels of the West to the East and recieved the East's jewels in turn. Thats true Ecumenism.

At Florence the Fathers said the saints cannot contradict. They were right. When we have a Church of Saints all will be well. Until that time I think I'm going to become a real theologian, for as Evagrius said, a theologian is one who prays and its prayer and not documents that is needed above all else. I imagined someday that I'd become a proffessor in the academy but now I'm not so sure. Just a normal wage would probably suit me fine...

God Bless Byzcath
Myles

Myles and All Others,

This is a plea for caution! I have made this plea elsewhere, but I will make it again here because it is so relevant.

While I sympathize with what you are saying, Myles, and agree with at least some of it, I hasten to add that we mustn't fall into opposite errors. It is an error, as you suggest, to be entirely rationalistic and to think that this will all be resolved by discussion and debate. However, it is also an error to suggest that discussion is irrelevant or entirely unhelpful and will not contribute to resolving anything. We mustn't denigrate theological work from the outset as if it were all vanity and accomplishing nothing. For one, this is an attack and an insult against persons, not only those who make it their lives work but also those who truly do this sort of thing with a spirit of ecumenicity and a drive toward actually resolving difficulties -- and what could be less "ecumenical" than that? We mustn't disparage one another. Second, to denigrate theological discussion, precision, and even a certain dose of rational debate is to denigrate the saints and the ecumenical councils. St. Maximos the Confessor just is a philosopher as well as a theologian, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, and the same goes for many saints revered by both traditions. The Ecumenical Councils which defined and defended our beliefs in Christ and the Trinity made heavy debate over even single letters -- there was debate over whether Christ was homoousious with the Father or homoiousious with the Father; a change in one letter results in Arianism -- and over difficult concepts, such as the "hypostatic union." There is a part to play for these discussions, and there are differences in doctrinal terminology that do matter; this is simply a fact of history and of our Churches, and it simply cannot be denied.

Having said that, I fear for these message boards; people are often too hasty to dismiss disagreement over doctrine as "vanity" or "rationalism" or haughtiness or some other such thing. Such a move is not only dangerous, but also unfair. Please, please, take caution.

Now, on to a few specifics. Myles, you said: I'm sorry, but this is a personal attack and I would ask that you please withdraw it in charity. No one is "ignoring" the "fact" that Cyril explicitly teaches the filioque. Apotheoun has explicitly addressed you, as have I, and I have promised that there will be "more on Cyril later." In fact, tonight I will give you quite powerful reasons for thinking that it is not just a bare and obvious "fact" that Cyril teaches the filioque. In any case, though, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions, it is simply false and unfair to claim that those involved are "ignoring" "facts."

The difference that it makes is that those theologians who do understand the doctrinal differences can have those issues resolved, and can then work without reservation toward union. Certainly the discussion may not have much relevance to some laymen, but that does not imply that it has no relevance at all. To suggest that it does is to make an invalid inference.

Again, Myles, this is an attack against persons, and does not seem to me to be said in an "ecumenical" spirit. All ecumenical dialogue is vanity? Myles, have you read the recent statements put out by the different Orthodox and Catholic ecumenical committees? They are getting somewhere. This is having an impact. Have you read Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way (or maybe it's his The Orthodox Church)? In the first addition he was flat-out opposed to the filioque. Since then, he has changed his mind. Furthermore, I will just assert quite plainly that these discussion have had an impact on me. There is plain evidence of this on these message boards; my opinion has clearly changed from what it was in my early debates with Apotheoun -- I used to disagree quite clearly with him.

This is false!

Where have I said this? I don't think I've said this. I simply do not believe this.

I've read both.

In closing, I would again urge caution, caution, caution! We can't be so hasty! Yes, Myles, I understand your frustration, but I would submit that such frustration could possibly be a snare of the Enemy; he wants us to despair over these things and to stop discussion. He may want us to think that words don't ever matter (after all, if the early Church had thought that, Arianism might still flourish). We need to be on guard against either extreme, both of rationalism and of anti-rationality. There is a happy middle, and that is prayerful discussion and dialogue that never loses sight of the fact that we profess faith in a Trinity, in a "unity in diversity," and so on. There is a place for discussion at times, and it cannot be ruled out outright.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I withdraw all statements so percieved as attacks. I was being reflective and at the time introspective. If I have offended anyone then I apologise. My intentions certainly were not to cause more contention.

MAB

Myles:

I've got to echo our brother, Jason, here. Beware of despairing over what seems to be a lack of progress.

It took a few centuries for East and West to get to the point of the Great Schism, with the earlier schism between Latins and Greeks on the one hand and the Oriental Orthodox Churches on the other being part of that history. No one woke up one morning and decided that we'd just have a schism--for lack of something more exciting to do. It took a long time to get to that point and actually 1054 is probably not the definite date. That seems to be the date of Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael locking horns. The hardening of positions took a bit longer to come into being. However, 1054 was a long time in coming, too.

You may need to take a longer look at this. The separation we now have has been in place in some quarters and in some minds for about 1000 years and started some hundreds of years prior. If we are to make it back to being one again, it may take as long to get there as it has to come apart. You and I may never see unity; our great grandchildren may never see unity. But the fact that we are focused on it as a goal prayed for by the Lord is the important thing. Remember that in the spiritual life it is often not the accomplishment that matters but the effort and the focus. We can strive all our lives to become holy, fall thousands of times, and make it to the Lord's Judgment with nothing more to show than the effort at using His Grace and finally falling on His Mercy because that's all we've got.

In the meantime, which would you rather have Him accuse you of when you meet Him face to Face? That you worked to reconcile the Churches or that you worked to undermine those who worked for reconciliation?

BOB

Myles,

Just so we're clear, I don't think you were intentionally and actively attacking anyone. When I say "personal attack," what I mean is an argument ad hominem (i.e., "against the person"). I'm sure you probably did not intend this and I'm sure you had no malevolence of any form behind it; my point was just to point out that it is directed toward the person rather than the issue at hand. Personal "attack" was perhaps too strong; being a philosopher, I'm used to contexts where I can say that and it will be understood that I mean nothing more than an argument directed at a person rather than an issue. In any case, that's all I meant, for what it's worth.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Dear Myles...

I was viewing the posts on my PDA and began to read - and I flew to my desktop computer to bring your post up full screen - as I knew right away that I was reading spiritual enlightenment.

May I suggest that you be not too quick to shelve any dream and desire that you had to be a professor of theology. My God! We need more theologians who have the insight and courage to say - what you said in your last post!

Jason has a point - we do need some talk and discussion. While talk will not change things (hearts must change first) who can those who are beginning a change of heart - turn to??? Who can they - read? If all is only black on one side and white on the other?

There is something to be said (something good) for the idea of - going through your classes - giving the professors what they want to hear - and getting your degree - and THEN flowering into your own. That was, not for me because of my particular make up and particular path God has chosen for me (not that I know the path but I do know when I have left it). And I am not saying that it is for you. I am merely saying - consider not jumping too quick.

A mystical director once advised me �Become holy - where you are. Change nothing of where Providence has placed you. Become holy - where you are.�

This advise - was very profound - as God is not �over here� and not �over there�. We need go nowhere to find God - for he is �right here�. The mystical director was advising me to - cease escaping God. Providence has the power and authority to change everything - without a move on my part. All I need do is cease running to find God (as I thought was my motive) and God would find me. I don�t know if I explained that well. Let me see if I can give you an example� I have always had a great love for Eastern theology and the early church of desert fathers and its simplicity. Yet I was born into a Catholic family and confirmed as a Catholic. So you see - God - has used his Providence to make me a Roman Catholic - and knowing that - I will remain the Roman Catholic that Providence had decided that I should be. And so, I choked back the desire to become Orthodox - and asked permission of my own spiritual director that I could be directed by an Orthodox priest - and he said �Go right ahead.� So instead of refusing one lung for another lung (preferring one lung over the other) I now breath with both lungs. Instead of jumping ahead of Providence (by second guessing God) I followed behind. And I am so grateful for the union of East and West within myself! I (as well as people like Alice and countless others) have the full union of the church within myself. My table is spread like a feast. It is all - my inheritance� East � West � the early church � the modern church � I am a son of the entire church as it spans time and cultures. I, as well as others whom God has given this wonderful gift to.

But I would not have gotten there if I had not � �become holy - where you are.� � and has continued to think that I must choose one over the other.

So, when people speak of changing churches (West to East or East to West) my advise is always - stay where God has placed you. If you are Orthodox - stay there - obey your hierarchy - become holy in under the bishops that Providence has put you under. If Latin � stay there and obey your hierarchy� become holy under the bishop that Providence has put you under.

So you see - I suggest that you (as far as if you will or will not continue with your theology classes) stay where you are. The grass is no greener �over there�. Providence will make the grass green - wherever you are.

If you are currently studying to become a theologian - you may think that it was your own idea. But it - was not. Things were arranged in your life - just so - to place you were you are. God even uses our frustrations and confusion. God is much smarter than we give him credit for. We are either servants (doing what he wants without knowing it) or friends (doing what he wants and knowing something about why he wants it). There is - nothing else. We have no chose but to always be doing God�s will. Even people who do bad things - it is all seen and allowed by God for his reasons. When we become friends with conscience - God will sometimes reveal his reasons to us.

Of all your posts here - in this thread. Your last post just dripped - real theology! Real knowledge of human nature. It was the most theological post - you had made! I was - enthralled - in reading it. If you spoke like this in lecture - I would attend every lecture you held!

Now - consider - that becoming a theologian - requires learning what the teachers want you to learn. That is - simple. That is all there is to it. A saint or a sinner - both can learn theology. There is nothing complicated here. If they tell you that 2 plus 3 = 9 - you are required to learn that and answer that back to them. You are not - required to take that into you heart and make it your personal god. That is not a requirement for your degree in theology. Do you understand what I am saying?

Your own personal holiness - is - other - than your theological training. Learning theology will not advance your personal holiness. But your personal holiness (cooperation with God and conscience) can progress - while you are about learning theology. Do you see the difference?

Theology is a tool.. And once you learn how to use it to the satisfaction of teachers - you become a theologian and you may then use that tool - in anyway you see fit. YOU - are not the tool of theology - theology becomes your tool to use as Providence may see fit to use it in you. Now eher is the virture of - patience - while God waters the garden.

An artist sits through years of art classes in which he learns to mimic several different style of art work. Realistic - abstract - Renaissance - modern - etc. If he tries to free his own style too early � he will fail his classes. His task is to - mimic others. He never really becomes an artist until - after schooling is done - at that time - he now give full expression to himself and frees his own style (which would not have been the time for it while at school). So in this way he never really becomes an artist until - after schooling in the styles is all done. He must first be patient and mimic the styles of others - before he should express his own style. In the mean time (while at school) he must repress showing his own particular style because that is not what the teacher want (even if they say otherwise).

Give it all - time. And pass my suggestion by your tutor. In fact if your are so moved - print this out and let him read it. As he is your spiritual director in this area - take his final advise - and whatever that may be - God will back him up with Providence by moving all heaven and earth.

Myself, not being a director of any kind, this is only something for your own consideration before your decision.

-ray

Dear Ray you said:

So, when people speak of changing churches (West to East or East to West) my advise is always - stay where God has placed you. If you are Orthodox - stay there - obey your hierarchy - become holy in under the bishops that Providence has put you under. If Latin � stay there and obey your hierarchy� become holy under the bishop that Providence has put you under."

I say:

I agree with what you said wholeheartedly. If one should 'dissent', and seek to become a member of another Church rather than merely utilizing another 'Church' for whatever benefits that Church has for one's spiritual growth, then they are really moving through their own self 'pride'... because it is pride that makes one become a 'spirit' of dissension.

Zenovia

I firmly believe that a man should exercise his free will and follow his conscience. In my own case, I was brought up on the Methodist Church, but after a long process of spiritual discernment I converted to Catholic Church (Latin Rite) in 1988. Recently (in March of 2005), after attending Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine Catholic parish for about 2 years, I changed sui juris Churches and officially entered the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Church. I did this for spiritual and theological reasons, because I came to see the beauty of the Byzantine tradition, and how, for me, it expressed better the Christian mystery, giving me a deeper appreciation for the wondrous acts of God in restoring mankind to the divine likeness disfigured by Adam's sin.

That being said, I do not believe that a man is bound by some sort of determinism, and so he must make decisions about his spiritual life by exercising his God given free will as he works out his salvation in fear and trembling. Now certainly, the change of sui juris Churches should not be done for frivolous reasons, but if a man determines that his spiritual growth is better served by changing Churches, then he should follow his conscience and change Churches, even if the change may be looked on as "improper" by others.

Dear Brother in Christ Ray,

You state: Dear Sister in Christ Zenovia,

You state: I understand both your points of view, however, if I were to follow that, my spirituality would indeed suffer. As a born Roman Catholic, if I continued to follow these teachings, I personally feel that I would miss out on a deeper spiritual awareness that is present in the Eastern Churches. When I learned of the gift of Theosis, and the beauty of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I honestly feel that I have been given a glimpse of Heaven. Providence may have made me a cradle Roman, but Providence has also directed me to the Eastern Church!

I married a wonderful woman who did not have a strong religious background. As a young lady, she attended a few different churches of the Protestant persuasion on an intermittent basis. When we married, I was not an (forgive me) actively practicing Catholic. I always knew our Mother of God was there for me, but being in the military, I saw and experienced many things that shook my core foundations. Even though I was not practicing, I still had a deep respect for the Tradtions and heritage I was given. My wife and I always discussed theology. She was uncomfortable in a Roman Church at first.

We started studing with the Jehovah Witnesses. I feel this was a deep blessing. I started to learn more of the Holy Word, and had the opportunity to meet some really wonderful people. There is an extremely strong faith community. As time progressed, Donna started attending the Kingdom Hall a few times. Our teachers became more intimate with us and started telling us particulars. One example was that a wife had actually become a witness. Her husband was resistant to embracing the church and started to hinder her "growth" within the JW community. They assisted her in divorcing her husband! Also, our couple who taught us at home were great. Ushi and Olaf (we were stationed in Germany at the time). Ushi (short for Ursula) was a cradle JW while Olaf was a convert from Roman Catholicism. Ushi knew her stuff up and down. However, since we were a couple, she was not permitted to teach me. A man must teach a man, and a woman can only teach another woman. Things were sort of clicking, but I always had a problem with the Trinity teaching, and the ultimate issue had to do with the teachings on Peter. I can still remember the insistance that he was a "rock" with a little "r" and that is why Apostolic Succession was incorrect in the eyes of the JW. At this point, I thanked Ushi and Olaf for all they did, but advised them I am Catholic, and I believe that the Catholic Traditons are correct as opposed to the JW teachings.

We finally moved back to the US and on an intermittent basis started attending our local RC parish. We had on priest that was phenomenal! I felt the love of the Trinity flowing from him. He was relocated, and our attendance dropped off sharply.

One day, playing around on EBay, I saw icons for sale. I thought they were so beautiful.

My wife, for some reason the next day stated: "You don't take me to church anymore. I would like to go to church." The following day at work, a good friend and I are talking and he, for some reason starts talking about Icons and the Greek Catholic Church. He is of Ukranian Blood, from Toronto, and is a member of the UGCC, and like Alex, has family members in both Churches. He tells me about our local chuch down here and that I should "check it out".

I rushed home and told my wife, and she was very excited. I said lets go this next Sunday. Since it is a Byzantine Catholic church, I had the motivation to attend, and felt this was a strong sign, somehow, a Providence request, if I may state. I did a bit more researching on the Byzantine Catholic Church via the internet prior to our attending, so we both had a very brief introduction to Eastern Theology.

We attended the Divine Liturgy, and were invited to the fellowship hall afterwords. I was so surprised how everyone was truly genuine, and caring. As we left to go home, Donna and I discussed the homily, and looked at each other and realized we found Church, after 16 years of marriage!

We continued to attend every Sunday and Feast day where possible. After a short while, Donna declared that she wished to formally join the Church. We had private sessions with our parish priest, used the new adult cathechism series from God With Us publications, and and older UGCC Cathechism book. As Donna studied, so did I. Together, our love and relationship strengthened even further.

We formally joined the parish at the beginning of the year. A bit after this my father became gravely ill. We were advised he had cancer of the pancreas, lung, and brain and that he had only a couple of days left in this life. We ended up taking him to a Hospice on a Monday evening. The next morning, I went to the church to pray. Alas, since there was no scheduled Divine Liturgy that day, the church was locked. I went out in the garden and prayed the Jesus Prayer over and over again in front of the Byzantine Style Crucifix. I found the icon of Our Lady in the back of the property and prayed and prayed. I then remembered that I had a copy of the weekly bulletin in my car, and was able to contact the parish priest. He was wonderful. He asked me where my Dad was, and within 15 minutes, he was there at Hospice. He performed last rites for my Father, and let me tell you, some very strange things happened that tried to prevent him from completing this, but the Father kept on going, without a pause. My dad passed away the next night, and I now have the peace of mind that he was able to navigate the Tollway with his two guardian angels!

Donna was brought into the church with the full rite of inition on Pascha 2004 during the Divine Liturgy. For a person who at one time felt discomfort being around Catholics (her family heritage is Congregational- the Puritan stuff), she would make you proud! I believe her faith and love for the Church may be deeper than many cradle members.

My point to all this is if I followed the advice to stay with my birth rite, none of this would have happened! My wife would still be an unbaptized part time Protestant, and I would not have the deeper love for God, that has now been granted.

If this is due to self "pride", then I ask God and the members of this forum to forgive me of my sins, but I am home now!

Sorry for any typos, grammatical errors, and do not wish to cause any ruckus. However, I may be Roman by birth, but I am now Byzantine by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

Now you know why I chose Lost & Found. Lost by poor choices and Found by the will of the Holy Spirit.

Slava Isusu Christu! Glory to Jesus Christ!
Slava Na Vicki! Glory Forever!

Amen.

Michael

Dont worry Ray I dont intend to quit my degree. That would mean getting a job would be more difficult regardless of what I choose to do :p in this country and Oxford degree regardless of the discipline counts a lot in the common currency ...

But indeed Dr Steenberg helped me to see a lot about human nature in our tutorial yesterday and it was upon his words and insights that I was pondering when I wrote the post you referenced. Thank you for your compliments. Openess to a word does not decide the veracity of an idea but a seed cannot grow in barren soil or if it surrounded by weeds that choke it. Jesus Himself taught as much.

Only a few years ago I would never have thought I could take the idea of Christianity seriously. Now I'm not only a Christian but swimming in the waters of the Tiber in which I was providential baptised. I guess God doesn't abandon us (2 Tim 2:13). Sometimes it seems like I'm a protagonist in a Dostoyevesky novel. The time reference between the first page and the last is not long but what happens within the chapters is just so dense. As I grew I learnt and as I learnt I grew and I learnt I grew away from syncretism and in growing I learnt true faith.

For me the guiding light of my life is my conscience, which I inform as best I can as I know I should, before trying to make as reasoned a decision as I can about anything. Yet, I dont claim infallibility and I know my nature to be a little less mechanical than Immanuel Kant thought it. All I can do is try to stay free from sin as Doctor Angelus advises so that my passions have less of an impact upon my thought processes. Indeed, thats all anyone can do and sometimes it leads them to become Catholic, sometimes Orthodox, sometimes Protestant (after all if the only knowledge you have of Christ is from Protestant sources you cannot do anything but embrace as much of the truth as you can get, even if it isnt the full truth). Some people in fact will never even hear Jesus' name preached to them but they do their best to discern the law of God written on their hearts according to conscience and God blesses them accordingly.

In the end all a person can do is try their best to become holy as you said Ray and part of that holiness is honestly trying to discern what it is God is saying to you through the mediums he places before you e.g. St Edith Stein. Having picked up St Teresa of Avila's 'Life' and read it cover to cover she decided that she could not simply do nothing about it so she became a Catholic tough as it was being ethnically Jewish. God enters our lives in numerous subtle ways and all we can do is absorb the information He throws in our direction and make a decision about it in honest hope that what we choose is right.

What Schism might that be?
Stephanos I

Yet another post well worth reading!

>Dostoyevesky
I have never read him directly - but many of the people I do read � often quote him.

Thanks for taking the time to put me at ease. I suspect valuable things from you in the future - that will help many people.

You will be in my prayers. My prayers will be that God not spare you � from the hard things � that will form you into his image. So remember that when darkness comes. When all else is stripped away � only God is left. That is something I suspect you have already expereinced.

Certainly, from your description, your life is not your own and He has placed you in good hands for now.

-ray

Dear Michael,

I'm sorry and apologize for saying that people that change Churches do it out of pride. I think what I meant is that people that are sincere and devout Church members, and then decide something 'irks' them, might be doing it out of 'pride'. Sometimes it could just be a 'growth' process.

As for the Jehovah's Witness, I read some of their teachings and realized that it really is Judaism. It is not a Christian religion. As for the Evangelicals, I have a great deal of admiration for many of them. They are the one's that seem to find the down fallen and destitute and lead them to Christ.

I recall one woman I spoke to that was collecting money to help drug addicts. She told me that she herself was a drug addict for 33 years and then Jesus saved her. It seems that these Evangelicals have the amazing ability to go down to the level of those that are the furthest from Christ, and help them get started on their spiritual journey.

Zenovia

Dear Michael,

I'm sorry and apologize for saying that people that change Churches do it out of pride. I think what I meant is that people that are sincere and devout Church members, and then decide something 'irks' them, might be doing it out of 'pride'. Sometimes it could just be a 'growth' process.

As for the Jehovah's Witness, I read some of their teachings and realized that it really is Judaism. It is not a Christian religion. As for the Evangelicals, I have a great deal of admiration for many of them. They are the one's that seem to find the down fallen and destitute and lead them to Christ.

I recall one woman I spoke to that was collecting money to help drug addicts. She told me that she herself was a drug addict for 33 years and then Jesus saved her. It seems that these Evangelicals have the amazing ability to go down to the level of those that are the furthest from Christ, and help them get started on their spiritual journey.

Zenovia

Dear Apotheoun�

What you say, and mean, I understand and agree with in general.

So I guess I need to explain myself better (nothing new there!). As always, when I use the word �you� I am not speaking personally but in a generic and philosophical sense of - anybody.

When I say �become holy where you are� � it is not a judgment of any past changes. It is a thing of � now. Today. What happened in the past was needful for the time.

I am speaking of Providence in the way the doctors of the church speak of it. So let me explain just a bit so you can see it is not �determinism�. Although �determinism� (as I think you are using that term) is a counterfeit of it.

Now I never do this well so be patient. My explanations are not theological� they are just a way to understand.

When we speak of Providence, we can think of it in two ways. The first way (the more common) is to think of it as God�s acts within the history of mankind. That would be: the miracles of Exodus, the acts of the Prophets, biblical stuff� etc.. This is an overview of how God �intervenes� within history.

The second way we can think of Providence is � an immediate act of God in the here and now. A living God who still acts in the same way he acted in times past � yet acting today � and every day. Generally when we speak of Providence in this way � it is individual Providence. The arrangement (by God) of events that happen to us within each day. These events are tailored to the individual person.

The second way (the way I most time mean when I use the term) Providence is tightly bound up with the progress of the spiritual life - as the mystical theology of East and West lay out how this progress � progresses � in our human nature. This is generally divided (for the sake of consideration) into Purgation, Enlightenment, and Mystical Union.

So we can (for the sake of consideration) speak of a Providence which comes to humanity as a whole (within history) and a daily Providence which is for each individual person. When we think of it in this way (a Providence which comes to each individual person) it is the same thing as the �will of the father� which we are to do � and � �follow me� which we are to do. It is God�s part in his efforts to sanctify us. It is the �give us this day our daily bread� which we pray for.

The full doctrine of Providence is found in such books as � Conformity to God Will (someone help me � which saint wrote that?) and Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence (Blessed Claude La Colombiere), Introduction To A Devout Life (St. Francis De Sales), Abandonment To Divine Providence (Fr. Caussade and my favorite), and many more. These are Catholic books � but I have also read some wonderful (older) books by Protestants on the subject.

This second way to consider Providence (tailored to the individual) is the �secret of the saints� which is really no secret because most of them write about it and it is the main subject of many of the doctors of the Church. It is the central theme of St. John of the Cross.

It is contemplation � carried over into daily life (in a way - but in a very real way).

If one is not familiar with the doctrine � it can initially seem like it is giving up ones own will and becoming robot like (having no free will). A passivity. But it really is not. As I say, fatalism, or determinism, or passivity � is a counterfeit.

It almost does it no favor � to think of it as a � doctrine. Thinking of it that way tends to drag it into an ideal � that one must give up his own will � all the time � in order to be holy� and be � will-less. And that is not it at all. We must put it into human terms and a practical reality.

God is a person. I am a person. We have something in common. In a very real way � we deal with God as we would deal with any other person. He had his own mind � and I have my own mind. God does not want me to become mindless and will-less. I think the best form of worship (at times) is total honestly with God. That sometimes includes � occasional anger with him. But I am not talking about the manipulative anger we use with most people.

God�s purpose of his daily bread � is to restore our mind and will (etc..) to its original healthy design and operation. To do that � God has to work with a lot of very strong habits in us � that got there (and got so strong) in flawed ways. Shall we say sinful ways? It makes no real difference (we are not being theological here).

So let us consider any teach and student � where the student is stubborn about something � and the student�s views are wrong. There has to come a time when the student reluctantly gives up his own ideas about something � and blindly submit himself to the teacher (and while he does it is not easy) and if he occasionally does that � he will begin to progress again, Shall we call that humility? Or eating humble pie? It is a moment when the student makes real effort to trust his teacher and have faith in his teacher (even tho the student would love to continue on his own way and ideas).

Now the teacher-student analogy is not real fitting � because God�s purpose is not really to � make us like himself � in enlightenment and knowledge (as if we become more and more enlightened and �right� about things) � his main purpose is to form our personality. The whole � person. Intelligence (being only a portion of our personality) is used as a tool (at times) by God. For example � most times when God is about to make some changes in us � changes to our personality � which method of change will not be all that comfortable to us � he will first send us some enlightenment to fortify us. Then he will withdraw it � leaving it as only a vague memory. This vague memory is a fortification of our faith, our hope, and our love for God and his love for us � and � like a flu shoot � it helps us to endure the coming hardship. So you can now see that those who believe that the path to God is a continual increase in joy and knowledge � are wrong. But perhaps needful at the stage they are at.

I wrote (somewhere else) that there are three stages to the invitation of �follow me�

The first invitation is simply �follow me� and anyone who thinks of Jesus as a good and enlightened teacher � can follow him in that way. This is a moral man. This invitation corresponds to the stage of Purgation. It is when we cease to actively pursue those ways and things which we had spent so much time obsessed with providing for our security and material well being.

The second invitation is �give up all you own � and follow me� which means that we must now throw ourselves into the care of Providence � and cease our self-providence plans and efforts (think of St. Francis of Assisi). At this stage we find out that God does indeed � Provide (arrange events and situations about our daily life) to supply us with what we need (not what we think we want � but what we really need).

The third stage and invitation is �give away all you own - pick up your cross �and follow me.� At this stage (again, I refer you to the three stages of the spiritual life as described by the doctors of the church) it is comparable to entering into mystical union. We had gained some personal experience of God during the first two stages � and this experience of God has grown our faith, our hope, and our love � we are now ready for some serious personality forming � that will not be easy (but the faith, hope, and love grown in us will ease things). In this stage � the habits of the �Law of the members� are dieing. It can be very uncomfortable as these old habit were our security. We had believed that these subconscious habits � is what we were. We had called them �me� and �I� so we feel as if self � is heartened and dying (which it is). This eradication of old fallen habits � is likened to a crucifixion.

However � one must not think of these events are automatic or pre-determined. We are dealing with a person. Not a doctrine. A living person (God). So there is the give and take going on that we have with another person. And so it is tailored to what we can endure.

Now � back to the subject � when I say that I advise anyone to �stay where you are and become holy where you are� � what I am doing is inviting them to � stay still for a moment. Days, weeks, months perhaps. And in that time � cease to chase after God � and let God find � you. Just as contemplation gives one the opportunity to experience something of God (by a cessation of the bust activity of mentally planning for our own self-providence) � so does a cessation of our activity of seeking or chasing God allow us a clarity in which we may (with a little grace) recognize that God � is already - here. Now. Already providing for us what we need and already providing for us the events which are intended to progress our personality into that final metanoia (the death of old habits) into mystical union.

One must not think of mystical union as an escape from anything. It is a radical plunge � into reality. A radical plunge - into human nature. I is neither a constant dialogue with visions � nor is it a high level of enlightened knowledge (God may or may not decide to use such things along the way) � it is rather becoming the human we were designed to be and a direct experience (a knowing of rather than a knowing about) of reality as it is in itself. It is much more of knowing � why � God arranges such and such events � than � how � God arranges such and such events.

We are not lifted off � this earth (like into a rapture) but we are plunged into this earth � to experience it as totally governed by Providence � already.

In no way is abandonment to God � a passivity � or a submission to a plan or layout � that had been put into place long ago. You will have to read something reliable regarding abandonment to divine providence � to see that. It is a great effort to fight yourself (your fallen desires and habits) when placed �upon the cross� because every fiber of past habits screams to dis-mount. One must ignore or fight his lower nature (habits of the body and habits of the psychology and subconscious) to endure such times as when God decides you are ready for some drastic personality changes.

Now I have spoken on this subject in a casual and condensed way. But you can read better on it in some of the better books from any of the catholic churches) Orthodox, Roman, etc..). If you ask me � it is much more important to know how to cooperate with God on a daily basis � than it is to know how to use all the Latin and Greek terms of high theology well. If one can use all the definitions of theology speak correctly about the Trinity and procession but knows nothing about what God is trying to do with him on a daily basis � what good does knowing all that theology do?

What did Jesus say? (some one help me out) something to the effect of �if you can read the signs to know if it will rain.� � then is it not much more important to read the signs of Providence all around you so that you can tell what God will being doing next with you in your spiritual growth. We find knowing the weather important � but we do not think that the will of God is important to know.

-ray