www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Sovereignty of God in the Apocryphal Writings

Eli�

Feel free to skip over my posts if they irritate you.

-ray

Who is irritated?

The realities of Catholic teaching rarely irritate me. I spend a lot of time with them one way or another. I see no need to substitute our own private little thoughts for the real thing.

Eli

I note your choice of wording (personal).

>"I see no need to substitute our own private little thoughts for the real thing."

Which tells me that as much as your say you know about Catholic teaching... and are willing to correct me... it has remained in your head as intellectual things only .. and not seeped into you heart yet.

I will be skipping over your posts from now on.

Cheers.
-ray

It is not uncharitable to fraternally correct an objective error in Church teaching. In fact it would be grossly irresponsible not to do so. If you are not open to correction from others then it would be best if you were more careful about what you say in public.

Eli

Dear Porter...

I trust that you knew how to take my methphor regarding that we often use the church as an idol. Early Councils talked about such a thing when they rejected the idea that the sacrements worked like ... magic.

Knowing you - I am sure that you got it (not difficult) right away. But I wanted to be sure now that smoke and dust has been thrown in the air.

-ray

I do not remember any early councils making metaphors where they likened the church to an idol and encouraged that understanding. I am not very familiar with the councils, though. Could you please point out which ones you are referring to?

Don't get confused. It was a metaphor. Eli took it literally.

When I get some time I will point you to the Council that talks about the efficacy of the sacraments and that the sacraments are not magical and that membership in the church militant alone (down here) is not a guarantee of salvation.

In the mean time consider that while an ancient idol is carved wood, clay, stone, etc� in the shape of some imagined god� idols today are not that material. There is the idol of money and profit (as the ancient god Mammon represented), security, popularity, the obsessive desire for knowledge or to seem that one is very knowledgeable. Someone�s career can be an idol. What is important in the definition is - does it function - as an idol?? (does it take the place of Providence and conscience?) These are things a man should ask himself. But not to the point of obsession of course.

A misuse of the church can be a form of idolatry of the things of the church. Using them as if they are magical. Using them selectively and against charity to belittle someone else. That is called fundamentalism and the Pharisees of the gospel are a fitting example of that type of misuse of the church (her things and doctrines). Easily irritated by the presence of Christ - they tried to correct him at every turn - his words irritated their conscience - (�we piped and he did not dance�) and so they kill him for what seems to them as very rational and logical reasons (�it is better that one man die�� )

Now don�t be fooled. This board is just a public discussion area and everything here should be taken with a gain of salt. Everything said here is just opinions and thoughts. This is not an authorized teaching forum. The exception being any priest who is officially presenting the mind of the church. But most of us here are not authorized by Jesus to teach anything to anyone. It is just a discussion board. Nothing greater.

Now if you want those Councils I will give them to you.

-ray

On July 30, RayK said:

Early Councils long ago � rejected that kind of notion. But the tendency of fallen man is he must-need an idol to fill the place vacant place in us where God should be. NB***I have often said that the church (and such things of it) are the only idol that God allows***NB - and these things should be transparent - so that we see beyond them at the same time. But - holiness is a progress� and so we all begin by using the church and its things - as an idol. This can not be helped. It is the way of it.

Eli responds:

We do NOT all begin by worshiping the Church. The Church is not used by all Catholics at some point in their lives, in some idolatrous way. That is simply false on the face of it. Some do misuse in some way but not all, not even most.

Holiness is not a "progress."

The Church teaches that holiness is a gift from God, and can be bestowed on the most sinful and lowly regardless their position along the way.

The preparation to receive God's gifts takes some doing, hearing and being, but it is NOT a progression from one state to another with clearly defined dividing lines and no hope for holiness till some later date. No. That is not the spiritual life as taught in Catholic traditions.

Mankind is an abuser of the abundance of God's graces. This is a reality.

The Church is never an idol "that God allows", [much less the only idol that God allows] to be worshipped, not even when ecclisiastical elements are misused by some individuals.

Eli

Dearest Eli,

In the Eastern Christian tradition, holiness/Theosis indeed IS conceived as a dynamic, ongoing thing, the acquisition of the Holy Spirit that never ends, as St Seraphim of Sarov taught (and whose feast of his relics' translation we honour today in the Old Calendar - in truth, a real "progress" and this is what my friend, Ray Kaliss, means and is referring to when he speaks thus.

The fact that the East understands a real progress in God to constantly be occurring even in those who are already united with Him in Heaven is also shown by the fact that in the Divine Liturgy we pray not only TO but also FOR the Mother of God and the Saints who certainly do not need our prayers to obtain Heaven, having already done so.

As for "idol" and other issues that Ray speaks of, I just wanted to say that I have not always understood just what Ray is getting at.

And this is not because Ray is being deliberately obtuse or that he is affirming things that contradict the Church's teaching.

In the years I've known Ray here, he has been the first to pounce on me whenever he thought I was being less than fully Catholic with respect to the Papacy etc. His devotion to the Papal Office is well known by the many of us here who have come to affectionately know this fascinating and intellectually challenging Catholic servant of Christ (and so say at least four Catholic priests who are lurkers on this forum).

And yet Ray has witnessed effectively to many who have come to him or to this forum with specific issues that only he alone seems to know how to best respond to them in a way that leaves them satisfied and edified.

I have also used some of Ray's analysis (that which I can understand with my feeble intellect) with my religion students. And I can attest to its great success in answering their queries about a number of issues (best of all, the Holy Eucharist).

Ray does not deserve to be attacked as being somehow unfaithful to Catholicism, as you are doing here, time and again. It is uncharitable and unbecoming on your part and I speak for more than just myself here.

As Patriarch Joseph Slipyj said in a sermon once, "When I don't understand something, I ask questions."

Literalist interpretations of his words or of any words make for good Protestant fundamentalism, but very poor Catholic understanding in the total sense of the word.

I had teachers and professors who spoke as Ray Kaliss does and whose words left me bewildered, but when I asked what was meant by their intellectual parables, I saw that the fault was with me rather than with them.

Ray's intellectual probing of theological issues has enriched and continues to enrich many.

Ray deserves much greater respect and he deserves a hearing on his fascinating views.

If you would like to teach someone about better ways to approach discussion, you might think about beginning with yourself.

Alex

Brothers and Sisters:

This thread is becoming less than charitable in the exchanges between those made brothers and sisters in Christ. Since it seems to have strayed from the original, I am letting this be a warning that I will close this topic if it continues.

All of us need to be open in humility to correction by others. Correcting others needs to be done in Christian charity and that takes weighing the words chosen. Ignoring another's posts is one thing, but to openly throw that statement out is simply uncalled for.

Let's take some time to reflect here. Wounding each other is the Enemy's work; it is not ours. It seems to me that our work on this particular thread is to build up and edify each other.

In Christ,

BOB

Okay, I've let the bickering go on long enough, but I've reached the end of my patience.

Eli: Please do nto attack posters. Address issues, ask questions, but do not assume that you know that a person does or does not adhere to the teachings of the Church, even when it may seem like a post does not conform to Church teachings. Ask questions to get clarifications.

Ray: Some of your posts are obtuse and some do seem downright heretical. Neither the Church nor the Church Fathers represent the Church herself as something to be worshipped -- an idol. The Church is an image or symbol of both family and, ultimately, of heaven. It is not an object of worship.

Alex: Thanks for the charitable correction to Eli.

Fr. Deacon Edward, Moderator

Dear Father Deacon Edward,

You are always so welcoming to Ukrainians!

Not all those associated with the BCC are that way, you know!

As for Ray being obtuse etc., was it St Bonaventure who referred to Aquinas as the "father of all heretics?"

May I ask for your forgiveness for something?

Charitable, shmaritable - it just did me a WORLD of GOOD to say a few things to Eli!

But yes, we should be charitable at all times, of course, yes, you bet . . .

I just love biritual clergy!

(I rescued a kitten today, so my post above wasn't the only charitable thing I did . . . )

Alex

Ray, Thank you for the clarification. I understand now that you were not encouraging the practice of viewing the church as an idol, but stating that there are some who fall into this practice. I agree that we need a lot more evangelization to the people who are already among our ranks. I look forward to brainstorming with you about it in the future.

Didn't Pastor Badal say he was leaving? And wasn't he the only one with a problem with the church's understandings of the deuterocanonical texts? Is there anything left to discuss here?

Alex,

You know, of course, that I'm with the Melkites, not the Ruthenians -- to us youse guys is all da same!

My daughter was always rescuing kittens, cats, dogs, and virtually every other form of mammal (including a few boys). Fortunately, she's married and living in Texas so the menagerie has dwindled to just my two dogs.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear Father Deacon Edward,

You are so very wonderful!

The "cat's meow" in more ways than one!

Melkites are great - I've forgiven them for that earlier prayerbook of yours where you commemorate the victory of Peter the Great over the Kozaks at Poltava!

Your daughter and the parishioners you serve are lucky indeed to have you!

Ciao,

Alex