​

Just to give an idea, let's assume that some organization creates a new term. We call this term as term "X". Let's take the act of courting as an example. If a married man courts other women, it is obviously wrong, because only his wife deserves to be courted by him. If he courted other women, he would be wrong, because he would commit adultery. He would be wrong even if he only had the thought to do it (Matthew 5:28). Let's even assume that these women are the best friends of his wife.

This term "X", in fact, exactly describes what he does with those other women when he courts them, but the term is defined as a second-tier term and has an innocent definition regarding the act of courting those other women. This man is deceived to believe that when he "X" those other women, he is not courting them, and so he is not wrong. But he's actually wrong, because the thoughts he has toward those women are the same that he has toward his wife. Since this term is defined as a second-tier term than the term "courting", even if he places his wife first, he still has a certain level of thoughts toward those women that he must have only toward his wife. He believes that everything is fine and that it's not a problem for his wife, because he has been deceived by this term he believes it is innocent when he has those tendencies or thoughts towards those women. And he's also deceived by the fact that those women are the best friends of his wife, and so it's not a bad thing.

The same is true for the terms: adoration and veneration. Note that the term "X" of the example I did, gives you the idea of the term "veneration".

​

Catholics and other adherents of other denominations – for example the Eastern Orthodox Church – falsely believe that when they venerate Mary, the angels and the saints, they are not wrong, because when they have this tendency, they falsely believe that the term venerate is a second-tier term and an innocent term. They are also deceived because angels are God's most powerful servants, the saints are the pillars of their church, and in the case of Mary, because she was Jesus' mother; and because they think that God has shared the throne in heaven with her. In the example, the saints, the angels and Mary, correspond to the best friends of the married woman; and for this reason too they erroneously think that God is okay with it.

When one is venerating, he is adoring. Even if he adores God more than the angels, the saints and Mary, he is still adoring, and if he adores/venerates something or someone who is not God, it corresponds to idolatry; because it is only God who must be adored/venerated (Exodus 34:14; Matthew 4:8-10).

This is not about having love like when people love their children, parents, friends, etc. There is nothing wrong if we only love people. There would not anything wrong if that married man of the example loves the other women without having the kinds of thoughts he must only have toward his wife. The point is that Catholics and other adherents of other denominations make images of Mary, angels and saints in their mind. Not only do they make their idols in their minds, but they also build them at a material level. Also think about all the statues of angels, saints and madonna the Catholics and other adherents of other denominations build. Idolatry is not just about when we make our idols (in our mind or at a material level) like Mary, the saints, the angels, our husbands, our wives etc., but it is also about concrete things like objects and abstract things like hobbies etc.

​

In conclusion, the two terms "adoration" and "veneration" are the same thing.

When reading the various theologies of East and West, I find myself utterly convinced by both on some points where they disagree.

So, as time has gone on, I've noticed people seem to prefer the term "Cathodox" over "Catholodox," and I'm moving that direction to. Do we want to move the sub to a new name? I've already founded /r/Cathodox if the move seems like a good idea. Thoughts?

( XPOST /r/OrthodoxChristianity )

From the Dialogue with a Barlaamite, p. 90 (Ferwerda/EPISTEME/Binghampton University bilingual edition):

But that which only acts without changing or acquiring anything from the things outside itself--how can that be composed through the activities? Hence, the divine is simple and almighty.

And on the same page he had already said:

And because God only acts according to His divine powers and does not suffer too, He alone is really simple in a supernatural way.

Source here

In the context, he seems to be affirming the classical Thomist theses that God alone is Pure Act and all other things are composed of act (energy) and potency (power).

For example, the first three of the 24 Thomist Theses from Pope Pius X read: "1. Potency and Act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act, or of necessity it is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principles. 2. Since act is perfection, it is not limited except through a potency which itself is a capacity for perfection. Hence in any order in which an act is pure act, it will only exist, in that order, as a unique and unlimited act. But whenever it is finite and manifold, it has entered into a true composition with potency. 3. Consequently, the one God, unique and simple, alone subsists in absolute being. All other things that participate in being have a nature whereby their being is restricted; they are constituted of essence and being, as really distinct principles."

Yet some of the most staunch Neo-Palamites, like Romanides and Hierotheos Vlachos indicate that the idea of God as Pure Act is the fundamental problem with Roman Catholic theology, and this is even backed up by the Catholic sources, like the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that Palamas' distinction is (and I quote), "Fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system".

But even Aquinas said God has active potency, just not passive potency, which is exactly what Palamas says in the above quotes. So are we all just talking past each other on this issue? But if that is the case, how could the Saints and Councils have been wrong about this being a real issue, and not just semantics?

It's the most worn-out question in all of liturgical Christendom, but allow me to put my spin on it:

Orthodox Christians: Why are you Orthodox and not Eastern Catholic?

Eastern Catholics: Why are you Catholic and not Orthodox?

Non-Eastern Catholics can feel free to jump into this as well. It just seems like more of an "apples to apples" when put this way.

I know this is an ecumenical sub but I have a question about our shared beliefs. Was 1st century Judaism iconoclastic and would Jesus have inherited it? I know the Church has spoken against iconoclasm definitively and there was at least one synagogue with art in it, but I want to counter the claim that Jesus and the first Christians would be iconoclasts. Perhaps not the most impartial way to ask a historical question, but there's theology too.

If you can recommend a better sub to post in(any high church subs?), hit me up.

Today at St. John Chrysostom Byzantine Catholic Church in Pittsburgh, PA there will be an almost 24 hour vigil starting at 4pm (EST) today for the exaltation of the Holy Cross. Two Bishops will be present and liturgical services from the Latin, Ruthenian, Maronite, Syrian and other Catholic Churches will be going on throughout the day and night.

More Information go the the Website

• Poster for the Event
• Event Schedule
• Watch Live

Please join us! I will be there in the brown jacket recording everything. Feel free to come up and say hello! God Bless and would love to see you there.