|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: All Things Mary
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't quite grasp how you can have a high view of the sacraments and not have a solid reason for denying them to someone who doesn't feel able to venerate an icon, although I accept your economical point here.
I don't understand what you're asking here -- are you asking why I don't want to deny communion to somebody who refuses to kiss an icon, and saying I should? That seems to be the plain meaning of your words, but that doesn't make sense given the context of the discussion to date. Can you rephrase this question, please?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:
Josephine
To answer your question: If we describe a person as "all-merciful," we simply means that there is never a time or a situation when that person fails to show mercy.
Interestingly enough does that mean in praying to the Guardian Angel /Mary / Saints are more capable of mercy to forgive all sins than God because He cannot go against His will ie that an angel can forgive us the sin of “blasphemy of against the Holy Spirit” but God cannot?
What? Where did that come from? It doesn't make any sense at all. If I understand it at all, I think you're saying, "If an angel is always merciful, then the angel more merciful than God is, because God isn't always merciful." Is that what you're saying?
quote:
The point being they are different sins that are being forgiven, each one of us would be forgiving the offence that was committed against us individually, I cannot see where the angel is entitled to forgive all sins.
The angel is entitled to forgive all the offenses against the angel.
quote:
quote:
Josephine
I think it means that the Pharisees believed that only God could forgive sins.
Do you believe the pharisees got it wrong in that it is God that forgives sins.
Of course it is God that forgive sins. And it is God who commands us to forgive sins, so that's something that we do, too. Not just God. You. Me. Everyone who attempts to obey God.
You seem to think that there's a problem in that, but I honestly can't figure out what it is. You agree, I think, that it's possible to sin against someone other than God, and that it's possible for someone who is sinned against to forgive the sins against them. Saying, "I forgive you" doesn't mean I think I'm God, and saying, "Will you forgive me?" doesn't mean I think you're God. Right?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I think the problem is what sort of sin are you asking forgiveness of Mary from. The only sort of thing I can think of is something like taking her name in vain, but it seems that forgiveness is being asked for far more than is warranted.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I don't understand what you're asking here -- are you asking why I don't want to deny communion to somebody who refuses to kiss an icon, and saying I should?
No, that's essentially the opposite of what I'm trying to ask.
I'm asking why it should even be an issue over which you (the hypothetical you, or you were you a priest) might consider denying communion, unless it were related to the person in question being an iconoclast.
I have this idea in my head that the main reason the Non-Jurors didn't end up Orthodox is over this issue but I'd have to do some digging to find out whether it was active iconoclasm or inability to accept icon veneration, and I see a real difference there.
The reason I'm asking (and in this thread specifically) is that, hopeless ecumenist that I am, I want to see all Christians united in a single communion one day and I'm digging around the edges of what it actually means to be Orthodox.
If you don't like the necessary/superfluous distinction, and you make some good points against it, I can put it in terms of the likelihood of something being spiritually beneficial with its absence being spiritually detrimental, and ask whether an issue is such a big deal that a person should be excluded from the communion of the Church over it. Clearly we think there are such issues, but to drag this back on topic, do we think that veneration of Saints, veneration of icons, veneration of the Blessed Virgin and so on, are issues over which a person should be denied the spiritual benefits available within the Church?
Before certain Shipmates appear to argue this last point, I do actually think such benefits exist ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Either you have no idea what the worship of God is supposed to be like, if you think you give the TV worship that belongs to God alone. But maybe that's the problem here -- maybe you think you worship the TV and I worship the saints because you still don't know what worship is.
Seems to me that a clearer idea of what "worship" is (and in particular how it differs from "veneration") might shed a little light. Or did I miss that in skipping through the earlier pages ?
I had some idea that "worship" has the same root as "worth" - that to say that someone worships X means that X has infinite worth to them, that they would give up anything else in their life rather than lose favour with X.
If Dobbo really wouldn't give up TV for anything, then perhaps he does...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
The discussion about what constitutes prayer, worship and veneration begins somewhere in the region of this post.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm asking why it should even be an issue over which you (the hypothetical you, or you were you a priest) might consider denying communion, unless it were related to the person in question being an iconoclast.
Well that's the default assumption, I should think.
quote:
I have this idea in my head that the main reason the Non-Jurors didn't end up Orthodox is over this issue but I'd have to do some digging to find out whether it was active iconoclasm or inability to accept icon veneration, and I see a real difference there.
I'm not sure I see where your difference lies, which may be the root of our seeming difficulties in communicating on this point. And of course behind iconoclasm (historically speaking) lies some measure of downplaying the physical world. Which in turn has unfortunate implications about the Incarnation. All this is very strongly tied together in the Orthodox understanding of iconoclasm.
Beyond that there's an underlying feeling of, "I know what's right, and the Church doesn't" which I think you have to admit doesn't seem like a very Orthodox way of looking at things.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
GreyFace:
[...]whether it was active iconoclasm or inability to accept icon veneration, and I see a real difference there.
I'm not sure I see where your difference lies, which may be the root of our seeming difficulties in communicating on this point.
I think the difference is between saying "Veneration of icons is an error and a hinderance to true worship and no one ought to be doing it" and saying "We don't get what all this attention to icons is about - if that's a major part of your worship we don't see how we could ever be fully involved". The one says "you're wrong", the other says "one of us might be wrong".
An equivalent distinction might be one Orthodox Christian who cannot personally imagine worship without icons if there were any to be had, and one who thinks that anyone who does not use icons is not a Christian at all.
I would deny being an iconoclast - I am, intellectually, quite satisfied that when you use an icon in prayer you are lawfully and truly worshipping God. I would find it very difficult to use icons myself as a regular part of my worship, and I would probably feel rather left out of a church where this was the norm.
It is, of course, quite possible that it would be good for me to feel left out sometimes. I don't think it should be an experience that the Church as a whole (all the bits of it) should be trying to give most Christians.
Some things are probably not meant to help all of us, or not all of us all of the time, or not all of us in conditions that fall short of the complete fullness of the apostolic faith (whatever that may be). Prayers to Mary (and the being able to do without prayers to Mary) may not be for everyone.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
GreyFace, are you asking whether someone who felt extremely uncomfortable venerating icons, and didn't want to do it, but didn't believe it was wrong and didn't have any trouble with other people doing it -- whether such a person, if they wanted to become Orthodox, could be received into the Orthodox Church?
If that's the question, the answer is a qualified yes. It would be up to the priest to explore the issue with the person and decide what it meant and whether the person was ready to be received into the Church or whether it might be better to wait. The priest and potential convert might decide that the discomfort over icons was a sign of other issues that needed to be worked through before the person was received into the Church. Or they might decide that the issue was best worked through by receiving the person into the Church now, and letting them work through the discomfort over time, as part of their life in the Church. Or they might decide something else.
Does that answer your question? Or did I misunderstand it altogether?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I'll get back to you later, josephine and Mousethief, when I've managed to put my thoughts in a clearer form.
For now though, I would just point out that one of the arguments raised against the veneration of icons, or the veneration of Mary for that matter, seems powerful to me - namely that a person can be called to worship in a different way and therefore these forms of spirituality cannot be actively required as a condition of Church membership. It is not, as far as I can see, wrong to want to a) spend one's time in contemplation of God (directly) as opposed to devotions to Blessed Mary, nor to b) seek our Lord through study of Scripture rather than use icons.
a) is not a rejection of incarnational theology unless it becomes a denial of the doctrines on which the legitimacy and worth of devotions to the Virgin are based.
b) is not a rejection of incarnational theology unless... see above.
I think it is important that the difference is made plain and so the acid test of iconoclasm is not whether one uses icons oneself but whether one has an inclination to prevent their use by others.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear GreyFace quote:
the acid test of iconoclasm is not whether one uses icons oneself but whether one has an inclination to prevent their use by others
Several anathemas were pronounced against iconoclasm at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, including this one: quote:
Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.
However that should be interpreted, icons are an unmissable part of normal Orthodoxy. Not to venerate icons or Mary and the Saints isn't normal. A Saint might have good reason not to do so and some people may not have the opportunity, but such hypothetical people cannot be normative for the rest of us.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Forgive my snipping but...
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
A Saint might have good reason not to do so ... but such hypothetical people cannot be normative for the rest of us.
There's that N word again.
Why not? If a Saint might have good reason, perhaps a community of Saint-aspirants might have also, but it seems to me that you would regard them as iconoclasts and break communion without regard to their opinion of your own veneration of icons.
You seem to be saying that if a gathering of Christians were Orthodox in all ways other than veneration of icons, they would not be Orthodox. Am I wrong?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear GreyFace quote:
Why not?
Well, to begin with, they're hypothetical, so they don't actually exist. I mentioned the possibility of a Saint not venerating icons because God does surprising things, but I was not about to speculate under what sort of circumstances it might occur. It's a non-starter, frankly. quote:
You seem to be saying that if a gathering of Christians were Orthodox in all ways other than veneration of icons, they would not be Orthodox. Am I wrong?
You seem to be looking for some sort of quasi-legal definition of Orthodoxy. Under 'normal' circumstances, all sorts of conditions apply, including the veneration of icons, but exceptions are always possible. As far as I know, St Mary of Egypt never venerated an icon in her life, but then she spent most of it alone in the desert.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
You seem to be looking for some sort of quasi-legal definition of Orthodoxy.
What other basis is there for breaking communion? You decide whether a group is orthodox or not and you are therefore in communion or not.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You decide whether a group is orthodox or not and you are therefore in communion or not.
Actually it works exactly the other way. We see who we're in communion with, and those are the Orthodox.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Actually it works exactly the other way. We see who we're in communion with, and those are the Orthodox.
That seems inadequate when considering bringing another group into the Orthodox communion. By your definition this would be impossible.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't see how that follows. Once we start co-communicating with them (or they with us, so to speak), they are Orthodox.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
The discussion about what constitutes prayer, worship and veneration begins somewhere in the region of this post.
Many thanks for the pointer.
"Praying" is covered, but I couldn't immediately see a definition of "worship".
Yes, the word "pray" is used - somewhat archaically - to mean no more than "ask". But it seems to me that when a Christian prays to God there should be more than just asking going on.
I seem to remember from RE lessons that prayer should include:
praise
thanksgiving
contrition
intercession & petition
(was there another ? RE was never my best subject...)
Now if - for illustration - I get down on my knees and address myself to the spirit of Elvis Presley, and
- praise him for the good he did in his life
- give thanks for the pleasure his music has given me
- express my sorrow and regret for not living up to his example
- ask him to put in a good word for me with God
then firstly is there anything wrong with that, and secondly is there anything that is so right with that that I am under any obligation to consider it more than a purely optional activity which I may undertake if I feel like it and not if I don't ?
Obviously, Elvis Presley has not been pronounced a saint by any of the mainstream churches. But that's the point - trying to think rather than parroting tradition (either the Catholic / Orthodox tradition of praying to the saints or the Protestant tradition of only praying directly to God) and casting around for any old argument which tends to support that tradition. Which - rightly or wrongly - is the feeling I'm getting from this thread...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Of course it is God that forgive sins. And it is God who commands us to forgive sins, so that's something that we do, too. Not just God. You. Me. Everyone who attempts to obey God.
You seem to think that there's a problem in that, but I honestly can't figure out what it is. You agree, I think, that it's possible to sin against someone other than God, and that it's possible for someone who is sinned against to forgive the sins against them. Saying, "I forgive you" doesn't mean I think I'm God, and saying, "Will you forgive me?" doesn't mean I think you're God. Right?
Josephine
I just had a sudden thought while reading this. I wonder if it is what you mean.
If I were at a royal banquet, and in the midst of all the crowd I suddenly said something quite rude out loud, I would - of course - be offending the king, and would need his forgiveness, but I would also be offending all the other people present who heard my rude outburst. So really, I should be asking the forgiveness of all present, both the king and my fellow courtiers.
But, as Hebrews 12.22-24 notes, I *am* already such a fellow courtier in heaven: I have come to "Mount Zion, and to the spirits of just men made perfect", and to the presence of God in their midst: so when I sin, I sin in the presence of the communion of saints, not just in the presence of God alone. If I am surrounded by a great crowd of witnesses, they see me when I fail (I know that "witness" means they testify to the truth about God, not "they are witnesses of my behaviour", but if they are *surrounding* me like a cloud ...) Like neighbours who can't help hearing an ugly argument raging next door, they are grieved.
Hebrews 12.22-24 makes very real to me the notion of being in the communion of saints: we are already there with the whole heavenly church ("you *have* come.."). So our sins are (among other things) a sin against the heavenly church, against the communion of saints in which we already dwell, as well as being a sin against the God who is the centre of that communion. I am not an isolated spiritual entity, even if I am out of the sight of other mortal Christians on earth.
Is this something like you are saying? Asking Mary and the other saints for forgiveness recognises that I already have a relationship with them all in God? That I am (a sometimes misbehaving) part of a heavenly *assembly*, as Hebrews puts it? When I sin, I as a team member let down down the whole "side"?
(This is just something that sparked up suddenly in my head as I was reading your post ...)
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Alex
Shipmate
# 10304
|
Posted
Our Lady wishes you all a very Blessed and Happy Christmas. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
If this sig appears below a post about a Dead Horse or about how mean the hosts and admins are, you may be looking at my final post.
Posts: 495 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well it sure makes a lot of sense to me, Maher.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:
If I were at a royal banquet, and in the midst of all the crowd I suddenly said something quite rude out loud, I would - of course - be offending the king, and would need his forgiveness, but I would also be offending all the other people present who heard my rude outburst. So really, I should be asking the forgiveness of all present, both the king and my fellow courtiers. <snip> Asking Mary and the other saints for forgiveness recognises that I already have a relationship with them all in God? That I am (a sometimes misbehaving) part of a heavenly *assembly*, as Hebrews puts it? When I sin, I as a team member let down down the whole "side"?
Yes! That's it exactly, MSHB! Sometimes I begin to despair of my ability to communicate a point -- I'm grateful that you got it, in spite of me, and were able to make it so clear.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I've been following the thread (and not posting much) with an air of quiet protestant superiority, in the safe knowledge that my position is unassailable.
(I confess this sin to all, having let the side down).
I find this idea very compelling, MSHB. (Not that other posters haven't been equally compelling.... it's perhaps just come at the right point in the thread).
Please forgive the bad manners in clumsily asking an ignorant question from the illustration.......
But if that was the analogy, one would expect the request for forgiveness to be primarily directed at the king - and very much secondarily towards all those present..... and probably not any one courtier in particular.
Perhaps that is, in fact, what happens..... just asking for information.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I find this idea very compelling, MSHB.
Most chuffed, I assure you.
quote:
Please forgive the bad manners in clumsily asking an ignorant question from the illustration.......
But if that was the analogy, one would expect the request for forgiveness to be primarily directed at the king - and very much secondarily towards all those present..... and probably not any one courtier in particular.
Perhaps that is, in fact, what happens..... just asking for information.
I did have similar thoughts too, but ...
(1) In the Roman Mass: "I confess to Almighty God (ah, the King gets first place!), to Blessed Mary ever Virgin (next the Theotokos), to Blessed Michael the Archangel (on behalf of all the angels?), to Blessed John the Baptist (the last and greatest of all the Old Testament prophets?), to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (OK, now two leading New Testament apostles), and to all the saints (now the rest of the heavenly assembly), and to you Father (the priest here in this church building) ...".
So they start with the King's Most Excellent Majesty, then touch briefly upon the other persons or groups present (angels, prophets, apostles, etc). In the trad RC confession, it seems to me as though each group is referenced through one leading member (or pair, in the case of the apostles), with the BVM having a unique role (there are many angels, many prophets, many apostles, and other "saints", but only one Theotokos).
(2) God is not vain about himself: he is born in a stable; washes the feet of his disciples; etc. At the banquet, the King doesn't vainly think about himself alone but graciously thinks of the others present: "I of course forgive you, but you have also offended these others - will you not think of them too?" He who said, "the first shall be last", took the role of a servant himself. So too at the heavenly banquet: the King is the servant of the servants. He lets others play a role - shares his glory with them (Jn 17.5 with 17.22).
If I may so put it: the King honours all his guests, and is honoured by them all, in one continual mutual giving of love, glory, honour.... and we have come to *this* Mount Zion.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I can't argue with (1). I'd only quibble with the edges of (2); I'd always thought that our confession to God was as much for our benefit us much as his... so his vanity or otherwise doesn't really enter into it.
The need for reconciliation is what is at stake - otherwise the incarnation, passion and resurrection becomes a matter of vanity too?
Of course one can't name all the cloud of witnesses - not that that means one shouldn't try and name a few, I suppose...
Perhaps there is a real exercise in humility though... arrogant to think one can, in the privacy of one's unspoken prayers, make the matter right between oneself and God. And humility in recognising the need to confess to others; living and dead.
I think, perhaps, this is a real weakness of my particular branch of the church.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Now if - for illustration - I get down on my knees and address myself to the spirit of Elvis Presley, and
- praise him for the good he did in his life
- give thanks for the pleasure his music has given me
- express my sorrow and regret for not living up to his example
- ask him to put in a good word for me with God
then firstly is there anything wrong with that, and secondly is there anything that is so right with that that I am under any obligation to consider it more than a purely optional activity which I may undertake if I feel like it and not if I don't ?
I can't see anything wrong with the first and second of these prayers. You could properly have said that to Mr Presley if you had met him in the flesh.
The third prayer, the confession, seems legitimate to me if you believe that your failures have in some way injured or disappointed Mr Presley, again because if you felt you were so closely associated with him, you owed him a duty to behave properly. If it goes beyond this, if confession to Elvis takes over from obligations to confess to those you have hurt more (God, of course, being the one whom you and I have hurt most of all), then I'd say it was wrong, not because it is itself sinful, but because it distracts from more necessary prayer.
The fourth prayer, for intercessor, I accept is worded light-heartedly, but if it really meant what it implies, that God was a distant and aloof figure to be approached surreptitiously through his personal favourites, it betrays a serious problem in relating to God. We have a much more privileged (though wholly undeserved) position of access. If it is instead an expression of the nearness of God (you and Mr Presley are not only close to him, but in him so close to each other that you can pray together as one), then it seems to me as innocent as asking any other person to pray with you.
Is any of the above obligatory? Well, what would be obligatory if Elvis were alive? If you had met him, and were conscious of gratitude, you would have an duty to express thanks (within the ordinary rules of politeness and consideration - I "met", that is, passed in the street, Stephen Fry some weeks ago, a man who has made me laugh many times and to whom I feel grateful. I didn't accost him with thanks, it would have been intrusive, but I did buy his latest book shortly afterwards). Similarly you might have a duty to apologise if conscious of having caused offence. The other prayers would, I think, only be duties in rare cases.
Does it make any difference that Elvis Presley is not officially a Saint? Only one that I can see - if you believe that any particular church has a mandate to declare with true discernment that some human beings are undoubtedly in heaven, then prayer to those people is a surer prospect than to those whom you as an individual merely believe and hope to have been saved. It therefore makes a difference to how likely Mr Presley is to hear you. All this presupposes that if Mr Presley is indeed in Christ, he is aware of your prayers at all.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can't argue with (1). I'd only quibble with the edges of (2); I'd always thought that our confession to God was as much for our benefit us much as his... so his vanity or otherwise doesn't really enter into it.
The need for reconciliation is what is at stake - otherwise the incarnation, passion and resurrection becomes a matter of vanity too?
Of course one can't name all the cloud of witnesses - not that that means one shouldn't try and name a few, I suppose...
Perhaps there is a real exercise in humility though... arrogant to think one can, in the privacy of one's unspoken prayers, make the matter right between oneself and God. And humility in recognising the need to confess to others; living and dead.
I think, perhaps, this is a real weakness of my particular branch of the church.
Also, a quick question here: how might Jn 20.23 go here: "Whose soever sins you (i.e. the apostles) forgive, they are forgiven to them; whose soever sins you retain they are retained"?
If Christ shared the authority to forgive with his apostles, do they lose that authority at death?
This is tied in with the idea that we are being caught up into the life of God. God hasn't come to be a monarch far above us, but to unite us with himself, pulling us up into his divine life.
We are all to reign.
In a sense, Protestantism often emphasises salvation as a *moral* process: we are to be pardoned, and our bad characters fixed up so that we don't keep on sinning. But the scriptures go beyond this to teach our glorification: we are not only justified and sanctified sinners, but we are called to be kings and queens at the heavenly banquet - glorified with the glory that Christ has received from the Father. And so we (and all those at the heavenly assembly) are not merely subjects of the King, but his co-regents: especially the apostles and prophets, on whom the building is founded with Christ as the cornerstone ...
Part of what I was thinking when I talked of God's lack of vanity is his willingness to bend down and take us up into his authority, his glory, his unity, his reign. God doesn't insist on being the only one who can forgive.
Christ scandalised the Pharisees by claiming to forgive sins. And he scandalised some of us Protestants by telling the apostles *they* could forgive sins too ... even though the Pharisees had exclaimed that only God can forgive. Protestants sometimes avoid this by saying that Christ forgives because he is God. But that ignores the incarnation (that Christ is perfect man too) and glorification: Christ forgives - and shares his authority to forgive - because in him God is drawing us all up into reigning with him.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I wonder if that verse was given to the apostoles in apostolic/preistly office, or to all and sundry? I'm prepared to believe that there's a sense in which sins against each other or not completely resolved without the forgiveness of the other - whether this resolution comes on earth or in heaven.
I don't think the example of Christ is helpful, though - in that, although he was fully human, he can't be normative for what we might expect from even great saints or each other.
Either way, an area of added difficulty I have is with the channels of communication.
I'd perhaps believe that angels... and maybe particular saints might be blessed with lines of communication with the living - but find it hard to believe Elvis, or the rest of us might have similar lines of communication after death.
But even then, I'd have thought the the channel of communication would be strongest to God directly - rather than through the saints.
The Elvis example is ridiculous - it seems to me that if the praying-to-saints-and-BVM camp can dismiss the Elvis example with a swat of the back of the hand ("No, that's ridiculous - this applies to saint x and y because of z") then I'm still in the boat. If the Elvis example has to be treated at all seriously (as per Eliab above) then I'm starting to look at my feet to check the depth of water coming in.
Similarly one could ask about the omnipotence of BVM - if God has multiple demands of his time and forgiveness... we're all happy to ascribe the ability... but what if the BVM has a particularly large in-tray one morning?
(Presumably it doesn't work like this, I don't know)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder if that verse was given to the apostoles in apostolic/preistly office, or to all and sundry? I'm prepared to believe that there's a sense in which sins against each other or not completely resolved without the forgiveness of the other - whether this resolution comes on earth or in heaven.
I think the authority was given both to the apostles as apostles, and to all and sundry. The gift and the authority are exercised differently, but it's a single gift, given from Christ to the Church.
It's Christ that told us that if we don't forgive the sins of those who trespass against us, we can't be forgiven. And the reason for that, I have been taught, is that when we are all perfectly in Christ, when we are all in his absolute presence, we shall all also be in the absolute presence of one another. And if you would refuse to be in the presence of another person, whoever that might be, then you will refuse to be in the presence of God, because you can't have one without the other.
quote:
I don't think the example of Christ is helpful, though - in that, although he was fully human, he can't be normative for what we might expect from even great saints or each other.
I think you're right. I've heard people justify their own bad behavior with WWJD -- he chased the moneychangers out of the temple, for example, so their rage or intolerance is a good thing, because they're doing what Jesus would have done. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I think WWMD is more appropriate -- she is human plain and simple, and I think her example provides less opportunity for us to kid ourselves about ourselves.
quote:
The Elvis example is ridiculous - it seems to me that if the praying-to-saints-and-BVM camp can dismiss the Elvis example with a swat of the back of the hand ("No, that's ridiculous - this applies to saint x and y because of z") then I'm still in the boat. If the Elvis example has to be treated at all seriously (as per Eliab above) then I'm starting to look at my feet to check the depth of water coming in.
I'll have to admit I choked on the Elvis example, but it would not be up to me to tell someone who wanted to pray to Elvis in their private devotions that they should not. That's something that would be between the person and their spiritual father.
And that is mostly (but not entirely) because of the Orthodox Church's way of recognizing saints is very much "bottom-up."
There could be no prayers or hymns to Elvis in Church unless and until he were formally recognized as a saint by the Church. But, in the Orthodox Church, the way we recognize someone as a saint is through acclamation -- maybe a few people start turning to that person in their private prayers and devotions, and then others do as well, and, as time goes on, more and more people start turning to that saint, recognizing in them one who is surely in the presence of God. We see that as the leading of the Holy Spirit, and eventually, that person will be formally recognized as a saint, and icons will be made, and troparia and kontakia written and sung.
More often, though, a few people will pray to the person, for one reason or another, but without the leading of the Holy Spirit, no one else joins them in that devotion, or few. And in a little while, that devotion drops away, and that person is never recognized as a saint.
Usually, but not always, a person acclaimed as a saint will have been widely recognized as a holy person in this life. And nearly always, they will have been Orthodox, because we consider it presumptuous to claim a person as our own in the next life, when they didn't claim us in this one.
Do you still need to wring out your socks?
quote:
Similarly one could ask about the omnipotence of BVM - if God has multiple demands of his time and forgiveness... we're all happy to ascribe the ability... but what if the BVM has a particularly large in-tray one morning?
The saints dwelling in Christ are in what we call the Eternal Now. Time is irrelevant; they are with God outside of time. It's not omnipotence, it's not omnipresence. It's simply having moved from one way of being to another.
Have you read Flatland? To borrow an analogy, even though we are three-dimensional beings, we live in Flatland and generally fail to perceive anything outside our "plane." The saints have learned to dwell in Spaceland. What looks to us like omnipresence isn't at all -- they are limited to their own shapes, but not limited to our plane.
God himself, of course, is not limited even to Spaceland, but is in every dimension.
[ 27. December 2005, 15:07: Message edited by: josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The Elvis example is ridiculous - it seems to me that if the praying-to-saints-and-BVM camp can dismiss the Elvis example with a swat of the back of the hand ("No, that's ridiculous - this applies to saint x and y because of z") then I'm still in the boat. If the Elvis example has to be treated at all seriously (as per Eliab above) then I'm starting to look at my feet to check the depth of water coming in.
It didn't occur to me not to take it seriously. Maybe because I'm a lawyer and I'm used to having to apply rational processes to the most bizarre and improbable hypotheses. Like my clients' stories. Or real life.
Supposing that there are people who do feel a real and personal connection with Elvis Presley, and also believe he is in heaven and can hear them, I think it would be natural to pray to them. It sometimes seems natural to me, when thinking of the dead people I love, to address them, not in formal prayers, but with a 'thanks' or 'sorry' for something that was said or done in life. So at the very least, I have to accept that Mr Presley's family has as much right to speak to him as anyone has to address their beloved dead.
I think the issue, for how ridiculous it is to speak to the dead, depends on who we think is now with God (how certain we are in turn depending on theories of salvation and of the authority of churches to pronounce on it), and whether we think they can hear us. Since the capacity of the saints to hear us depends (as far as I can see) on them sharing in God's knowledge, that is, on his grace, I can see no reason to limit it strictly to the great saints. It seems to me that it must be something all the saved can do (in principle, not necessarily all of them at all times) or none of them.
Catholics and Orthodox I think see the assurance of salvation through the church as being normative. Protestants see salvation much more as a matter of one's own standing with God. It isn't surprising that the Christians who see the church as central to their own hope of heaven also see the opinion of the church as to who is already there as being a matter of weight. I don't have that authority to tell me that my prayers to a saint will certainly be heard, which is why I make them rarely (but assert the right of others to pray in this way if it helps them).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Thanks to both... I think my socks are betraying only the most subtle signs of dampness at present... I'd have wanted a more dismissive, final, swat of the idea... but perhaps that would have been impolite.
The ability to apply a rational analysis to the bizarre and improbable is, I guess, laudable.
It seems to me there are two different categories of dead people one might feel it... appropriate to want to talk to. The great saints/BVM category and the nearest/dearest category.
The latter I can see great value in verbalising communication to, even if it doesn't get through.
But in either case, does one envision a spaceworld populated with all the dead - or perhaps all the dead in Christ - all available for communication. Or a few selected by God (/through the church?). Or is one reliant on transmission of messages by angels/God himself?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But in either case, does one envision a spaceworld populated with all the dead - or perhaps all the dead in Christ - all available for communication. Or a few selected by God (/through the church?). Or is one reliant on transmission of messages by angels/God himself?
Perhaps we are like a deaf and blind person, walking through a crowd. We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, but we cannot see or hear them. Doesn't mean they have the least difficulty seeing or hearing us.
A blind person standing out in the sunshine is bathed in light, but everything seems to the blind person like darkness. Or as St Paul wrote: "We see in a glass, darkly, but then we shall see face to face." Perhaps we shouldn't project our weakness onto those who can see clearly now.
Christ, anyway, was able to talk with two dead saints at the Transfiguration, who discussed his forthcoming death (Mt 17.3; Lk 9.30-31). It is interesting to see this as an example (not proof) of conversation with the great OT saints (Moses and Elijah). Here is the perfect Man, faced with his forthcoming sacrifice, being strengthened and encouraged (one would assume) by two outstanding saints. An interesting example to us, from One who was made like us in everything except sin (especially as an example of the Communion of Saints in action right in the Gospels).
I am not, by the way, saying that all this proves that the Orthodox or Catholic understanding is right. But I do think it should give Protestants pause, and maybe hints that the historic Christian traditions are rooted in parts of the scriptures that Protestant like to ignore, re-interpret or downplay.
In Revelation 8.3, for instance, an angel presents the prayers of the saints at the heavenly altar - seems no problem how he gets them all in the first place. And Rev 6.9-10 has the martyred saints "underneath the altar", praying to God. That, of course, puts them pretty close to where the prayers of the saints were being presented by the angel - unless those prayers presented by the angel in 8.3 refer to the martyrs' own prayers in 6.9-10.
All this may be highly symbolic, of course, but it shows that the notion of a heavenly assembly where the saints and angels are present before God, and where prayers are being presented or sent up by angels and martyrs - these notions are not unknown to scripture.
Christ even tells of the "rich" dead man in Hades who was able to call out to Abraham and Lazarus on beahlf of his brothers: his prayer was denied because he asked for the wrong thing (his brothers already had sufficient warning, according to Abraham, and he himself was under punishment and cuold not be relieved of his suffering). But nowhere does the Lord say that the dead actually *cannot* intercede for the living, as he represented them doing in this parable.
Note: this parable is both an example of intercession by the dead, and prayer to a dead saint, as Abraham (not God) was the object of the dead rich man's prayer. And while this is not proof of the intercession of the saints, etc - it shows that the *notion* of the dead praying for the living, and of petitions being made to saints, are not foreign to the scriptures, nor specifically to Christ himself, who used such notions in his parables.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yes, It'd not occured to me how the transfiguration was relevant... and the image of the angel carrying prayers is a good one.
This may be highly symbolic, but I've no problem with doing highly symbolic things either; since a good part of everything we do (perhaps even prayer itself) seems to be symbolic.
Perhaps purgatory will include reconciliation with the cloud of witnesses as well as God... I'd imagine it being necessary if they really are around us all the time. Speaking for myself, that is.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:
...
Christ, anyway, was able to talk with two dead saints at the Transfiguration, who discussed his forthcoming death (Mt 17.3; Lk 9.30-31). It is interesting to see this as an example (not proof) of conversation with the great OT saints (Moses and Elijah). Here is the perfect Man, faced with his forthcoming sacrifice, being strengthened and encouraged (one would assume) by two outstanding saints. An interesting example to us, from One who was made like us in everything except sin (especially as an example of the Communion of Saints in action right in the Gospels).
I am not, by the way, saying that all this proves that the Orthodox or Catholic understanding is right. But I do think it should give Protestants pause, and maybe hints that the historic Christian traditions are rooted in parts of the scriptures that Protestant like to ignore, re-interpret or downplay. ...
I have never heard any Protestant downplay the significance of the Old Testament prophets, nor the Transfiguration. Nor do Protestants downplay the role of the New Testament apostles or martyrs. Nor do Protestants downplay the overall notion of the communion of saints (all believers) in heaven.
I admit it is true that some Protestants have downplayed the role of Mary, as an over-reaction to the dangers in the overplaying of her role in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
It is also the case that Protestants do not accept (to varying degrees) the authority of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches to single out particular saints who lived after the NT canon was completed for special accolade by giving them the prefix "St." as opposed to small 's' saints.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me there are two different categories of dead people one might feel it... appropriate to want to talk to. The great saints/BVM category and the nearest/dearest category.
The latter I can see great value in verbalising communication to, even if it doesn't get through.
As can I, though the reason I would actually do it would be that I hoped (even if I didn't believe) that my words might get through.
But just as I can see how it could be helpful, if only as catharsis, for me to thank my grandfather for his love, it might also be a helpful expression of a legitimate feeling to thank Elvis for his songs, or to thank Mary for her obedience, even if it doesn't get through (though in each case, the person speaking would hope that it would).
quote:
But in either case, does one envision a spaceworld populated with all the dead - or perhaps all the dead in Christ - all available for communication. Or a few selected by God (/through the church?). Or is one reliant on transmission of messages by angels/God himself?
Whatever the truth is, it must, if Christianity is at all right, be more than we can imagine now. If the saved are, in some inconceivable way, united with God, then it seems to me that in principle they could all learn anything that God knows (though not necessarily everything that God knows). That seems to be as true for Elvis (supposing him to be saved, which I have no particular reason either to affirm or to doubt) as it is for Mary. If God wants him to be aware of a human prayer, or if he, in his perfected desire, wants God to make him aware, then we can be sure that he is aware.
I don't share the Catholic/Orthodox confidence that this is definitely the case all the time. Many prayers to saints, for all I know, may go unheard by the addressees (not, of course, by God), and some reputed saints, for all I know, may at the last have rejected God and be in no position to intercede with him. Prayers to saints are a vanishingly small part of my own prayer life. What I would defend is their legitimacy, and the freedom of those Christians who want to pray in this way to do so.
[ 28. December 2005, 12:00: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
I have never heard any Protestant downplay the significance of the Old Testament prophets, nor the Transfiguration. Nor do Protestants downplay the role of the New Testament apostles or martyrs. Nor do Protestants downplay the overall notion of the communion of saints (all believers) in heaven.
No, but they do down-play the possibility of talking to them. And one aspect of the transfiguration, the communion of saints in heaven, and angels carrying prayers around the place is that it seems more likely we can talk to them, as the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions practice.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
I have never heard any Protestant downplay the significance of the Old Testament prophets, nor the Transfiguration. Nor do Protestants downplay the role of the New Testament apostles or martyrs. Nor do Protestants downplay the overall notion of the communion of saints (all believers) in heaven.
No, but they do down-play the possibility of talking to them. And one aspect of the transfiguration, the communion of saints in heaven, and angels carrying prayers around the place is that it seems more likely we can talk to them, as the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions practice.
I don't think there is a fundamental Protestant objection to talking with the communion of saints.
There would be two Protestant fears about this.
The first fear is that the saints or Mary might be seen as them acting as intermediaries between us and the Father. Parts of the Roman Catholic Church have certainly taught in the past that the prayers of Protestants go unanswered because they don't pray to Mary and the Saints, whereas the Bible says that if we are saved through faith then we have the right to pray to God the Father. I detect the Roman Catholic Church moving away from that position, if it ever officially held it. I am not sure there is actually as much difference between carefully worded Catholic theology and mainline moderate Protestant thinking on this, as some people make out.
The second fear is the desire to be distinct from the occult practices of non-Christian mediums and spirits attempting communication with the dead, ouija boards and so on.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I've never heard that RCC teaching... it surely isn't official doctrine (?).
And I've met very few protestants who feel happy praying to/through saints. I think most would claim such prayers are not heard by the saints... I certainly would have said similarly before taking part in the thread... perhaps would still say so, although my confidence in that belief is diminishing...
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've never heard that RCC teaching... it surely isn't official doctrine (?).
...
I don't think so, though I'm not an expert.
I have met a few older, not particularly learned, cradle Catholics and Orthodox from abroad from strong cultural communities like Ireland, Brazil, the Phillippines, Cyprus who do seem to believe that. I am not sure they were ever explicitly taught it as such, but brought up in a culture where that was what some believed.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
"People who seemed to be from a culture where some people believed that...." sounds like an appropriately cautious way of expressing it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
[tangent?]
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Catholics and Orthodox I think see the assurance of salvation through the church as being normative.
Can't speak for Catholics, but the Orthodox don't have "assurance of salvation" in any form. We have assurance of God's love, and God's desire for us to be saved. But the Orthodox answer to the (IMO exceedingly obnoxious) question, "If you died tonight do you know for sure whether you'd got to heaven or not?" must be No.
I think this sense of "I have arrived" is very detrimental to one's spiritual growth, and ultimately, potentially, to one's salvation.
[/tangent?]
[definitely tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
I admit it is true that some Protestants have downplayed the role of Mary, as an over-reaction to the dangers in the overplaying of her role in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
How much of Protestantism, historically speaking, isn't an overreaction to Catholicism?
[/definitely tangent]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
...
[definitely tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
I admit it is true that some Protestants have downplayed the role of Mary, as an over-reaction to the dangers in the overplaying of her role in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
How much of Protestantism, historically speaking, isn't an overreaction to Catholicism?
[/definitely tangent]
Definitely a tangent, but a very interesting one. If you'd like to start a new thread on that tangent, I shall answer you there.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
[tangent?]
[...]Can't speak for Catholics, but the Orthodox don't have "assurance of salvation" in any form[...]
[/tangent?]
Sorry, that was sloppy writing on my part. What I meant was (as far as I know, and that is mostly from what I've picked up of Orthodox attitudes on the Ship) that the Orthodox believe that they can be assured that the process by which God saves can be found in the Church. Not (necessarily) that each individual church member can be sure that they have achieved this. The Church seems to be very much more the custodian of the gospel of salvation in Orthodox attitudes than it is for Protestants. We think we are saved by faith, but not necessarily that any given institution (or any institution at all) has preserved that saving faith.
Is that a fair comment, or have I now misrepresented both sides?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I meant was (as far as I know, and that is mostly from what I've picked up of Orthodox attitudes on the Ship) that the Orthodox believe that they can be assured that the process by which God saves can be found in the Church.
That's a fair representation of what we believe. The Church is the Ark of Salvation, the ship that we can trust to carry us safely to the Promised Land. We know that it was designed by our Lord Jesus, and is guided by the Holy Spirit, so we trust that it will get us through, and with us, any who choose to come on board. (Unlike the Ark which kept Noah and his family safe, the doors on this Ark have not been closed.)
We don't say, of course, that ours is the only ship that will get through. We know nothing about the sea-worthiness of other vessels.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
I have never heard any Protestant downplay the significance of the Old Testament prophets, nor the Transfiguration.
mdijon's post is the perfect answer, Eliab: "It'd not occured to me how the transfiguration was relevant".
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
