www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dare we hope that all be saved?

Dear Columcille,

Didn't I tell you not to mind Dr. John?

To deny the existence of the evil one is to really be on the "horns of a dilemma."

Alex

Your puns are almost as bad as my dad's

Happy Pascha!

Columcille

Dear Columcille,

And if the devil lost his tail, where would he go?

To the liquor store, of course, which is where they "retail spirits."

Alex

MosheZorea,

Nice to hear from you again. I hope I did not sound like in my post that I was releaving people of responsibilty for their personal actions or try to take away the reality of free-will, that was not my intent if that is the way I came off.

Moshe, actually I like lawyers - probably one of the few people - as I'm almost convinced I would have done prison time if I did not have a good lawyer as I did for my past criminal case with that 17 year old minor when I was 20. By the way you may be familiar with the name of my lawyer. Being fortunate to have parents that could pay for a lawyer for me, I refused to be represented by the first lawyer retained for me when I sensed he thought I was guilty of the charge of rape, which lead to my mother retaining the service of a well known Milwaukee lawyer (who was actualy cheaper) who handled a number of high profile cases - last of which dealt with a pro football player and a number of girls under age.

This lawyer by the way is Catholic. I saw him on a local channel the other day talking about some of his cases. He unlike many lawyers has dealt with cases involving serial killers - actually two. His first serial killer case he worked as a prosecutor against Milwaukee's first serial killer (or at least as far as we know). The next he worked as a defense lawyer for a high profile serial killer in Milwaukee.

Interesting thing is, he said (on the local channel I'm speaking of) that the serial killer he defended he did not think was "evil" but that he was mentaly ill to the point of having a soul like a wall and no personality what-so-ever. Infact the retired FBI agent that coined the term serial killer said that this person was unlike any other serial killer he has known - meaning basicly the lack of a true evil nature. Unlike all other serial killers this one didn't seem sucumbed in hate or try to hide things, he was forth coming with all information including murders the police didn't know he committed.

On the other hand the serial killer he prosectued, he said he was convinced was an "evil" man.

By the way it may be worth noting but he says that at one time he would say the number of minors he's dealt with that accussed men of sexual abuse and got up on the stand for it, and where telling the truth about it, would have been 95%. Now he says that in this day he would say it's about 75%.

***

I understand that we can do things and look for a boogie man behind it all. When really all the bad fruit derives soely, without any outside help, from the corridors of our heart.

And being humans and made up of the chemical ballances we are, of course the lack or over compensation of, some chemical elements in us, drive or surrender us from doing certain things.

***

But given all of this. I truely know for a fact, within in my heart and from my human sense capability, that evil non-corporal beings do infact soar in this world and attempt to manipulate mankind. The weaker you are the harder they come.

Kind of like our human serial killers - they never seek out and attack what they percieve to be strong, but only what they percieve to be weak, and when they do attack and harm their weak prey, they are not driven to stop from their victims crys and pains. Rather they relish their sufferings.

It would be honorable to attack and fight against your equal. "Evil" as with the serial killer (that personifies "evil" in the human form in my opinion) is without honor. And should be guarded against as such.

***

But Moshe, and I don't mean this meanly, but you will believe what you believe, and I will believe what I know.

I will submit to the higher wisdom of my aunt, widowed presbytera and omniscient source of authentic old-country Orthodox belief and practice. Of course, Alex is absolutely correct.
_____________________________________

E-Mail

I disagree, Abdur.

Read the following quotes:

Evil and Evil's legions personified:


"The prince of this world has an entire horde of servile spirits of malice that are subordiinate to him. At each instant they scurry along every boundary of the inhabited world... ."
---St. Theophan the Recluse from The Path of Salvation.


"Death can come at any time, and we have countless hidden enemies -- evil enemies, harsh, deceitful, wicked enemies with fire in their hands, wishing to set the Lord's temple alight with the flame that is in it. These enemies are powerful, unsleeping, incorporeal, and unseen. "
---St. John Climacus from The Ladder of Divine Ascent.

These are just two samples that are representative of thousands of quotes from the Fathers of Orthodoxy, who clearly believed in personified evil; and in an Evil One who has personality and being.

Much more after Pascha.

Hesychia,


from Penny, who knows that "Christ shall grant you happiness in your old age."
---------------------------------------

BTW: In our crazy quilt old-country family, at least one person on each side of the religion frontier--Orthodox or Muslim--was a master of "spells" and casting out demons and--especially--the Evil Eye--shake and shiver!

As children, we thought these folk beliefs were hilarious.

Do Orthodox Slavs share these same traditions with Greek-Albanian Orthodox Christians?

You know, like tossing salt and straw into a hot oven? One of my favorites.

I pity those who have only been exposed to the homogenized and sanitized American version of Orthodoxy. The old-country version is so much richer, especially domestically.

And should I--a mere infidel--consider myself blessed, because I have been exposed for decades to authentic Balkan and Hellenic Orthodox folk traditions and domestic rituals that converts will never experience?

It is far to easy to forget--in America--that Orthodoxy is as much a culture--or cultures--as it is a mere menu of doctrines.


Blessed Pascha to all Christians,

Abdur

[ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Dear Abdur,
Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim!

I will remember you in my prayer on this our Great and Holy Friday!

I agree that the "Old Country" traditions are richer and more exciting, especially the ones from Roumania and the Balkans!

Forgive me if I wish you a happy Easter!

Al-Massiah Qam!
Haqqan Qam!

Alex

To hope is one thing, reality another.
Stephanos I

Benedictine notes above: "Dr. John speaks again of the "East vs. West" with the West getting it all wrong (so typical)."

In my actual text, I pointed out that there are two different developed notions about evil. One is predicated upon the proposition that good and evil result from human decisions; the other (Western socio-cultural, not ecclesiastical) is the proposition that evil has an existence in itself ("per se"). I did not suggest that the West got it wrong.


Further: "Of course the notion that evil is a lack or absence is straight out of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas - the 'best of the West' as one of my monastic confreres refers to them. So what gives? Are you saying that Orthodoxy does not believe in Satan?"


No, as others have pointed out above, the East certainly holds the belief that Satan exists. But Satan's moniker of "the Evil One" came because of a decision to turn away from God. A decision.

What I was discussing was the fact that "evil" in the Western socio-cultural mind has become an entity unto itself, and it is not primarily seen as a defect in judgement of created beings like people and erstwhile angels. I used the word 'entity' quite purposefully.

While some might be fond of asking questions like: "Does evil exist?", the truly logical prior inquiry has to be: "Is there free-will judgement involved?"

If there is no "decision-making" away from God, then there can be no evil. But people get tricked into thinking about evil as an 'entity'. And this is, in my opinion, a serious problem.

Christ is Risen!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Benedictine:
[QB]Dear All,

In my theology class, this problem of the origin is evil is presented as one of two choices: the agency of God or the agency of humankind. Remember no appeal to temptation from demons allowed! So which is it? Clearly the 1st option is out by definition God is good. Ah, but the rub is "we can't call people evil because they exist (being is a good) and made in the image of God." So there is no answer there. So where does this lack of goodness come from? Who is responsible? No wonder some of my classmates are attracted to a kinda Buddhist approach - evil is an illusion there is only suffering. Hence absolutely no judgement on people OR ACTIONS THEY COMMIT. This last is the most problematic to me.


Benedictine

If I were you, Id seriously consider getting out of the seminary your in and enrolling in another. I mean, from what you have told us about these classmates of yours, the very fact that they are not only enrolled ina Catholic seminry, but also that no one has bothered to correct their errors is really disturbing. There are plenty of good seminries out there that teach sound Catholic (And Christian for that matter) doctrine without all the new ageisms that you must be exposed to.

These classmates of yours sound really deluded in what they believe and I shudder to think of them being in any sort of service to the Church in the near future.

Also, I hope that you set an example for your fellow students by standing up for sound Catholic doctrine in front of them even if this should cause you to be sentenced to frequent verbal martyrdom.

Robert K.

As noted above: "In my theology class, this problem of the origin is evil is presented as one of two choices: the agency of God or the agency of humankind."

This is a false syllogism. I am hoping that your professor is not teaching this or perhaps that it was misconstrued. Using the principle of the 'dichotomous key', the choice is either "from God" or "not from God" (not: "the agency of mankind"). And "not from God" doesn't necessarily imply that it is from humans. (This is the basic Aristotelian logic of which St. Thomas Aquinas was so fond.)

Further: "Remember no appeal to temptation from demons allowed! So which is it? Clearly the 1st option is out by definition God is good. Ah, but the rub is "we can't call people evil because they exist (being is a good) and made in the image of God." So there is no answer there. So where does this lack of goodness come from? Who is responsible?"

Yikes! The logic just isn't present. In "doing theology", one has to make sure that the components of the definitions are equal (just like the Xs and Ys of algebra).

The first proposition is correct: evil cannot come from God directly since God is 'All-Good', by definition.

The second proposition is horribly flawed. The idea that "we can't call people evil because they exist (being is good) and are made in the image of God" is a jumble of non-equatable ideas.

Yes: Mankind, by nature, is good because humans were created that way by God

Yes: Existence is created by God and is, therefore, intrinsically good.

But, because of the existence of free-will in adult human beings, the ability to accept or reject God's will is also present and this is what leads to the existence of evil in human beings. (This is the whole point of Adam and Eve and that stupid serpent.) It's choice that allows evil to enter into existence. It is for this reason that evil is also referred to as "spiritual disorder", i.e., non-conformity (voluntary!!!) with the plan of God. And it is also for this reason that John Calvin was condemned as a heretic: he taught that human beings were essentially 'evil' and that they needed redemption through Christ. The Church, however, taught (and teaches) that human beings are in essence 'good', but that salvation came through Jesus Christ's redemptive action (Western perspective) and that through Him human beings are once again able to "justify" their goodness before God, which was not possible prior to Christ's redemptive actions.

As for the suggestion that you seek some other seminary that is more doctrinal, I don't see any reason for it. The essence of education (including theological education) is first: to be presented with propositions that are both supported by other (systematic) propositions and that are defensible by reason, and second: by engaging in no-holds-barred debate with one's peers all through the night until dawn. The pursuit of truth is not an easy task.

And to assume that "theology" or "philosophy" (both of which are required by the Church for ordination) are best learned by memorization is to bastardize the very educational system that has developed in monasteries and seminaries over the millenia. Your buddies, St. Augustine and St. Thomas, did not just parrot back what they had been taught. They struggled with the concepts, they tested them through philosophically based reason, they observed the reality of the human condition, and then -- and only then!!! -- did they put pen to paper.

It is therefore every seminarian's/theologian's duty to pursue the same rigorous study (and prayer) to not only equal what these fine theologians did, but also to surpass it. Being willing to 'settle' for the role of parrot in theological discourse condemns one to a life of mediocrity. And, Lord knows, we don't need any more mediocre priests. It appears from the above posts that there is a lot going on in this seminary and that the ideas have you (in some cases) hopping mad. GOOD!!!! Debate! Argue! Define! Distinguish! Test! Object or accept! But do it with all the talents that the Lord has given you. Know and understand what you believe and why you believe it because it has been tested; and please, for the sake of the Church, don't allow yourself to become a mere anointed tape-recorder of past theological thought. (There are a good number of theolgical journals in existence today; they aren't there as mere commentary on past theologies; they are there to present new theologies and new interpretations of the old ones. This is no accident. Theology has to be vibrant, real and connected to the human condition. Otherwise it's mere history.)

You would do yourself a grave disservice (and lay yourself open to all sorts of problems when real-world difficulties present themselves) and you would be very ill-prepared to provide the strong foundation that the people of God need if you 'wussed out' from the intellectual challenge.

Christ is Risen!! Christos Anesti!!

Dear Dr. John,

And to assume that "theology" or "philosophy" (both of which are required by the Church for ordination) are best learned by memorization is to bastardize the very educational system that has developed in monasteries and seminaries over the millenia.

First I have a question. Is it a requirement of the Catholic Church for a priest to have a degree in Theology or Philosophy to be ordained?

Before I read your last contribution I was going to write that the way the question is framed in the “either/or” manner itself reveals a very western way of thinking. Cartesian dualism, binary opposition, the law of the excluded middle. This is not only western, it is the worst of western ideas, the one that even secular researchers are moving away from in their search for “holism.” Why does evil/sin have to be categorized either as a disembodied entity or a force to influence us? Is it not both?

Of course evil/sin can be an independent force outside the free choice of people, in the form of demons. If there were no demons there would be no need for exorcism. In fact, we know from Holy Scripture that demons have personalities and talk to people. When some Jewish priest tried to exorcise demons in the name of “Jesus whom Paul preaches” the demons just jumped hosts. Acts 19: vs. 15: “And the evil spirit answered and said "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?' 16: Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.” Now it is obvious that this demon was clearly external to the persons it victimized. Also, it seems, it was not the choice of these Jews to be victimized by the demon, or else why did they have to be "overpowered (a sign of resistance)' by the demonic spirit?

There is a western mindset, a western world view, a western philosophical tradition that sets it apart from ways of thinking to the east of it, no doubt. Off course that does not automatically make it wrong nor does it make other non-western ways of thinking better. But I think the academic approach to Christianity has produced its results for all to witness and it becomes obvious if the "west is best' or not. Alexander Schmemann, in his book Liturgy and Tradition made a very compelling case that theology itself, as defined by the western Latin tradition, is what has gotten Christianity in the West off track. It has also influenced Orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodoxy ) negatively.

Today, the social sciences, hard sciences and humanities are a battleground between modernism and post-modernism. Theologians for the most part trail the tails of the modernists by trying to give their discipline a type of "logical' orientation. They adopt the framework of scientific discussion and testing etc. The post-modernists have for their part ended up with a supper form of relativism wherein all faiths are considered equal or equally unreal. They also end up rejecting key dogmas of Christianity (like the Incarnation or Salvation) while they still, for some reason, profess to be Christians. I am of the opinion that we need to remain (as far as our FAITH and WORSHIP is concerned) neither modernists or post-modernists but pre-modernists. We need to just follow Christianity as it was founded by Christ, the Apostles and the Fathers. While many Orthodox can be scientists by profession it does not benefit us to import the scientific method into our religion. This infusion of metaphysical arguments, by western Latin Scholasticism, into the body of theology has, to quote Timothy Ware, made “a God of the philosophers, not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

I would appreciate a reply

God be with you

Aklie Semaet

It is evil. So is Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 3 million dead Vietnamese, 1.5 million Iraqis (including more than 500,000 children). Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright got on 60 minutes and arrogantly said the latter deaths were “worth” the price. This is evil, do you not agree?

Aklie Semaet

Dear All,

Thanks for the replies. I enjoy reading them even though I should be working on my final grad paper for Christian Anthropology!

As far as the suggestion I change schools, unfortunately that is out of my hands since as a monk I'm here out of obedience to my abbot. Also I do want to prepare my for the job I have been assigned to do next year which is teach seminarians. Which leads me to the BIG question I have - what is the role/task of the theologian? Dr. John has stated that it is not to parrot back what others have done. Well I disagree. My future students will be looking to me to know what the tradition says on a variety of topics. I see my task as trying to the best of my ability to communicate to them the teachings of the Church and to endeavor to get them to understand them. I do not see myself in any innovating role. This is the opposite of where I attend school. People here are very conscious of "pushing the envelope" theologically and really see themselves as agents of change in the Church. That is why there exists an animus to any authoritative structures such as: hierarchy, clergy, creeds, definitve dogma, etc. Everything is to be considered an "open question." In many ways I see myself as studying in a post-Christian environment. And the difficult thing is that it pervades all aspects of life here - especially the liturgy.

One reason I enjoy coming to this forum is the sense that people here are discussing things that are part of a greater and ancient TRADITION not 're-inventing the wheel' so to speak.

PAX

Benedictine

[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Thanks for the considered post, Aklie, I understand an appreciate what you are saying.

First, yes, the church requires that all candidates for priestly ordination have training/degrees in philosophy and theology. Lately, it is the M.Div. for the theology part; before 1970, men got the 'License' (French: lee-sonse) in philosophy and philosophy from Pontifical faculties, but it was not generally recognized by secular universities and so we got into the whole Master's degree business. (But philosophy is still required as a prerequisite to theological studies, although for some it is minimal.)

I understand what Schmemann is saying about the whole potential for philosophical-style theology to get the Church into trouble. And I agree; I'm generally the one around here who is always talking pastoral care, love for neighbor, etc. And you are right on target to point out the millions of dead; yes, this is indeed evil. And, it is evil of man's making. These people, and many others lost their lives because other individuals did not take the time to ask: "Is this truly loving of God and loving of my neighbor?" Gospel stuff; not theologians.

On the other hand, there exists a whole raft of writings on theology, organized more or less systematically, that builds upon that which we have received. Theological debates center themselves on conflicting propositions - - and it goes on and on. And, unfortunately, the reality of God and Jesus Christ gets shunted to the side. Thus, we can find conflicting points of view in the writings of the Fathers. But I think that for most of them, they were writing not to establish a patristic "Summa Theologica", but rather to educate and lead the church in a specific direction. Lots of the texts are 'sermons', not lectures. Pastoral, not academic.

We do need, however, to have a basic theology that will help us distinguish between perduring truth and fads or cultural anomalies. For this reason we have the Creeds, as well as basic commentary on them. Philosophy and theology provide an intellectual framework within which contemporary issues are to be addressed. But when the theology and philosophy subordinate the teachings of Christ to a lesser position, then we are in deep doo-doo. And I think that this is what Fr. Schmemann was talking about.

The candidate for ordination has to accomplish a balancing act: the love for God and humanity that Christ said was "the greatest commandment... and the second one is like unto it..." AND the intellectual ability to both understand and teach what the Church has developed. The real trial by fire comes when the priest is called to console the family of a person who was taking drugs and jumped off a building. The 'theology' says: suicides are condemned. Is the priest going to say to these people: "Oh well. She killed herself, so she's going straight to hell. But, at least your family is still alive, so chin up!"? That's the balancing challenge between the Gospel imperative and the theology. And, the implication from Schmemann is: theology will cause a problem here; be pastoral.

The Gospel must come first; the theology is a useful tool to support our understanding of what the Gospel impels us to do. But, in the hands of the thoughtless (or selfish: 'non others-loving'), it is like a shotgun in the hands of a three year old.

Christ is Risen!!

Aklie writes above: "Of course evil/sin can be an independent force outside the free choice of people, in the form of demons. If there were no demons there would be no need for exorcism. In fact, we know from Holy Scripture that demons have personalities and talk to people."

Not to belabor the point, but it would appear that since demons have personalities and talk to people, that they are the equivalent to persons who have made the choice for evil. It would be inconsistent to think that there are beings out there who are purely evil. Why? Because all things are created by God, and God does not create evil entities. Thus, it seems logical to believe that these demons at one time had the chance to make a choice, and they chose against God.

I don't doubt for a second that there are 'evil' spiritual entities/forces out there, just as I have no doubt that there are 'good' spiritual/entities forces out there. But I avoid the 'evil' spirits in the same way that I avoid human beings who want me to take drugs, or participate in 'evil' activities. (The Amish have a smart idea when they employ 'shunning').

Christ is Risen!!