Speaking of which... I listened to an EO podcast recently where they commented that all of church history after the first few decades is just a footnote. That is, there's nothing new to discover. The content of the faith has been established, both in depth and breadth.

That really seems to be in error to me.

Post Edited (Corey) : 7/28/2008 12:48:51 PM (GMT-5)

......... my comment on another site ............

You asked some other questions about what makes prayer effective. May I make some GUESSES?

Relative to the trinity you might have heard the term "perichoresis" or "coinherence." P/c (pick your language) is an inter-dwelling without confusion, mixuture, change. The Trinity is ineffible, but we know God from his actions, and Christ tells us that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. Likewise the Spirit. Trinitarian Love is both sharing and being; sharing does not disolve one into another but actually CONSTITUTES one into being what one most essentially is.

We are most alive when we love, and we most love when we pray.

I think the Saints and the Angels pray all the time. We also are told to "pray without ceasing."

The efficacy of prayer is not the words, nor who does it, but the state of love and communion they are in and share with others and the whole Church.

As to efficacy, Rome puts way to much emphasis on the "words of transformation" in the Supper. What matters is the shared Communion by the Spirit of congregation with eachother and with Christ by the spirit. The "Epiclesis" is something John Calvin brought back into the West FROM EASTERN ORTHODOXY. The priest/pastor says "Let us love one another that with one heart we might confess Father Son and Spirit, one in essence and undivided." And then the congregation is qualified to say the Lord's Prayer.

Thanks for your post, Paul.

Any questions?

LISTEN AT LEAST THREE TIMES:

Intercessory Prayer

Posted Monday, July 28, 2008

Fr. Thomas examines how we ask the Mother of God and Saints to pray on our behalf, and the misunderstood prayer for them to "save" us.  

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/29/2008 6:15:02 PM (GMT-5)

"Christ is the Telos" it what it says to me. 

PS: Making explicit what I think is implict in what Archimandrite Popovich: Christ is "eternal Beauty, Total Beauty. "

Also

Post Edited (Love's Child) : 7/30/2008 8:07:32 AM (GMT-5)

POW-

We’re going with a relational ontology over the long-standing Aristotelian substance ontology, right? A ‘relational ontology’ means that an entity’s relations constitute its identity or the ‘unique and unrepeatable’ meaning of its existence so that an ‘entity’ is no more and no less than what it gives to and receives from its relations. This is where D and I disagree, viz., over the nature of the synergism of that ‘given and take’ (what’s given, what’s received, how’s it given, how’s it received, etc.) in which each of us has his/her own unique and unrepeatable personal identity and expression.

In a relational ontology we reflect everything we relate to and everything we relate to reflects us. And where the relations are of an ‘inter-personal’ sort, the emerging ‘identity’ or ‘person’ is going to be a synergy of what that self ‘gives’ and what that self ‘receives’. And what one gives must be—if the synergy is an interpersonal and loving affair—determined by the self (Tom’s view) and not for the self by another (D’s view). So D and I disagree over what a relational ontology amounts to, over the nature of the ‘give and take’ definitive of interpersonal relations, over what ‘unique and unrepeatable’ even means in our case, over how our identities are grounded in God and how they emerge in human terms, and over the manner in which (or even whether or not) that which is ‘unique and unrepeatable’ endures into eternity or whether it gets assimilated within the all-determining divine will.

So when I look at my son Daniel I do see me (my influence, values, beliefs, physical traits, etc., all the stuff D pointed to) reflected in him. But the ‘me’ I see in him is my contribution to a work of synergy, the emergence of a personal entity whose uniqueness and unrepeatability Daniel has as much a necessary role to play in determining as I do and whose ongoing expressive form (which is just that in which the uniqueness and unrepeatability endures) is his self-determined part to play. I don’t see ‘me’ in him apart from that self-determination on ‘his’ part. D and I disagree on this hugely. For D, self-determining freedom is important, but only in that it has as its goal and purpose the determining of one single choice—the choice to relinquish all ongoing creative self-determination and expression. Human freedom is for ONE thing (on D’s view)—giving up such creative expression and turning the determination of creative expression over to God. Freedom ends with that choice, that is, there’s no ongoing creative expression by the creature which is determined BY the creature and not FOR the creature BY God. That’s D’s view.

It’s really important that you see this aspect of D’s thought, POW. Of course, you may agree with it. I think you do, though you’ve said many things over the months (about our freely determined renditions on the themes of divine love, and art in general, as good analogies that express the creatures ongoing expression in the eschaton) that led me to believe you disagreed. Be that as it may, I hope you see the real and deep disagreement between D and me.

Given a ‘relational ontology’, what one wants to see of himself in the other is to be seen ‘interpersonally’ or ‘relationally’, and that means only seen to the extent ‘the other’ creatively self-determines the expressive form of his/her meaning within the relationship. See? If I determine that for them, if the interpersonal exchange that forever defines our relationship to God consists in God’s deciding the particular ‘form’ our existence and expression are to take, then we are reduced to the status of an ‘object’ and creaturely personhood vanishes. And contra D, this is not avoided by just supposing that the creature wants such an arrangement.

Is the absence of ‘person’ in D’s description of fulfilled human beings telling? Perhaps. But his reduction of human freedom to the one choice to relinquish all self-determining agency and creative expression, in my view, effectively eviscerates creaturely personhood. This is Moore’s whole criticism of Maximus as well. We end up as “functions of the Godhead,” determined by the divine will in all our actual particularity. And that is a vision I cannot share, and what’s more, if Moore is right, it’s not a vision that all the Father’s shared, nor is it a dogmatic vision of Orthodoxy.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/30/2008 8:44:25 AM (GMT-5)

For a very practical example...

Mary of Nazareth (a CREATED/NON-DIVINE PERSONAL "SELF") used her human freedom to give (self-empty) ALL of herself to the Triune God (the One UNCREATED DIVINE TRI-PERSONAL BEING)...and recieve ALL OF GOD in herself.   Her HUMAN FAITH worked synergistically (YET ASSYMETRICALLY) with God's DIVINE GRACE in this.  And what happened? She remained "Mary", but also became the Premier "God-bearer"! And she is our example...the Blessed Mother of God.

Is this relational enough for you?

Post Edited (Love's Child) : 7/30/2008 4:23:12 PM (GMT-5)

(possibly stray thought, but maybe useful to have around...)

Hopko: "There is no such thing as a theandric nature."