Paradigm of Christian Thinking

[orthodoxy]

Paradigm of Christian Thinking



The Eastern Christian mind and the Western Christian mind functions in two different and opposing worlds. Both groups use the same words but they mean different things. My priest relayed an interesting analogy I am going to attempt to describe.



Do you all remember dissecting frogs? In this analogy both groups are going to study the frog.



In the west we will take the frog out of it’s element and environment into a scientific setting to be studied. We then pith the frog thus rendering the frog “dead”. After this we will cut the frog open and examine the various organs. Describing, analyzing and labeling each component of the frog by reason using scientific methods and academics. Intense study determines what a frog does, how it lives, eats, breaths, swims. This is how we define the frog.



In the east we will become the frog (theosis). We leave the frog in it’s own element and environment. We enter into the frog’s domain and eat what the frog eats, learn to swim like the frog, and do those things frogs do. We enter into the frog’s life and in all ways “become the frog”.



This is the difference between the Eastern Christian theologian and the Western Christian theologian.



In the east we enter into understanding God by communion and joining Him through living His life. Doing the things God did while on earth such as prayer, fasting, and alms giving, etc. In the east we live the life of Christ. In the east it is said, “one who prays is a theologian”. Knowing God through unceasing prayer of the heart is communion with God. This is how the east knows God. By becoming like Him in mercy, compassion, love, suffering, self-emptying, and grace a person knows God. The east knows Jesus Christ by living His life in the liturgical cycles of the Church and it’s daily life of prayer, fasting, alms giving, liturgies, etc. Theosis is becoming “like Christ” in His body, the Church. Being “in Christ” is becoming Christ through His Church. Being in the Church is one and the same as “being in Christ”. A saint is one who sees God clearly by prayer through purification, illumination and deification. This is the process of knowing God that the Church leads and guides a person by the Holy Spirit.



In the west we tend to dissect God into parts. We will study sin, repentance, baptism, resurrection and others dissecting them by reason and study. After these intense academics and many hours of learning we then define God in our minds. Each person making reason his base for conclusions and definitions about the nature of God. In this individual reason of the mind unity is unattainable and the image of God degrades to the image of each individual. The problem with this approach is the individual must first kill God to get to a final conclusion about His nature. Academics determine and feed a western theological intellect and knowledge of God.



I thought this was interesting. Comments?



In Christ,



kyril

[icxn]

And here's the Maximian version:


...The scriptural Word knows of two kinds of knowledge of divine things. On the one hand, there is relative knowledge, rooted only in reason and ideas, and lacking in the kind of experiential perception of what one knows through active engagement; such relative knowledge is what we use to order our affairs in our present life. On the other hand, there is that truly authentic knowledge, gained only by actual experience, apart from reason and ideas, which provides a total perception of the known object through a participation (μέθεξις ) by grace. By this latter knowledge, we attain, in the future state, the supernatural deification (θέωσις ) that remains unceasingly in effect. They say that the relative knowledge based on reason and ideas can motivate our desire for the participative knowledge acquired by active engagement. They say, moreover, that this active, experiential knowledge, which by participation, furnishes the direct perception of the object known, can supplant the relative knowledge based on reason and ideas.

For the sages say that it is impossible for rational knowledge (λόγος ) of God to coexist with the direct experience (πείρα ) of God, or for conceptual knowledge (νόησις ) of God to coexist with immediate perception (αίσθησις ) of God. By "rational knowledge of God" I mean the use of the analogy of created beings in the intellectual contemplation of God; by "perception" I mean the experience, through participation, of the supernatural goods; by "conceptual knowledge" I mean the simple and unitary knowledge of God drawn from created beings. This kind of distinction may be recognized with every other kind of knowledge as well, since the direct "experience" of a thing suspends rational knowledge of it and direct "perception" of a thing renders the "conceptual knowledge" of it useless. By "experience" (πείρα ) I mean that knowledge, based on active engagement, which surpasses all reason. By "perception" (αίσθησις ) I mean that participation in the known object which manifests itself beyond all conceptualization. This may very well be what the great Apostle is secretly teaching when he says, As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will disappear (1 Cor. 13:8). Clearly he is referring here to that knowledge which is found in reason and ideas.

Source: St. Maximus, "On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ"

[pilgrimtim]

yes an interesting explanation.
Certainly worth putting in my brain for future use.

[moses916]

very interesting indeed... :)

[Oblio]

How do we learn about someone we cannot touch and have a temporal two way conversation with ? We cannot email God or discuss via IM our struggles. The way is to live as that person does and become like that person. Prayer, fasting, almsgiving ...

[orthodoxy]

And here's the Maximian version:


...The scriptural Word knows of two kinds of knowledge of divine things. On the one hand, there is relative knowledge, rooted only in reason and ideas, and lacking in the kind of experiential perception of what one knows through active engagement; such relative knowledge is what we use to order our affairs in our present life. On the other hand, there is that truly authentic knowledge, gained only by actual experience, apart from reason and ideas, which provides a total perception of the known object through a participation (μέθεξις ) by grace. By this latter knowledge, we attain, in the future state, the supernatural deification (θέωσις ) that remains unceasingly in effect. They say that the relative knowledge based on reason and ideas can motivate our desire for the participative knowledge acquired by active engagement. They say, moreover, that this active, experiential knowledge, which by participation, furnishes the direct perception of the object known, can supplant the relative knowledge based on reason and ideas.

For the sages say that it is impossible for rational knowledge (λόγος ) of God to coexist with the direct experience (πείρα ) of God, or for conceptual knowledge (νόησις ) of God to coexist with immediate perception (αίσθησις ) of God. By "rational knowledge of God" I mean the use of the analogy of created beings in the intellectual contemplation of God; by "perception" I mean the experience, through participation, of the supernatural goods; by "conceptual knowledge" I mean the simple and unitary knowledge of God drawn from created beings. This kind of distinction may be recognized with every other kind of knowledge as well, since the direct "experience" of a thing suspends rational knowledge of it and direct "perception" of a thing renders the "conceptual knowledge" of it useless. By "experience" (πείρα ) I mean that knowledge, based on active engagement, which surpasses all reason. By "perception" (αίσθησις ) I mean that participation in the known object which manifests itself beyond all conceptualization. This may very well be what the great Apostle is secretly teaching when he says, As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will disappear (1 Cor. 13:8). Clearly he is referring here to that knowledge which is found in reason and ideas.

Source: St. Maximus, "On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ"

That works also. Where do you think this experiance is gathered on the earth? St. Maximus does not express where a man is to experiance the "knowledge and wisdom" of God?

In Christ,

kyril

[orthodoxy]

How do we learn about someone we cannot touch and have a temporal two way conversation with ? We cannot email God or discuss via IM our struggles. The way is to live as that person does and become like that person. Prayer, fasting, almsgiving ...

Where is this life lived and who is living that example today in which we may follow to "know God"? Life of Christ.....love thy enemy, do good to those that harm you, pray for those that hate you, give with no expectation of return, sell all you have and give it to the poor, etc....

Pretty radical gospel.

In Christ,

kyril

[icxn]

That works also. Where do you think this experiance is gathered on the earth? St. Maximus does not express where a man is to experiance the "knowledge and wisdom" of God?

In Christ,

kyril

Where (or when) the flower of purity blossoms, on the earth of your heart.

Quote:

69. Some of the brethren think that they are excluded from the Holy Spirit’s gifts of grace. Because they neglect to practice the commandments they do not know that he who has an unadulterated faith in Christ has within him the sum total of all the divine gifts. Since through our laziness we are far from having an active love for Him - a love which shows us the divine treasures within us - we naturally think that we are excluded from these gifts.

70. If, as St Paul says, Christ dwells in our hearts through faith (cf. Eph. 3:17), and all the treasures of wisdom and spiritual knowledge are hidden in Him (cf. Col. 2:3), then all the treasures of wisdom and spiritual knowledge are hidden in our hearts. They are revealed to the heart in proportion to our purification by means of the commandments.

71. This is the treasure hidden in the field of your heart (cf. Matt. 13:44), which you have not yet found because of your laziness. Had you found it, you would have sold everything and bought that field. But now you have abandoned that field and give all your attention to the land nearby, where there is nothing but thorns and thistles.

72. It is for this reason that the Savior says, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’ (Matt. 5:8) for He is hidden in the hearts of those who believe in Him. They shall see Him and the riches that are in Him when they have purified themselves through love and self-control; and the greater their purity, the more they will see.

Source: St. Maximus, "Forth Century on Love"

Does that answer your question? :)

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Paradigm of Christian Thinking



The Eastern Christian mind and the Western Christian mind functions in two different and opposing worlds. Both groups use the same words but they mean different things. My priest relayed an interesting analogy I am going to attempt to describe.



Do you all remember dissecting frogs? In this analogy both groups are going to study the frog.



In the west we will take the frog out of it’s element and environment into a scientific setting to be studied. We then pith the frog thus rendering the frog “dead”. After this we will cut the frog open and examine the various organs. Describing, analyzing and labeling each component of the frog by reason using scientific methods and academics. Intense study determines what a frog does, how it lives, eats, breaths, swims. This is how we define the frog.



In the east we will become the frog (theosis). We leave the frog in it’s own element and environment. We enter into the frog’s domain and eat what the frog eats, learn to swim like the frog, and do those things frogs do. We enter into the frog’s life and in all ways “become the frog”.



This is the difference between the Eastern Christian theologian and the Western Christian theologian.



In the east we enter into understanding God by communion and joining Him through living His life. Doing the things God did while on earth such as prayer, fasting, and alms giving, etc. In the east we live the life of Christ. In the east it is said, “one who prays is a theologian”. Knowing God through unceasing prayer of the heart is communion with God. This is how the east knows God. By becoming like Him in mercy, compassion, love, suffering, self-emptying, and grace a person knows God. The east knows Jesus Christ by living His life in the liturgical cycles of the Church and it’s daily life of prayer, fasting, alms giving, liturgies, etc. Theosis is becoming “like Christ” in His body, the Church. Being “in Christ” is becoming Christ through His Church. Being in the Church is one and the same as “being in Christ”. A saint is one who sees God clearly by prayer through purification, illumination and deification. This is the process of knowing God that the Church leads and guides a person by the Holy Spirit.



In the west we tend to dissect God into parts. We will study sin, repentance, baptism, resurrection and others dissecting them by reason and study. After these intense academics and many hours of learning we then define God in our minds. Each person making reason his base for conclusions and definitions about the nature of God. In this individual reason of the mind unity is unattainable and the image of God degrades to the image of each individual. The problem with this approach is the individual must first kill God to get to a final conclusion about His nature. Academics determine and feed a western theological intellect and knowledge of God.



I thought this was interesting. Comments?



In Christ,



kyril

If this is so, then why is it that most if not all of the Doctors of the Western Church were known to have a deep union with God?

I do admit that many people who call themselves theologians in the west have no prayer life (and it shows in their theology), however many of the great theologians that the west base their teachings on (ie. the doctors) were very much in the process of theosis.

I don't know, it seems to me that this quote is very stereotypical.

[orthodoxy]

If this is so, then why is it that most if not all of the Doctors of the Western Church were known to have a deep union with God?

I do admit that many people who call themselves theologians in the west have no prayer life (and it shows in their theology), however many of the great theologians that the west base their teachings on (ie. the doctors) were very much in the process of theosis.

I don't know, it seems to me that this quote is very stereotypical.

I found the catholic faith and the heterodox faith based more on a court room settling than a hospital settling.

Frankly the "filioque" defines another version of God but I do not doubt the heterodox faith has a "deep union with "him". We love what we create.

kyril

[orthodoxy]

Where (or when) the flower of purity blossoms, on the earth of your heart.

Quote:

69. Some of the brethren think that they are excluded from the Holy Spirit’s gifts of grace. Because they neglect to practice the commandments they do not know that he who has an unadulterated faith in Christ has within him the sum total of all the divine gifts. Since through our laziness we are far from having an active love for Him - a love which shows us the divine treasures within us - we naturally think that we are excluded from these gifts.

70. If, as St Paul says, Christ dwells in our hearts through faith (cf. Eph. 3:17), and all the treasures of wisdom and spiritual knowledge are hidden in Him (cf. Col. 2:3), then all the treasures of wisdom and spiritual knowledge are hidden in our hearts. They are revealed to the heart in proportion to our purification by means of the commandments.

71. This is the treasure hidden in the field of your heart (cf. Matt. 13:44), which you have not yet found because of your laziness. Had you found it, you would have sold everything and bought that field. But now you have abandoned that field and give all your attention to the land nearby, where there is nothing but thorns and thistles.

72. It is for this reason that the Savior says, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’ (Matt. 5:8) for He is hidden in the hearts of those who believe in Him. They shall see Him and the riches that are in Him when they have purified themselves through love and self-control; and the greater their purity, the more they will see.

Source: St. Maximus, "Forth Century on Love"

Does that answer your question? :)

What is St Maximus saying to you?

I think I bought the field in the Holy Orthodox Church. I believe "give all your attention to the land nearby" means to investigate other faiths out of the sphere of the authentic and "always known" faith giving to the Church by the saints. I totally agree with these words from a corperate point of view found in Orthodoxy. Personally I think the Holy Spirit works in all men to lead them to the body of Jesus Christ found in the Holy Orthodox Church. How God does it, I have no idea, he drew me by my heart before I knew what was happening I was so deluded. In this corperate body is the experiance that "knows God". Without this "orgainc connection", in my opinion, one is alone with his own heart in delusion thinking himself "pure".

unworthy to be in Christ,

kyril

[eoe]

This is a good one kyril! Thanks!

[icxn]

What is St Maximus saying to you?

I think I bought the field in the Holy Orthodox Church. I believe "give all your attention to the land nearby" means to investigate other faiths out of the sphere of the authentic and "always known" faith giving to the Church by the saints. (...)
The land nearby is our flesh, the passions. St. Maximus is speaking about Orthopraxis. The fact that we are Orthodox, i.e. hold the right faith/opinion/belief is not enough [to grant us the experience as oppose to the intellectual knowledge of God] if we do not practice the commandments.

icxn

[orthodoxy]

The land nearby is our flesh, the passions. St. Maximus is speaking about Orthopraxis. The fact that we are Orthodox, i.e. hold the right faith/opinion/belief is not enough [to grant us the experience as oppose to the intellectual knowledge of God] if we do not practice the commandments.

icxn

Yes. Experiance. Where is this "organically" found?

Here let me ask you something:

Can I personally take a piece of leaven bread, bless it, dip it into a cup of grape juice and experiance who and what we know as Orthodox Christians to be God?

if not why? Why is this "experiance" not a valid experiance of God and Orthopraxis?

kyril

[orthodoxy]

This is a good one kyril! Thanks!

You quite welcome but I wish I could take credit for the idea. My priest gets credit for telling this one so if there is anyone that has rocks to toss throw them at him. Whew. :P

kyril

[icxn]

Yes. Experiance. Where is this "organically" found?

Here let me ask you something:

Can I personally take a piece of leaven bread, bless it, dip it into a cup of grape juice and experiance who and what we know as Orthodox Christians to be God?

if not why? Why is this "experiance" not a valid experiance of God and Orthopraxis?

kyril
Please enlighten me. I choose to learn from you. :holy:

icxn

[Maximus]

If this is so, then why is it that most if not all of the Doctors of the Western Church were known to have a deep union with God?

I do admit that many people who call themselves theologians in the west have no prayer life (and it shows in their theology), however many of the great theologians that the west base their teachings on (ie. the doctors) were very much in the process of theosis.

I don't know, it seems to me that this quote is very stereotypical.

Because some Orthodox have a tendency to oversimplify when speaking of "the West," in part because they converted from a "Western" sect that had little depth in its perspective and presented only one particularly limited view of Christian teaching.

Thus, although they themselves are "Western," they know only a small part - and that mostly erroneous - of the heritage of Western Christian thought and history.

In other words, the fault is not with the Western Fathers . . .

[OnTheWay]

If this is so, then why is it that most if not all of the Doctors of the Western Church were known to have a deep union with God?

I do admit that many people who call themselves theologians in the west have no prayer life (and it shows in their theology), however many of the great theologians that the west base their teachings on (ie. the doctors) were very much in the process of theosis.

I don't know, it seems to me that this quote is very stereotypical.

Stereotypical or not, the Roman must answer the question of "has scholasticism benefited the Church?"
I don't believe I have any ability or right to declare much of anything about anyone else's relationship with God, so I don't believe anyone is saying that no Roman theologian has a prayer life. What one can say is that the approach towards theology of the west and east are two different things. Scholasticism represents an attempt to analyze God like men analyze various planet and animal life. This attempt to place things that are not of man into constructs like human logic is going to produce different understandings
For example, look at the Roman doctrine of indulgences which is basically a merit/demerit system applied to salvation.

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Stereotypical or not, the Roman must answer the question of "has scholasticism benefited the Church?"
I don't believe I have any ability or right to declare much of anything about anyone else's relationship with God, so I don't believe anyone is saying that no Roman theologian has a prayer life. What one can say is that the approach towards theology of the west and east are two different things. Scholasticism represents an attempt to analyze God like men analyze various planet and animal life. This attempt to place things that are not of man into constructs like human logic is going to produce different understandings
For example, look at the Roman doctrine of indulgences which is basically a merit/demerit system applied to salvation.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of scholasticism, and actually find myself moving further and further east (eastern Catholic rite), so I'm not one that can give a good defense of scholasticism. However, I do find that in many instances people in the East attack scholasticism and other views of the Catholic faith (ie filioque[which I think should be removed from the creed, however it does not contradict what the orthodox believe, one will realize this if they actually study what the Catholic Church has to say about it]), but often times what they are attacking is not actually what the Church teaches, but rather a construct that they've created.

I think alot of this might be due to the 19th and 20th centuries, when there was a movement in Orthodoxy to separate themselves from anything western.

In addition, I have experienced many people in the east that dislikes anything that was written by St. Thomas Aquinas (and many times unfairly so). However, if one were to read about St. Thomas life, they would come to know that he was a man who was in a deep mystical union with God.

[Oblio]

I think alot of this might be due to the 19th and 20th centuries, when there was a movement in Orthodoxy to separate themselves from anything western.


That's because of those 'icons' that invaded the East ;)

[ProCommunioneFacior]

That's because of those 'icons' that invaded the East ;)

:) I actually have no problem with the movement in Orthodoxy to move away from the western concepts of things.

I just wish that in doing so they would not try to tear down the west in doing so. It goes both ways between the Orthodox and Catholic, I just wish we would understand where each other was coming from rather than tearing each other down.

I see so much ignorance on both sides, and it saddens me.

[orthodoxy]

:) I actually have no problem with the movement in Orthodoxy to move away from the western concepts of things.

I just wish that in doing so they would not try to tear down the west in doing so. It goes both ways between the Orthodox and Catholic, I just wish we would understand where each other was coming from rather than tearing each other down.

I see so much ignorance on both sides, and it saddens me.

Dropping the "filioque" would be a huge step towards confirming your desires to be unified. I suggest pettitioning your bishop in rome on the subject then we orthodox might be more willing to listen to your side.

See the "chairs" thread.

in love

kyril

[orthodoxy]

proud2bcatholic

Personally, I'm not a big fan of scholasticism, and actually find myself moving further and further east (eastern Catholic rite), so I'm not one that can give a good defense of scholasticism. However, I do find that in many instances people in the East attack scholasticism and other views of the Catholic faith (ie filioque[which I think should be removed from the creed, however it does not contradict what the orthodox believe, one will realize this if they actually study what the Catholic Church has to say about it]), but often times what they are attacking is not actually what the Church teaches, but rather a construct that they've created.

Why remove the "filioque" if it is right and correct? Are you saying the "filioque" is not what has always been understood and taught by the Church? If this is true why not become orthodox and drop the whole silly affair?

however it does not contradict what the orthodox believe, one will realize this if they actually study what the Catholic Church has to say about it

I beg to differ and it most certainly does contradict what is understood defined by the Nicene Creed of 381 to the nature of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son. The 381 ad Nicene Creed proceeds and over rules the 1054 ad creed of Rome. Plain fact. Rome is out of line.

I take acception to the implication we orthodox are to stupid to understand the issue and if we would only pull our heads out we would see things the Roman way. Sorry, I am not going down the compromising river of doom. I completely understand what the roman insertion called the filioque does in distorting the image of the one true God.

I think alot of this might be due to the 19th and 20th centuries, when there was a movement in Orthodoxy to separate themselves from anything western.

Poppycock. We removed ourselves from nothing. The Roman Church broke from the canonical stance that the Creed cannot be changed by anyone but an ecumenical council. Let me ask you:

has any ecumenical council of the entire church fully agreed on the filioque insertion at any time in Church history?

Can you show me a specific verse where Jesus Christ is heard saying the "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" or "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Me" or "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Me and my Father" or "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the dear ol dad and myself". I need some verification to even consider this theology valid understanding of the nature of God.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; John 14:16-17

Jesus said, But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDTH from the Father, he shall testify of me. John 15:26

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7.

The Holy Spirit is a person. He eternally proceeds from the Father of lights (James 1:17). He is sent by the Son. He testifies of the Son. A person does not proceed "through" another person. Jesus called the Holy Spirit "another" and had to leave before He could send this "other' Person. The way the Romans and some orthodox christians explain it just does not make sense in a biblical nor traditional understanding.


In addition, I have experienced many people in the east that dislikes anything that was written by St. Thomas Aquinas (and many times unfairly so). However, if one were to read about St. Thomas life, they would come to know that he was a man who was in a deep mystical union with God.


Much of western thought is foreign and has always been foreign to the eastern mind. We simply do not understand why you are insistant on changing the nature of the God we are commanded to worship.

Silly if you ask me. But hey I am to stupid to understand all them deep things of God......

Spare me.

in love

kyril

[The Virginian]

Paradigm of Christian Thinking



The Eastern Christian mind and the Western Christian mind functions in two different and opposing worlds. Both groups use the same words but they mean different things.


Do you all remember dissecting frogs? In this analogy both groups are going to study the frog.


In the west we will take the frog out of it’s element and environment into a scientific setting to be studied... Describing, analyzing and labeling each component of the frog by reason using scientific methods and academics.... This is how we define the frog.


In the east we will become the frog (theosis). We leave the frog in it’s own element and environment...enter into the frog’s life and in all ways “become the frog”.



This is the difference between the Eastern Christian theologian and the Western Christian theologian.


I thought this was interesting. Comments?



In Christ,



kyril

The Rennaisance did a lot more thatn usher in a new era of fine art, it was also the time of birth of how the Western mind approaches things. Scientific study is not wrong, mind you, but using the tangible to validate the depth, the meaning, and the richness of the intangible is absurd at best.



"...In quietness and confidence shall
be your strength..."