www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Reconciliation and Reunion

I think Father Deacon is right. The legal mind will not understand the Mystical mind. The Lord and the Fathers can and do understand the legal mind. They call for us to move past it into the Mystical realities of God. It is for us sinners to move past the legal mind into the mystical and stop thinking in "Black and White" or more prudent to the Orthodox/Catholic divide, "I'm right your wrong."

I also dislike the statement, "No as an Orthodox Christian I got it just right.." Thats not very Orthodox in my opinion. In fact, it could be argued, that is more Legal/scholastic in mind than mystical and Orthodox.

Just my two sense...and Blessed Feast of the Dormition (and for those on the Julian a continued Blessed Fast of the Dormition)

Nelson,

What I wrote was a play on the words of Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. He is one of the most read Bishops in the Orthodox World. The Mystical mind is the mind of the Orthodox church and the Legalistic mind is of the West. It is very common for people to mistake the position of the Orthodox as lofty and not very pious. But please try and look into what is truly Orthodox.I chose him as an example because he is in the Greek church under the EP. I know that you would think that other examples are tainted by my being of the Traditional Orthodox. This is not the case. I think that you will find that Traditional Orthodox of the mainstream do not dispute Dogma just the practice of the church. i would think that you have the same problems?

in a nutshell: West=Organization East=Divine-human Organism

It cant be helped with the Augustinian Theology and Scholasticim you cant even combine the two types of thought. For example the Orthodox believe in the Uncreated knowledge of God over the Created. Chad

[quote=Epiphanius]Chad,

Is it not the other way around? Surely, it is the legal mind that cannot (or will not) understand the mystical mind.

Our Lord could very well have chosen to respect the legal mindset of the Pharisees, and yet it seems that He made a point of doing just the opposite, as most of the healings recorded in the Gospels take place on the Sabbath, in the presence of one or more Pharisees.

The legal mind wants everything to be black and white, with those who obey the law--as they do--being honored, and those who do not being cast out. As portrayed in the Gospels, the Pharisees had no concept whatsoever of charity, but only of rigorous adherence to the "letter" of the law. This blind adherence to the law can easily bring about the opposite of its intended result, as it did when they put Our Lord to death, thinking all the while they were honoring God by doing so.

When we learn to put the Great Commandment in its rightful place above all other laws and prescriptions, we will be well on the way to doing away with our man-made divisions.


Peace,
Deacon Richard [/quote]
This is a comment about whether it is the legal or mystical mind that cannot understand the other.

I give my personal experience with the question.

I was raised and educated as an atheist. The thought of the mystical or having any relation to something like a deity was completely alien to everything in my understanding of the world and my place in it.

My legal mind never understood anything mystical.

When I was about 37, I wanted to know absolutely whether the truths I had been taught in college — which might be summed up as secular humanism — were in fact true.

Skipping ahead.....I became an Evangelical Protestant where I learned the Bible for 20 years, but also — at about the 10-year mark — I wanted something more. Precise Reformed/Calvinist theology made great logical sense, but I had the desire for something more or deeper — even less theological. I had a sense that I was stuck with a legal mind — everything was explained in terms of rational theological principles. I had a sense that the more deeply I fully embraced the Reformed/Calvinist system of thought, the more I was moving past God in his essence or fullness.

About 4 years ago, through one of those odd coincidences members of this forum will understand, my wife and I found ourselves wanting to take one of our weekend day-trips to a Catholic Benedictine monastery — about which we knew very little and much of that was incorrect.

As we first walked on the abbey's peaceful grounds, we said to each other, "This is the place."

Skipping ahead.... Looking back on my 62-year journey to the Catholic Church, becoming a Benedictine oblate, and now my growing interest in the Church of the East and its monastic heritage, I am still able to speak as if my mind has been booted-up into its previous legal mode -- I still have all those disks. I am also amused at how much that legal mind is like the Black Screen of Death when it comes to being able to process the mystical.

Therefore, to me, your post about "Surely, it is the legal mind that cannot (or will not) understand the mystical mind" is the truth from this increasingly Easternly-oriented mind.

John
Tampa, Florida, USA

Chad,

I'll be happy to start a thread on Western Scholasticism, since it's a worthy subject for discussion. This thread, however, is supposed to be about reconciliation and reunion.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Simplistic and reductionist, as a number of far more enlightened Orthodox theologians would tell you (Metropolitan John of Pergamon and David B. Hart come to mind). Perhaps they are not as popular or frequently read because they do not tell the Orthodox faithful what they want to hear?

The last thing some people want. It would spoil their sense of self-satisfaction.

Deacon Richard,

I understand and thank you for the offer. I was just giving one of the things that seems to be a point of missunderstanding.

Stuart,

I am glad that you feel that my and as it seems "the Orthodox faithful" beliefs are B.S.. So what do we want to hear? Forgive me for my simplicity.
Chad

Stuart,

In charity to those of both sides who do not want reconciliation and reunion, please reference my comments from an earlier post in this thread:If you can accept the foregoing as true (i.e. that there are many on both sides who believe this of their own Church, for these reasons), then you can see what a dilemma we are up against.

My contention is that it is true, but that God can and will overcome this and any other obstacle.

If you think it is not, I'd love to hear more.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Chad,

Please reference my answer to Stuart's post. It is always difficult to accept the possibility that one's own Church at certain times and in certain situations might have been in the wrong, since that challenges what we believe about the Church itself.

Stuart's contention is that there is plenty of historical evidence to show that neither the RC nor the EOC can be considered "beyond reproach" at all times in all matters, which is why he finds it so distasteful to hear EO priests--and even bishops--go on and on about the sins of the RCC, while at the same time ignoring those of the EOC.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I thought that we had moved beyond that point. I never said that my church was without fault. In explaining that we are different I can only tell you what I know. Chad

Chad,

Perhaps you are not aware of the negative connotations of the word "legalistic." I think both Stuart and I took the metropolitan's remarks as negative toward the West.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Maybe you need to hear that you creates a false dichotomy: the Orthodox mind is not entirely "mystical" (Vladimir Lossky not withstanding), and the Western mindset is not strictly "legalistic" (some of the more obtuse scholastics not withstanding). In fact, the Orthodox were great believers in order (taxis) and also compiled reams of ecclesiastical legislation, while the Western Church coughed up some of the greatest mystical theologians of all time--Benedict of Nursia, Bernard of Clairvaux, Francis of Assisi, John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, Dame Julian of Norwich, Hildegard von Bingen, to name but a few.

So, your statement is (a) simplisitic--it does not take into account the diversity of East and West; (b) reductionist--it attempts to pinpoint the cause of our division in a single factor (a sin compounded by the factor being erroneous); and (c) BS, because it has no basis in fact and no standing as an argument.

The whole thing about the Orthodox East being "mystical" while the Latin West is "legalistic" is simply a caricature that many Orthodox use to bolster their own self-image, a way in which to define themselves in contrast to the Western "other". Whenever it is repeated, it reinforces the image of the Orthodox as (a) different; and (b) implicitly superior. And that's why it's popular, even though, as numerous Orthodox theologians have demonstrated, it's utterly wrong.

Maybe it's time to read stuff that makes you [b]un[/b]comfortable, Chad.

There is no other way to take it. And you know what a strong and vocal supporter of the West I always am, right, Father Deacon?

Metropolitan Kallistos is found of saying the motto of the Orthodox Church is "Never explain and never apologize".

I usually counter by saying the motto of the Latin Church is "We may not always be right, but we are never wrong".

And therein hangs the tale.

Chad & all,

Its extremely probable that there saints HAVE emerged over the centuries; however they have been overcome by others.

This reminds me of what Christ said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones to death those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! Mt 23:37

In place of "Jerusalem" one can substitute Rome, Moscow, Constantinople, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee or our own local parish.
Fr Deacon Richard's opening post captures this thought.