RhetorTheo said:
I find the unwillingness to answer questions directly to be rather strange. I understand that there is a history behind it, but the behavior makes one feel uneasy. In most contexts, dodging the question is typical of persons who are unknowing, dishonest, or ashamed of the answer.
I thought I would move the above remark, posted in the OBOB thread of the same name, over here so I could answer more freely, in two ways:
1. I think the answers here have been very clear. It is the ability of the RCs to deal with clarity from our perspective that is more in question, then whether or not we know the answer to the question they pose.
2. In my day job, I'm a lawyer, and I'm pretty familiar with how lawyers operate. Reading a thread in which OBOB members have posted significantly is like reading an exchange between lawyers. First, they precisely define their terms. Then they cite chapter and verse from the CCC. At that point, its like the case is closed. "Well, we defined the terms and that is what the CCC says. You mean you don't agree? Your doctrine must be undeveloped!"
I hate to bring out the dreaded word, but the entire mindset of the RC is intensely legalistic. We can talk at length about why -- the need to rationalize everything, the influence of the scholastic movement and western secular philosophies, yada yada. But legalistic and rationalistic it is, and there's no getting around it.
When I leave the office, I can't stand to even watch TV shows or movies that feature lawyers. Too much like work. I'd go crazy in a church that insisted on pigeonholing and explaining even the most bizarre minutae of the faith.
So, in the context of this thread, the OP is really insisting that we play on their field, using their terms. But its not our field. We don't classify sins and then use that classification to guage our salvation. Instead, we look to the passions underlying our sins, and through ascesis and the sacraments of the church undertake to heal those passions.
So, for our RC visitors, we are talking about apples and oranges. No wonder we can't answer your question to satisfy you, since you are asking the wrong question. In this instance, our question is "How do we work out our salvation in fear and trembling." It is not "How do you quantify salvation?"
In my mind, when I read this kind of haggling, what I picture in my mind is an exchange like you might hear a sports broadcaster make: "Let's go the scoreboard and see what James' status is. Oh, darn...he's damned!"
"Well, he should have seen that mortal sin coming, Fred. He can only blame himself."
"That's true, but the crowd is still giving him a nice hand as he's helped off into Hell."
Please....if you want to come here and ask a question, allow us to answer the question within the context of what the EO Church believes, and the way in which we approach things. Our doctrine is just fine, thank you. But we don't use the same set of statutes that you use.
James
P.S. -- I'll feel bad about this in a few minutes, and I'll probably come back and edit. But honestly, if I see one more post saying that our doctrine is undeveloped or that we really don't know what we believe, I'll just....well, you know.
. Myself I'm an engineer by profession; it's all numbers and figures, theorems and lemmata, let's not do the same in Church, let's not deprive Her of Her Wisdom and Her Spirituality.
