www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Louis Marie de Montfort's thinking

The "filioque" as it developed under the influence of the essentialism of St. Augustine, and the introduction of Aristotelian philosophical categories with the rise of Scholasticism in the West, is not a bulwark against Arianism; instead, it involves a fundamental confusion of person (hypostasis) and essence (ousia).

Gordo,


Yes, that's clear.

As you say, though, Pius XII did not wish to "foreclose discussion" on mortalist/immortalist strains of thought, which I understand to mean simply that there was merit on both sides. Thus, any Catholic would have to have an "open mind" on that question, in the sense of "be willing to appreciate the point of view of others". Or, perhaps more actively, to study all the points of view. I respect that.

BTW, are you aware that there are two localities that claim to possess the tomb of Our Lady, Jerusalem and Ephesus?

I find the story behind Ephesus fascinating, not just the visions of St. Catherine Emmerich which led to the re-discovery of "Mary's House" on the hill there, but the long history of scores of monasteries existing there over the centuries until the Ottomans forced them out, etc. Of course, that's a bit off the topic of this thread. In either case, Our Lady would have died, I think.

God Bless,
Michael

Michael,

I guess my point is that it is really NOT an open question theologically. The Christian East, equally expressive of the Catholic mind, has spoken dogmatically through its liturgy. The fact that the Latin West has failed to acknowledge it fully is its own loss and deficiency, as far as I'm concerned. But to treat it as a legitimate disputed theological question is inaccurate, IMHO.

Hence my criticism.

I think there is certainly evidence that points to Mary living in Ephesus with John, but dying in Jerusalem (as testified to in the liturgy) with her tomb in the Garden of Gethsemane.

I was not aware of the link to the purported visions of St. Catherine Emmerich. Do you have a website link anywhere that can provide information on this?

Thanks!

Todd,

I've got a few things at home that may take me a bit to locate. If I can find it before I leave on vacation, I'll post it here.

Good to see you posting again. It seems you took a few days off. (Always a good idea from time to time!)

God bless,

Gordo

OK. I'll be a guinea pig.

St. John Damascene. (A guess)

Michael
(who is really hoping for the answer!)

Yes.

The visions:
St. Catherine Marie Emmerich [jesus-passion.com]

The re-discovery based on details in the visions:
Mary's House, Ephesus [kusadasi.biz]
Turkish Web Page on Mary's House [sacred-destinations.com]

There is a DVD made by a Franciscan priest (from Malta, but stationed at or near Ephesus), which I saw on EWTN one Saturday morning in November last year, being offered over the Web, but I cannot find a reference to it now. If I do locate a URL, I'll PM it to you.

In Christ,
Michael

P.S. You and I both know that nobody is bound by private revelations. So what I find fascinating is not all the details in the visions themselves (although I don't pooh-pooh them either), but the fact that a French priest in 1891, while temporarily in the area, decided to see if he could use the description of where the house was located to actually find it, and did. And the description of the architectural details of the house matched the house as he found it.

It's certainly worthy of the Damascene, and reflective of the Syriac tradition, but alas it's not his work.

I'll give another hint: it's from after the Schism between Rome and Constantinople.

Peace and God bless!

Is it St. Gregory Palamas?

Gordo

Gordo,

It was nice of you to prejudge my comment and my priest's comment about how the Orthodoxy love Mary more than the RC.

It is a matter of FACT that I even heard it from the Byzantine CATHOLIC priests say it out loud that the Eastern Churches apparently have more well-developed devotion, honor and love of Mary than the Western Churches.

In fact, I even heard it from many ROMAN Catholic themselves, including RC priests, saying that the Eastern Church have more advanced "theology" and devotion to Mary that took place before the Western Churches did.

I do agree that RC have a lot of devotion to Mary and all that, but it seems to contain many unhealthy practices and seems more "supersition" type. I even met many Mexicans saying that they worship Mary "because that's what RC does." I had to politely correct them that the RC does not and should NOT worship Mary. The RC doesn't really teach on the proper way to honor Mary and why...they just give people Rosaries and they're on their own.

So, it's important to have HEALTHY formation and understanding of Mary...that would lead to more MATURE devotion to Mary the way the Eastern Churches do for their faithful.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Shane,

Sarcasm like that is out of place. I was commenting how I disagreed with your priest's comments. No prejudging of anyone was involved. Rather, it was just honest disgreement with what you posted. If you do not appreciate others commenting when they disagree with what you post, don't post. My disagreement was not disrespectful to you or to your priest in any way.

Actually, I favor the Eastern approach, so clearly I have a bias - but it is in the Eastern direction, not the Western. Where I disagree is that one can somehow quantify how much love one Church or Tradition has for Mary over the other. As I pointed out, it is one thing to be proud of one's tradition. It is quite another to say we love Mary more.


That is quite different from saying "we love Mary more". I believe our theology of Mary is richer in many ways than the West. One need only look as far as the Eastern traditions on the Dormition to see how true this is. This does not mean that Latins love Mary less than we do, and I would certainly not say that their devotion is somehow deficient or defective.


Again, I do not disagree with this at all. In fact, I'll go one further. I have heard it reported before that Pope John Paul the Great, of blessed memory, made a similar observation concerning the East's theology of and devotion to Mary.

But that is not what your priest said.


What are the unhealthy, superstitious practices to which you are referring? I'm all for a little healthy criticism (the East - Orthodox and Catholic - can use a bit of it from time to time as well), but blanket statements like that are irresponsible. Roman Catholic devotions are not superstitious. Superstition may enter into the personal piety and practices of some, but I would not ascribe those extremes to the whole of Roman Catholicism. That is simply unjust.

In ICXC,

Gordo

The reason I was disappointed in you, Gordo, is that you would ever think that I'm a bigot...you seem to insinuate that by saying that I'm "Orthodox."

Me being Orthodox has nothing to do with or against RC at all. I have no resentment towards the Catholic Church at all.

It seems that you're stuck with labels or territorial sterotyping. We (that includes you, me and all others) all need to get rid of that and simply conclude that the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church as being an "Apostolic Church" as in "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church."

So, my comment about you being "stuck" is due to my assessment you calling me "Orthodox" and yourself a "Catholic" (in an indirect way). We have to get rid of that. Labels don't matter to me anymore like it once did. So, Gordo, there's no need to get defensive....actually EVERYBODY don't need to get defensive as we all mean well in spite of our imperfections.

I just simply chose the Orthodox Church as a path or bridge to G-d, which I have deep peace about. But that does not in any way demean or belittle the Catholic Church.

I am just suprised at you that's all...that you would reduce me to as a bigot or something.

I personally have seen a lot of Spanish and Mexican devotions that are just too unhealthy...like bowing to the Statue of Mary saying like "We worship you" etc. I grew up in Texas...and was around a lot of Hispanic people...they seem to worship Mary like they say. But does that mean that I am saying that the Catholic Church per se worships Mary? NO! I did not. I do agree that ascribing these extremes to whole of RC being unjust...but that's not what I did.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Shane,

I'm sorry that we seem to be speaking past each other here. I have no bias towards you because of your decision to join the Orthodox Church. I think you are reading that into my post without cause.

I believe I have been very clear about this. My issue is with saying that one Church loves Mary more than another. Something like that is simply unsubstantiated and impossible to quantify.

I would, however, like to stay on topic here. I think this is worthy of our focus and attention.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Here is an additional set of articles - all very positive - written by Latins about the East and our devotion to the Mother of God.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num22.htm

What I will say, as a general observation as one who has been reading and discussing Orthodox and Catholic theology for over 20 years now, is that very often (with some notable exceptions) the compliments and the appreciation in discussions between Eastern and Western Christians are very, very one-sided. We have seen this illustrated here, unfortunately.

There are some profound insights to be gained from a St. Louis de Montfort that any Eastern Christian can and should appreciate. But I think there are some who approach every view of the Latins prima facie as either heterodox or tending towards heresy because it is neither Eastern nor is it based on Eastern presuppositions nor is it personally familiar. Where this exists, I believe it to be not only narrow-minded, but a subtle form of snobbery and bigotry that is unbecoming of anyone who calls himself or herself a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ. I think that there are some who also unwittingly undermine the shared basis of the Faith in their effort to deny Roman Catholics a share in that same Faith.

On a personal note, for the longest time I grew frustrated with the Latins because of their lack of willingness to be open to the East and to Eastern suppositions and perspectives. I stand by that criticism, but with this one caveat: I have seen far more intolerance on the Eastern side of the aisle. That is not to say that it does not exist on the Latin side - we ALL know the tragic history of intolerance that, for instance, helped to form the OCA. But in this thread alone, the following can be taken as a summary of Roman Catholic devotion to Mary:

- Roman Catholics are rigid and scrupulous about devotion to Mary

- Roman Catholics do not honor and love Mary as much as their Orthodox counterparts

- Roman Catholics have an immature theology of Mary

- Roman Catholic devotions border on the superstitious

- Roman Catholics have substituted Mary for the Holy Spirit because of their defective theology

- Roman Catholics have a defective iconographical tradition of Mary because she is portrayed without Jesus (never mind the many examples of Eastern iconography that do the same)

- Roman Catholicism does not properly teach its faithful the proper devotion to Mary and its rationale - they just distribute Rosaries.

Did I miss something here?

I dare say that had we substituted the word "Orthodox" or "Eastern Catholic" for Roman Catholic here, this thread would have exploded with fire and brimstone. (I might have been the first to throw a stone or two...)

But in the face of such treatment by Eastern Christians in discussing what amounts to a deeply profound treatise on devotion to the Mother of God, albeit written from a Latin Catholic, but nevertheless Catholic perspective, there is nothing but silence.

For those who have never read this document, I think it is worthy of consideration. There is much there, as I have already observed, that will resonate with an Eastern heart and devotion to She Who Is More Spacious Than The Heavens.

In ICXC,

Gordo