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

I think that I have just been attacked Father Deacon and with some relish, if Alex's post is to be believed.

I was not attacking Ray as a person. I was saying that his descriptions of Church and the spiritual life as given in his own words, are not Catholic teaching. I believe you just said something similar.

I am not certain just what to apologize for at this point.

Eli

Dear Eli,

If you believe my post, then please take it as the charitable correction that it is!

I took no relish in that - mustard perhaps . . .

Alex

Salt and vinegar perhaps?

I was not attacking RayK as a person at any time in my comments about the things he was asserting as factual.

As I said, I am not yet sure for what it is that I am to apologize.

How about this: I am saddened and filled with compunction, for I am a sinner.

I do not expect general absolution.

Eli

It is comments like: "I think you need to take yet another look at Catholic Tradition with respect to the Word and how Scripture was treated by the patristic and the desert Fathers." which address the person ("you need to...look") as opposed to the argument ("I don't believe.." or "I think..." or even "Isn't Scripture...").

Fr. Deacon Edward

Thank you. That is extremely helpful. I will be more careful as we go along.

My apologies to RayK for personalizing that particular comment. I did not "see" it till Father Deacon pointed to it. Blind spots. Miserable blind spots!! Thanks again.

Eli

Yes. I think we all fall into this from time to time. Especially with our prayers when we are too often giving directions to God on how to run his creation. As we progress in prayer (and understand the things of the church in their deeper spiritual meaning as well) our prayers become more of a - listening into the silence. Letting God change us in the silence rather than our trying to change God through the tool of our prayers.

And so I think it is that God tolerates our early prayers when we - use prayer as a tool - and insistently knock and knock in order to get our way about things. As I remember the parable - the Inn keeper came down and let the man who was knocking � in � but the keeper was not too well please about the whole thing. This parable is a way of understanding for those who need - milk.

Prayer from the heart is readily answered while prayer from the head is reluctantly answered (or answered in ways that we are not sure we like).

I can not find the internet site where I used to search early Council documents (things change on the net) and so I am not able to give the Council (or link) regarding Council clarification that the sacraments do not work by magic (as some where trying to do) but are only efficacious when the recipient is of good conscience and intent. But certainly Paul speaks about this in one of his epistles � regarding receiving of the Eucharist. If it is not received with good conscience and intent - it is not effective. And the magician Simon tried to buy an apostleship from Peter so he (Simon) could get the - power. From very early - there are some who thought that the things of the church automatically channeled grace despite the spiritual condition of the recipient.

I remember several years ago� a married couple I knew� the wife had been cheating on her husband for a long time� openly � it was no secret � yet every Sunday (and some week days) there she was receiving communion. Now did she really imagine that receiving the Eucharist weekly would counter-act her state of adultery? � in the eyes of heaven?? Be that as it may�

Now no one here is like Simon the magician. But in smaller ways - each of us begins on the lower levels of the ladder of spiritual progress. At each step we believe we understand it all. But at the next step (if God takes us there) we gain new understanding and realize that we has misunderstood so much - before (yet we had no idea how much we did misunderstand). Our progress is from glory to greater glory (we understand God�s glory better and better). And for this reason the spiritual fathers likens it to a ladder - step by step up to a perfection which we barely imagined what it is like - until we are lifted to the next, to the next, to the next.

By the necessity that there is - progress - to the spiritual life� I think in it that God tolerates our early mis-use of the church (her doctrines and sacraments). He knows - we misunderstand. He knows - we misuse. He knows we have immature ideas and understandings of Him and His church. This is well displayed by St. John of the Cross where God guides us up every step of the ladder of spiritual progress.

It is common knowledge that some (some times) misuse the Catholic novenas� with a belief that - - - if they pile them on - and do them properly - the novena will eventually be the tool that will get them what they desire. Now there is nothing wrong with the novenas - but there may be something wrong with the way they may be being used by some people.

Let us be honest in self-knowledge. When we were young and praying in front of a crucifix - how well yet did we know the God who is represented? How ell did we know the God behind - the object?? Not well at all. We were mostly praying - to the crucifix- and wondering what would happen. Certainly God tolerates as a father would - which father has plans to - bring us higher.

And it is very clear that Jesus spoke to most of his disciples in parables� while only explaining plainly to the twelve in private. And when they did not understand the Eucharist - and misunderstood it - Jesus tolerated that (he did not throw them out of the church) knowing that they would not understand it only until after his resurrection.

Now as regards my metaphor of and idol� I now turn to the documents of Vatican II and to the Catholic Catechism� where we can see the Catholic Church use the word as a function, an attitude, a misuse of temporal things (and the church does have temporal aspects that can be misused - we all know that and often accuse others or groups of misusing sacraments or doctrines etc.). The Church does not limit the meaning of �idol� to just statues of wood and clay fashioned of some pagan god.

I am well aware that my posts are most often, difficult to understand, and easily misunderstood. It is very easy to jump the gun or assume of me some meaning that I did not write or intend. For this reason� I often hesitate to post� and I restrict myself mostly to this one (Scriptures) area and sometimes wander over to Prayers. And for that same reason� my posts are usually long, tiresome to read, and boring to read. I know that. These things can not be helped and so I do not post that much.

As much as I can remember � I try to note at top or bottom of my posts that I am not a teacher or an authority of the church. I give my thoughts and opinions only.

And with that� I end my part in this thread.

Peace to you all and peace to your churches.

Peace to you Eli.

-ray

Now here Ray, I can say, without any hesitation or shame or irritation or anger at all, that this was not at all my experience, nor the experience of the Catholic children in school with me, nor my own children who were raised as Catholics.

Certainly we had a child's understanding of God, but there are times today as an adult that I must return to those innocent beliefs, for they are often most trusting, more pure than what I can engender as an adult with all the crustiness of life that I've gathered around me.

We were taught early about idols, and my children were taught early about idols.

We were taught about images and what we are doing when we pray.

I was not taught petitionary prayer first, nor were my children taught petitioinary prayer first. We were taught prayers of praise and thanksgiving first. We were taught the lessons of Scripture first.

The thing that I have most difficulty with in your presentation here on this topic is that you offer these kinds of statements that you offer here as though, or at least sounding for all the world to me as though, they are the general rule. It is my experience that they are not the general rule for Catholics at all.

I can say that Catholics have been accused of being idolatrous in our prayer, but I've never heard it argued that idolatry is a necessary or natural beginning point of the spiritual life, and it sounds to me as though that is what you are saying here, particularly your example of the crucifix. I knew much better than that as a child. My friends did as well. My children did later. I cannot imagine that we were all that unique.

Thanks for your time and for listening to another perspective.

I have a few comments from my copy of the Ladder that I will add in another note about the spiritual life as a progression, just to add a bit a balance to what you have been saying here.

Eli

Originally posted by Ray Kaliss:
I have no difficulty here at all. In fact this is a particularly beautiful expression of a truth that bears frequent repetition.

The idea of progress still needs expanded understanding, but that aside, your message of prayer as "listening into the silence" is beautiful enough to have brought a tear to my eye...so much for tedious and boring. Certainly not in all ways!!

Offering a quote about the text here from a 1979 revised edition of St. John's Ladder:

The idea that spiritual progress is an incremental step-wise 'getting ahead', a raising from lowest to highest is not what the Ladder is all about, not what Mt. Carmel is all about.

I am not asserting that you believe that it is, but your manner of expression easily leads one to that conclusion, and it is a false conclusion, all too easily fostered by a dwelling upon the idea of spiritual advancement or progress, as some incremental 'getting ahead'.

What is true is that the more we open ourselves to grace the more we expand our capacity to receive. That is true.

I would not want to minimize the saving grace of Baptism for an infant simply because they are tiny and may throw it away in sin, as they get older. It is not magical, that saving grace, but it certainly is miraculous and gracious, and freely given to the undeserving.

Eli

This might help to put the idea of the spiritual life, as progress, into a better perspective:

From St. Makarios of Egypt (The Philokalia Vol. 3; Faber and Faber pgs. 339-340):

"The devout soul, even if it practices all the virtues, ascribes everything to God and nothing to itself. God, on the other hand, when He sees its sound and healthy understanding and knowledge, attributes everything to the soul, and rewards it as though it had achieved everything through its own efforts. He does this in spite of the fact that, if He were to bring us to judgment, no true righteousness would be found in us. For material possessions and everything that man regards as valuable and through which he is able to do good, the earth and whatever is in it, all belong to God. Man�s body and soul, and even his very being, are his only by grace. What, then, is left to him that he can call his own, by virtue of which he can pride himself or vindicate himself? Yet when the soul recognizes � what is indeed the truth � that all its good actions for God�s sake, together with all its understanding and knowledge, are to be ascribed to God alone and that everything should be attributed to Him, then God accepts this as the greatest gift that man can make, as the offering that is most precious in His eyes."

By the way Eli ... I fully intended to cease my part in this thread... but by the kind way you wrote last... I felt you deserved the courtesy of further reply.

I do try to limited myself here as (not only am I easily misunderstood) one can spend too much time here while other important things lag.

-ray

Thank you for your kind way of putting this.

Let us be able to discuss and share thoughts and spend patient effort o understand the other. It has often happened that the people who initially disagree with me (even violently) have later become my greatest friends. Alex and I often went head to head a few years back - and then - we came to understand each other and found we are much more alike than not. Believe me - I am not looking for people to nod in agreement - if they are not in agreement. At times (I have found that) I learn the most from people who - disagree with me. Who else would force me to think and to research more??

It may be that John Climacus (I assume that is what you mean by St. John�s Ladder) is not arranged as a ladder of steps but rather 30 principles (logi). In reading him I had never considered it one way or the other. I took each chapter for itself. And so it is interesting that it is not arranged as such (a ladder) but is rather 30 principles. As logos and logi can be interpreted by a few similar ways� I hope you accept my word �principle� and we agree that it is not (the exact translation) really an issue. The issue that you bring up is that - Climacus is not arranged in a ladder of ascent.. I believe you.

In my original � when I wrote that the spiritual life is a progress that has been allegorized as a - ladder - I did not have Climacus in mind.

What I did have in mind was (formost) Gregory of Nyssa (�from glory to greater glory�)

And also The Ladder of Perfection (sometimes called the Stairway of Perfection because the description is actually of a particularly magnificent spiral stairway found is some English churches). And also St. John of the Cross (you remember his diagram of ascending up mount Carmel) and the traditional levels of spiritual growth (Purgative / Illuminative / Union) which is tradition to both East and Western mystical theology.

Such ladders are based upon the concept of the alternation (while ascending in growth) between the catophatic (represented by the positive wooden rung) and the appophatic (the negative and empty space between each rung). As John of the Cross expresses it - darkness followed by light - followed by greater darkness - followed by greater light - on up to the greater degrees of Dark Night of the Spirit - culminating in the mystical marriage (union).

Such a figure (the ladder of ascent - the climb from earth to heaven) to image the progress of spiritual growth - has its Christian roots in Old Testament times going as far back a �Jacob�s Ladder�. OT and Jesus himself often used the image of the progress of :: the betrothal / the preparation of the bride / the wedding and feast / lastly nuptuals and consumation.

As to the idea of �getting ahead� by ones own efforts or planning (if I understand you correctly) I agree. And a search on the past posts of RayK will display that I have always held such a view. While there is a progress (a progressive change to our mind, our heart, and to our humanity) it is not accomplished by one�s self application of any set of rules or formula. It is not attained though self-applied �behavioral modification� (as for example done in modern therapy ) nor as the result of further learning (as one learns to be a doctor, a carpenter, a teacher, etc..). In fact such efforts (and belief as to how we become sanctified and what spiritual growth is) is probably the major - setback - of most Christians. As Paul says (�The Law has justified - no one.�). Now� you may perhaps not agree with me here. These are difficult to talk about and easily misunderstood. I certainly do not wish to argue about the meaning of such words and terms.

This is not to say that we do nothing (on our part) of our own efforts to change our ways. We fall into Quietism that way. No� rather � abandonment to Divine Providence has its moments of being passive (to God action) and its moments which demand effort and action.


Yes. I understand you. I understand (and agree) with your thoughts as expressed. But may I note (and please take no offence because you have already displayed your self very capable) that there is a difference between �saving grace� (if we call that - salvation) and spiritual progress to mystical union.

Salvation (as used in the early Council documents) is likened to the salvage of a ship ready to sink. The ship is prevented from destruction and pulled to shore. The ship is saved from destruction - but that is the end of the definition. �Salvage� does not include the concept of further repairs of improvements. That - is the work of - sanctification - or justification - and is progressive. One might think of it as passing through purgatory (not a place of course) here on earth before our physical death. To the extent that we are purged - here (before physical death) we need not be purged �after death�. Or in the way of the East - far less tollhouses after death.

The word �salvation� in early Council documents was also synonymous with the sacraments. The sacraments - were - the embodiment of - salvation (as given to the church). And so in many places in early Council documents when we read �salvation� we are to think of the seven sacraments of the church. And this use (salvation-sacraments) also displays that in the mind of the church� the receiving the sacraments (properly of conscience) are salvation (saved from destruction) but are not cumulative to sanctification. Let me express that in other words: a self-plan of receiving the sacraments more frequently in order to quicken or increase one�s sanctification to a higher level or greater degree - does not work. If it did work - that would be a view of the sacraments as if they were magic potions. Hence I gave the little story about the woman who was committing adultery (continuously) and imagining that receiving communion each week was erasing her adultery.

And lastly� you may object to a use of Mister Echart - but - his particular allegory of how God must destroy (through the apophatic of the dark night) our currently help view and beliefs about him (our catophatic) � in order to replace that to an even greater clarity of his glory� is accurate. It is the same as John of the Cross expresses with his cleaning of the dirt from the window (as the window is cleaned the clarity of light coming through it increases more and more). And so when I speak of spiritual progress (as far as our humanity on this earth is concerned) I speak of it as the great mystical doctors of East and West have outlined in for us.

I know - I have brought a lot into this particular post� but I feel confident that you have displayed that you have the background into the sources that I drew from. My posts are difficult to understand (I know that) and my way of writing is odd - that can�t be helped. Also (one last word of caution when reading anything I write) I often use the word �you� in an non-personal and philosophical use (and people have taken that personally in the past). If I have the time and presence of mind I sometimes go back over what I wrote and change things like �you might see in this �.� to � �one might see in this�� as I am really expressing a general tendency of human nature.

Peace be to you and to your church.
-ray

I could not sleep tonight as it is hot and muggy (I guess that is the reason)�

So at risk of yet yakking far too much� let me explain something because I am sure that someone would take exception to my explanation of the difference between salvation (to salvage something from destruction) and sanctification (the process and progress toward a deeper and more perfect union).

I am not a theologian so do not expect the precise words of theology. I rather � paint pictures. A method of �it is like this�. It is simply a way of understanding put into normal words which are more suited to us who are not theologians. The importance is not in the words but rather in the understanding of what the words are intended to point to.

I had said that the word salvation was used by Early Councils as another name by which to indicate the seven sacraments � of which the Eucharist is one (and the one from which all others flow).

And someone would then say to me�

�Ray� that can not be right � that the sacraments save from destruction � but there is not a cumulative effect or nourishing to greater strength!! Surely, the more we receive the sacraments (those which can be repeated) � the more sanctified we become and the more we grow in grace.�

Yes.. but not in the way some might think.

What we do is re-new them. The sacrifice of the mass is � re-newed. Presented again (not done again). I may explain that another day (I have explained it in the past and that post may still exist at this board). We can say for now that there is a rip � a tear � in time � where we become present to Jesus on the way to the cross (2000 years ago) and Jesus (on his way to the cross) becomes present to us individually (2000 years yet to come � where we live today).

Let me explain.

When we receive the human body and blood of Jesus Christ� it becomes a part of our own human nature. This is the natural way of any food we take.

By that natural act the Providence sent by God the Father to His Son � is sent to us also. We are now the recipient of God�s acts of love (expressed through the events of creation) � to his son and his explicitly to his son�s human nature.

On the same hand� since the son also takes upon himself our own human nature (by the act of our reception of his body and blood)� that Providence which is deservedly ours � is sent onto his son�s human nature..

Since it is the crucified and resurrected body and blood � it is not only temporal (within time) but it is also eternal (a disregard of time). And the union of our human nature (living in the year 2006) is complete with Jesus� own human nature (2000 years ago).

Hence� the Providence due to me today, right now at this moment, or to you (that Providence which is appropriate to our degree of sanctification and needed for any possiblity of further santification) is shared with the human nature of Jesus as he progresses to his crucifixion.

And that Providence which is rightly due to the human nature of Jesus Christ (because that human nature is his own son) as he progresses to his crucifixion and resurrection � also comes to me (and to you) to our own human nature here, now, this minute, in 2006.

Now that � is fact. And easily reasoned.

Our own Providence is put upon the human nature of Jesus Christ as he progresses to his crucifixion � and the Providence of love due to Jesus (as he goes to his crucifixion) is put upon us (today).

Jesu puts his own Providence upon us and take our Providence upon himself.

It is within this (the Providence � the daily bread � the events of reality which are designed by the Father and which we live each day and each moment) it is within this Providence � and our cooperation with it � that our sanctification is forged.

While the complete fullness of the Providence due to Jesus Christ (meaning �for Jesus� of course) is sent to us (individually) its effectiveness is limited (not by God) by our own free will which God will not violate. In other words � we cooperate only so-far and no farther. We need not get into the why and how of that.

Do you remember how Jacob put that furry thing on his hand so that his father thought that Jacob was Esu - and gave his blessing? That was a trick but what Jesus does is of his own free will and in the full knowledge of his father.

And so it is that Confession and the Eucharist are the re-new sacraments. They are fully effective in themselves (100%) but we are only capable (and if the person is progressing in spiritual growth our capability also grows) of cooperating to a degree or extent. Again � this is due to our free will � which God will in no way violate.

Our cooperation must be a knowing � cooperation (cooperation by very definition means we have knowledge of what we to cooperate with and we do that cooperation freely).

Now that is well enough for tonight (and probably for days). If you disagree with anything here, I ask you to cut me some slack as I am not presenting theology (that is not my duty) I am simply presenting some consideration which may yield some understanding to someone. It is often good to re-read my posts slowly and with reflection.

Peace to you and your church.
-ray

It's nice to be able to sit and write when things start moving around in your mind.

There's two things that strike me with your ideas about the way of perfection being a way of progress. I do understand the attractiveness of that imagery, believe me. We all like to think that we are getting somewhere.

But the fact still stands that these are imperfect metaphors, these ladders and mountains. Did you notice that the Ladder is not actually set out in steps but in "words"? So that naming the chapters as "steps" is something of a translational stretch...eh?

BTW I like your rung and space analogy regardless of whatever else I am saying here.

At any rate there are two things unaccounted for in what you write that seem pretty glaring to me.

One is the fact, attested to by those who live the life meaning our saints and fathers, that one can make great progress in the cultivation of natural virtue and never be blessed with infused grace or infused virtue or union.

And the second thing that is missing in what you've said thus far is the fact that a novice be graced with infused virtue and union after having made little to no natural progress in either the discipline of prayer, contemplation or the acquisition of natural virtue.

These are two things that I keep looking for in your work, and hinting at but so far, no dice.

Try not to dwell on the simple fact of my saying that you've got something missing in your work. I don't want to get yelled at again for being mean to you. I just don't know how else to say it. It ain't there. :p

Eli

I think that we've strayed far from the original topic of this thread. May I suggest we move some of this last page to a new thread entitled "Spiritual Progress"?

In Christ,

BOB

Eli said...
Posting space here is limited and my stuff is often far too long anyways. No... I did not approach the subject of the virtues. I welcome any thoughts you would like to give regarding natural and infused virtue. I have no problem with the way you put them so far except for the second (a novice can be graced with infused virtue and union) which I would amend with the fact that such infusion is given to novices by God (at times) � as fortification and encouragement � and is withdrawn. The infusion is temporary but leaves a lasting impression on the person�s memory - which impression lures the novice to dedicate himself to further growth. A taste of things to come (as it were). And the memory of it � is fortification while enduring the dark nights.

Enlightenment (to talk further) does not consititue union (that is not where union takes place) and so today many are mistaken to think they have a good solid and continuing union with God just because God had enlightened them in some way. Hense we find many false visionaries publishing books and leading groups - what began as genuine has often turned to imaginary (Bayside being a prime example).

Union does not take place in the intellect - it takes place elsewhere (that is another subject).

But of course all these details would take a book to cover and can not all be touched on in these posts and so many many things will remain unaccounted for in my posts.

The concept of spiritual progress ... is not mine, while I have naturally used my own words in these posts. The human-side of the progression of spiritual growth is a construct in Eastern and Catholic spiritual literature. In the Catholic church it is doctrine and mostly the subject that the Doctor's Of The Church concerned themselves with. Admittedly it is not a popular subject today and mostly forgetting about as is the doctrines of Providence. These two go hand in had as inseparable� but they are badly neglected today.

(bold are mine)

This progress is generally give (in Mystical theology) as...

Purgative
Illuminative
Unitive

Three 'stages' (some times called �states� or �ways�) are defined where an action is predominate within a soul in progress. One really can not understand well the writings of St. John of the Cross without knowing this progression which he uses.

The early fathers generally called these three stages - Beginner, Proficient, Perfect.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/baker/holy_wisdom.vii.ii.viii.html

As mystical theology developed � these category names (Beginner / Proficient / Perfect) were replaced by naming the stage that the soul was at by that action in the soul which was most predominate within each stage (Purgative / Illuminative / Unitive).

The signs of these stages are mostly important for the director to know. As it is difficult for the soul himself to know what stage he may be in. Especially in the stages of Illuminative and approaching Unitive - the soul is very blind to his own state and progress often tending to think he/she has none at all and is in a worse state than ever (refer: St. John of the Cross).

Of course a great difficulty today - is that there is so little knowledge among general Christians - that false 'mystics' are numerous and have given a bad taste to the whole subject. And so the 'mystical' in the Catholic church is generally thought of along the lines of TV, movies, charismatic groups, apparitions, etc.. the whole perspective is either lost or entirely out-of-wack unless one is a monastic (where the correct views of spiritual growth of the mystical life are mostly still intact). This is especially true (most preserved and intact) in cloistered monasteries (Catholic and Orthodox).

These are my thoughts and I think that we are mostly - aligned.

Peace to you Eli.
-ray