www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West more discussion of "reunion now"

Huh... did you say something?

Darn! these laid back quiet people!

Just kidding. While I have been involved in an ongoing reply with John - and my limited abilities are a reality - I found your comments very thoughful and deserving better attention than I had at the time. I will fully re-read your exchange with Myles.

In the mean time - my unemployment runs out in three weeks and no job interview has panned out yet. If you would mention this to the Lord - I would appreciate it. Apparently he is waiting untill the last minute. That is making me nervous. Don't ask for anything specific - just support for my family. Thanks.

-ray

The secret is that we're corn-fed out here . . .

Thanks for the kind words, Ray.

--John

Dear Stephanos I,

I'm not so sure that division is not the work of God. Yes, there is one creation . . . but there were many different things which were in that one Garden of Eden. Yes, there was only one Hebrew nation, but there were twelve tribes which composed it. Yes, there was only one Church which Christ prayed to be one, but it was composed of 12 apostles and many disciples.

I'm not trying to split hairs.

I am trying to understand the diversity within the unity and the unity within the diversity. That phenomenon can be found in nature, in sociology and, yes, the Church.

And that is why I found Ghazar's post to be so refreshing. He actually said out loud what seems to be the case: God *is* working through our divisions and He *is* bringing good out of it: the diversity within the unity.

Does any father want all his grown up children to live in the same house, as they have their own families? Of course not. But, I suspect every father wants his children to get along out of love. I'm speculating out loud here, but: Could our Heavenly Father want the same thing?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the unity of the Churches is the Holy Spirit.

--John

Dear Zenovia,

I tend to agree with you: in general and in the specific example of the Protestants.

On the one hand, the Protestant Reformation (and the resulting Catholic Counter-Reformation) was a terrible sundering of the Body of Christ. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church had refused to reform itself or to follow through with its reform movements (the "concilliar movement," if I recall it correctly...). Meanwhile, people needed to hear and live the Gospel.

And, the Protestant Reformation delivered that: the Gospel. Or, at least one third of the Gospel. Sadly, the Protestants jettisoned two thirds of the Gospel: the Mysteries and the Tradition. However, they at least liberated the essential third of the Gospel: the basic message of Christ's love and salvation, by faith and forgiveness of sins.

I am not lauding the fact of a divided Church. Clearly, the Western Church should have reformed itself and saved itself the bloodshed and tumult of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. I also do not laud the loss of 2/3 of the Gospel (the Mysteries and the Tradition) to the Protestants.

But, apparently, things had gotten so bad in Western Christendom that nothing else was going to change things and restore the Gospel to the people. And, that restoration of the Gospel was the good that came from it: in both the Protestants and the Catholics.


I agree.

I know that God sometimes sends punishments. However, they are not evil: just like a spanking isn't evil or the arrest of criminal isn't evil. They are actually mercies, because He is trying to wake us up and get us to repent.

I also know that God allows evil in this world. Part of that is after-effects of original sin. Because we chose our nature, we are now enslaved to nature; etc. Part of it, though, is chosen. We choose evil and God allows us the fruits of that choice. In short, I tend to see that we are no so much punished *for* our sins as we are punished *by* our sins. God always is there, with us, offering to help us to carry our cross. And in that sharing of the cross, and hence the resurrection, He does bring good out of evil.

As for the separation of East and West, that was our fault (not God's fault) because of our pride. Yet, through that separation, God has worked with us to bring good from the situation.

Hence, I think Ghazar was right when he wrote his conclusion. He wasn't advocating disunion. Instead, he seemed to advocate respecting the differences between the Churches as also vehicles for God's will. We must work for reunion, yes. But, we must also be patient with God and His will, which seems to use both union and disunion to achieve His purposes.

--John

It's been awhile since I have posted anything and this may be a small point, but wouldn't a better term be communion between the churches rather than union.

I was raised Roman Catholic and was a "hard core traditionalist" at one time. But when I discovered the Melkite Church and began studying and understanding Eastern Christian thought, it proved a breath of fresh air. It's from that background that I have developed a negative taste toward the word union as opposed to communion. Unfornately too many of my traditionalist friends and to a certain extent certain "conservative" Catholics take union to mean "supremacy" of Rome and her understanding.

As I said it's a minor detail and it may only be a misdirected sticking point with me. Any comments are greatly appreciated.

Terry

Zenovia: You make some very good points.

Dear Ray, very funny. I "hear" you, loud and clear. I will pray for you to obtain suitable employment. Btw, what kind of work do you do? I work in heating and cooling and many times its tied to commercial construction. I too have to be concerned about slow times and lay offs. I pray God He will help you find what you need to support your family.

John Harmon, you sum it up very well. Nice analogy about our Father's desire for His children. Thanks for including me in your thread.

Dear Terry,
I know exactly of what you speak and have experienced it quite often.

your brother in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Don't ya just love it when the spell checker has a mind of its own.

For all intents and purposes ... ?


-ray

Yeah yeah thats the one Ray

Dear brothers Myles and Ghazar�

I don�t think you guys are miles apart (hey! Was that a pun on Myles??). I think you guys are closer than you think but I can not explain that. This is a discussion and so we are allowed to throw out things we may not be 100% sure of � just to see if they fly. We sharpen ourselves and find areas to adjust when we debate with other. Discussion is - testing our own beliefs.

I agree with Ghazar in the thought that both Orthodox and Catholic are much more united �out of the public eye� so to speak. There is a tremendous amount of communion going on all the time � and each pays great attention to the other. Each feels a separation but in such a way that each is always paying great attention to the other on the world scene. Liking each other - or suspicious of each other � they are always paying attention to each other all around. This (believe it or not) is a real form of unity � even if it is unrecognized and not acknowledged.

I have more to say but it is 4am and I would not say it well.

Ghazar� I re-read your posts.  and what shines through is the same thing that shines through us all. It is some feeling and inner intuition that we ARE all united in some way � and we all long to have it fully. We all strain for it. Our inner eyes of the heart see it � and we ask ourselves and anyone else � �How can we attain it??� � and it consumes much of our mental time.

On to another subject� my last for tonight. You will all think me crazy � but mediate on what I am about to say.

This is addressed to anybody.


There is a dictum in philosophy which I totally agree with. I will paraphrase below.

�One can not long for something that does not exist. Such a movement of will is impossible. One can not feel attraction to that which does not exist. For attraction to happen and be felt in human nature � there MUST exist that �thing� (that physical or mental reality) for an attraction to take place between the will of a person and that thing.

Be it a physical existence and reality - or a conceptual existence and reality. It must really exist in order for attraction to exist.�

This is so simple that it is hard to grasp with our minds that have the habit of dealing with complex concepts.

The human will can only be attracted to what the human intellect can know. The human intellect can not know what does not exist. The human will (longing) is blind and the intellect are its eyes. The human will can not long for what the human intellect does not know.

It is that simple.

Let me give a rudimentary example� let me describe something to you and you tell me if you are attracted to what I describe� I will place that description in quotes.

Now I ask � is it possible to be attracted or repelled by � nothing??

Nope.

While it is true that our intellect may misunderstand aspects of something � that is a function of reason and logic - and our will is attracted to it even in the misunderstanding of it�. There MUST be an essence of the �it� for any attraction to take place.

This is so basic it scares me that we do not see it.

We MUST know an �it� which has the essence of union � to even have a longing for �it�.

So union between the churches DOES exist � the question is now � HOW do we attain to our human nature � that which we KNOW exists??

The answer to that I will give tomorrow.

-ray

Ray,

Father Ron Roberson's Eastern Christian Churches - A Brief Survey [cnewa.org] , on the CNEWA site, lists all the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, as well as the Maronite and Assyrian/Chaldean Churches and the Orthodox Churches "of Irregular Status".

As to the "tree", I did one late last year, but it was limited to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches (didn't include the Orthodox). It's on page 3 of a thread titled Maronite .

I don't think that is the one for which you're looking. I have a vague recollection of another - a diagram done for a (?) Passaic eparchial publication back in the 80s - but it's incomplete as I remember and I can't find it at the moment.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you my Irish friend.

-ray

John,
Why did you presume that I was ruling out diversity. Not at all. Diversity has nothing to do with Unity. The commounio or koinonia of the Church. We do not all have to be the same but united in One faith, One Lord, One Baptism and One God and Father of all.Division which drives apart and sets one over another is I say again NOT the work of God.
Stephanos I

"Division which drives apart and sets one over another is I say again NOT the work of God."
-Stephanos I

No, but not only can God allow it for His own purposes, He is great enough to even bring good from it if He so deems. If the "Breath of God" clearly teaches God can harden hearts (Pharoh) and divide the arrogant (Babel), He certainly still has the power and perogative to do so today.

I believe in this case he actually is bringing good out of all of this.

I can go in to more detail as to why I think it�s important, but my impression is that one trend has emerged starting in the Papacy of John Paul II and continues now with Pope Benedict XVI. It is that the focus within the RCC has shifted from mending the effects of the Reformation to mending the effects of the schism. I think there is huge significance to this for the Catholic Church.

I concur.

--John