|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The offence of defining the Church
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Priest
Trisagion is right: I'm not joking.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Priest
Trisagion is right: I'm not joking.
Isaac,
In that case your post is one of a man with a closed mind and anything I may care to say will be ignored, I'm happy for you in that you have found what you believe to be an absolute, I am keeping an open mind.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
There is nothing closed in the mind that believes that God is Truth and that he has, in his infinite goodness to us, given us a sure guide to Him through the Church He established, guarantees, preserves and guides into that Truth.
Rather, the mind that accepts these things is free and open to all, knowing that it is God's own guarantee that will, in His good time, allow the truth, goodness and beauty to be revealed with authority and certainty.
Incidentally, Priest, I don't know which ancient commentaries on Sacred Scripture tell you to make up your own mind. The Fathers (and I am not aware of any other ancient commentaries) almost all counsel thinking with the Church (Augustine says, "consentire cum Ecclesia") and reading Scripture wityhin the Tradition and authority of the Church. The "one man and his Bible" school doesn't seem to have the blessing of the Fathers and its fruit (32,000 protestant denominations and growing) doesn't seem to accord with the mind of Him who prayed that His followers might be one, even as He and the Father are One.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Right again Trisagion! If it happens a third time, will bells ring in heaven? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Right again Trisagion! If it happens a third time, will bells ring in heaven?
If only we could get the "filioque" and Petrine authority sorted out...[adopts Eliza Doolittle voice] Wooden tit be lovally.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Hosting
Priest, Trisagion: this is an emotive subject, and it's perhaps likely that hackles are going to be raised.
However, discussion is nearing the edge of that metaphorical precipice we tend to want to avoid.
You want to describe someone as a "man with a closed mind" (or you want to counterattack) you do that in Hell.
Not here. Hell.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
Trisagion,
The mind is closed in as much as the opinion of the definition of the church is an absolute accepted by that person.
It may leave the mind of that person open to consider questions on other things but not on the definition of the church, which is the subject of this thread.
As to which ancient commentaries tell me to make up my own mind, well if you read my post, I think you will find you have miss understood, I said that most commentaries differ from one another so adding to the jumble of questions, therefore if I have to choose which to follow, I may as well make up my own mind based on all I read. No commentaries tell me to make up my own mind, but many things within the scriptures are open to interpretation, and that includes interpretation by me, you or anyone else.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
*ahem*
I was posting at the same time as you, and I think you are being to overbearing.
I thought this was a place for serious debate?
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
It is. Therefore, because it is a place for serious debate and since the discussion was just beginning to spiral away from anything resembling serious debate, I told you to cool it.
If you want to argue the toss, you can post in the Styx; if you want to get all indignant, you can post in Hell.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Priest, telling someone who disagrees with you over an issue that they are being closed-minded is not serious debate. It's asserting the superiority of your position without arguing for it.
Many people on these boards, such as Isaac David from what I know of him, have arrived at these conclusions about the nature of the Church from an open-minded process of searching. Many people have gone through such an open-minded search and come to different conclusions.
Are you saying that coming to a conclusion on any issue at all, is closed-minded, and therefore one must always be an agnostic on any matter? That doesn't make sense to me. You can be very open-minded yet come to a firm conclusion.
Wood, I hope you don't take this as fanning the flames, I didn't intend to.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
GreyFace,
I do not see my post as being in any way an attempt at superiority, merely as a point of fact that Isaacs view on the definition of church was one of an absolute and therefore not open to debate, if I wanted to be offensive I would have said "blinkered" or "coming from an approach of ignorance", but being closed minded on a subject is not in my opinion instantly a bad thing, for example I am closed minded on the deity of Christ, if someone were to debate with me the deity of Christ then my opinion would be as absolute as Isaacs view of the church and therefore there would be no point debating it beyond the point that I chose to display my cose mindedness on the subject.
I appologise to Isaac if he took offense at my statement but it was in no way meant as derogatory.
And I take no offense at you suggesting wrongly that I am attempting to assert my superiority.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Dictionary.com definitions don't seem to agree with the way in which you're using the term, Priest.
If you're using it in a different way from how I understand the term, I've mistaken your meaning.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
OK. Last time: drop it.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Sorry, it's dropped. Where were we?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
OK. Last time: drop it.
Yes Miss. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
The Nicene Creed says quote:
I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
There are really only two ways to interpret the phrase One Church
Dear Isaac,
You seem to be asserting that you believe this credal statement is true before considering its meaning, which strikes me as a rather curious approach. I would have thought one had to understand the meaning of a statement before one could consider whether it is true or not.
But then, I tend to use the word "believe" to mean something like "consider true". Which is, I suspect, the common usage outside a religious context. [resists temptation to quote from pocket dictionary ]. This might be similar to the "give our mental assent" which you seem to say you don't mean...
If when the Orthodox say "believe" they don't mean "believe", that might explain some of the crossed wires we're getting.
Is your meaning more along the lines of "swear allegiance to" ?
Would one of the Catholics care to comment on what they mean by "believe" ?
quote:
You ask what difference it makes; it is a fact that the non-Orthodox differ with us over doctrine, both what that doctrine is and how it is derived. Insomuch as non-Orthodox doctrine deviates from Orthodox doctrine, we believe it puts at risk the salvation of those who believe in it.
So you consider that the practical import of your definition of "Church" is a matter of salvation. I thought Josephine had denied that, but maybe she only meant to deny the stronger form which you also deny.
quote:
I think this distinction is much more subtle than the simple 'inside the Church=salvation, outside the Church=damnation' which we are accused of.
I may have got this wrong, but you seem to have replaced "salvation" with "guaranteed salvation" and "no salvation" with "no guaranteed salvation" which doesn't rate awfully high on my subtlometer.
Not that I want to discourage you. It's (IMO) a step forward, even if only a small one.
A further two questions spring to mind from what you've said. Sorry if you've heard them before.
1) You seem to assert that visible membership of the Orthodox Church is sufficient for salvation but is not necessary.
What about interior disposition ? I would have thought that your "healing of the soul" might require "a humble and contrite heart" or other right intention.
But you seem to be saying that nothing like that is necessary, because membership of the visible body itself guarantees salvation...
Is the most evil murderous thug in history saved as long as he's a visibly-Orthodox evil murderous thug ?
2) Is every element of the Orthodox Church absolutely necessary in order for that guarantee of salvation to hold ? The beards, the Greek, the conservatism, the icons, whatever ? Are there or are there not any accidents of Orthodox culture which could have been different or could be changed without invalidating that guarantee ? Do you have no culture for its own sake ?
Having exposed the further depths of my misunderstanding I'll stop there...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to be asserting that you believe this credal statement is true before considering its meaning, which strikes me as a rather curious approach.
It may be curious, but that is indeed the Orthodox approach to the Creed.
quote:
So you consider that the practical import of your definition of "Church" is a matter of salvation. I thought Josephine had denied that, but maybe she only meant to deny the stronger form which you also deny.
I tried to clarify, in my last post on page one, as follows:
quote:
I am not saying that the belief has no practical consequences. I think it does. Because the Orthodox Church is The Church, if you're wanting to be saved, that's the best place to be. To go back to the fleet analogy, it's the vessel designed and built by God, launched by the Holy Spirit, fully equipped to bring you to theosis.
Which is not to say that your surfboard won't get you there. But you're better off in the vessel that God made.
Isaac David and I are saying the same thing. The Church is provided for our salvation. It is the place we go to be saved. But it is not the only means by which God can save.
quote:
1) You seem to assert that visible membership of the Orthodox Church is sufficient for salvation but is not necessary.
What about interior disposition ? I would have thought that your "healing of the soul" might require "a humble and contrite heart" or other right intention.
What if someone said, "You seem to be saying that someone who has been in a terrible car accident needs to be admitted to the hospital in order to get better. But what about surgery? and medication? Aren't those needed, too?" Well, of course. But the hospital is where you go to get those.
quote:
But you seem to be saying that nothing like that is necessary, because membership of the visible body itself guarantees salvation...
He didn't say that. Nor did I. Remember the wheat field? There are tares growing within, and wheat without.
quote:
2) Is every element of the Orthodox Church absolutely necessary in order for that guarantee of salvation to hold ? The beards, the Greek, the conservatism, the icons, whatever ? Are there or are there not any accidents of Orthodox culture which could have been different or could be changed without invalidating that guarantee ? Do you have no culture for its own sake ?
The culture is not Holy Tradition. Culturally, an Orthodox church in Alaska is going to be different from one in Amsterdam. But the Tradition will be the same.
Icons are necessary. Greek isn't. Cultural festivals with dancing and baklava aren't part of Holy Tradition. The services of Holy Week are.
--------------------
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
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
What if someone said, "You seem to be saying that someone who has been in a terrible car accident needs to be admitted to the hospital in order to get better. But what about surgery? and medication? Aren't those needed, too?" Well, of course. But the hospital is where you go to get those.
Can I ask a question here Josephine, are you then saying that attendance and membership will not get you saved? Just as someone who refuses or avoids treatment in hospital may not get well.
If so, what other things need to occur for salvation within the Orthodox movement?
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Priest
I am not offended.
Dear Russ
You raise some interesting questions, which I shall attempt to answer when I have more time.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
Can I ask a question here Josephine, are you then saying that attendance and membership will not get you saved? Just as someone who refuses or avoids treatment in hospital may not get well.
If so, what other things need to occur for salvation within the Orthodox movement?
What gets you saved is God's grace, and your participation therewith. You can go to a hospital, refuse to take the medication offered, send the doctor out of the room, insist on a procedure other than the most efficacious one -- and so not get well. Being in the hospital is no guarantee.
Likewise, being in the Church is no guarantee of salvation. You can be in the Church, but refuse the Eucharist, refuse to see your priest for Confession, insist that you'd really rather start your mornings with the newspaper than with prayers. Membership may not do you much good in that case.
The point of membership isn't membership. It's salvation.
We don't have a "one size fits all" program of salvation, any more than a competent doctor prescribes the same treatment regimen for everyone that walks through the door. There are some basics, of course -- the doctor is going to recommend a healthy diet and more exercise to almost everyone, and tell every single person who comes in who smokes to quit smoking. But beyond that, care plans will be individualized.
So I can't tell you what else is necessary. You'd have to tell me for whom. And then I'd have to tell you it's none of my business; it's between them, their spiritual father, and God.
Generally, though, the Orthodox equivalent of "healthy diet and more exercise" would be reception of the Holy Mysteries, confession, attendance of services, almsgiving, fasting and a rule of prayer according to the ordinary practice of the Church. Even that, one would discuss with ones priest, just as you'd discuss an exercise program with your doctor before embarking on it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Admin Warning
Priest,
You need to reacquaint yourself with Ship's Commandment 6, which reads, "Respect the Hosts." Your posts were inappropriate for this board. Wood was doing his job by pointing it out. If you disagree, you can bring it up in the Styx (also covered in Commandment 6) but you cannot argue with him here.
If you need some time ashore to meditate on the meaning of the original text of the Commandments, it can be arranged. Just keep on as you have been with Wood.
Scot
Member Admin
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Hosting
Priest, Trisagion: this is an emotive subject, and it's perhaps likely that hackles are going to be raised.
However, discussion is nearing the edge of that metaphorical precipice we tend to want to avoid.
You want to describe someone as a "man with a closed mind" (or you want to counterattack) you do that in Hell.
Not here. Hell.
I am sorry that you thought my post a counter attack. That was not the intention, I was trying to explain the different perspective some of us come from. I now realise that the tone was rather abrupt. I apologise and make firm purpose of ammendment.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Let me add my voice to Isaac David's in saying that Trisagion is speaking my mind on this subject quite well (as to content -- as to form I leave the judgment up to the hosts). It is truly a pity that ancient history and other unfortunate circumstances prevent us from communing together, Tris. God speed unity!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to be asserting that you believe this credal statement is true before considering its meaning, which strikes me as a rather curious approach.
The creed is true precisely because it is the teaching of the Church, expressed in a General Council. I can consider it all I like, but its claim to be believed is derived not from any external examination of the meaning of the words, their grammar and syntax, nor from a consideration of epitemology, logic or metaphysics, nor yet from some kind of scriptural exegesis, but from the God-given teaching authority of the Church, to which Sacred and Scripture and Holy Tradition are a constant witness.
My language may be more Latin than Greek and the tendency to theological definition more Thomist than Byzantine, but when a Catholic says the Creed, this is what he or she means too.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I would suggest that there are two things at issue here.
Firstly, where the Church exists. All of us agree that it does, indeed, exist, but some of us draw its boundary at one place, appealing to historical and liturgical structures, whilst others consider The Church to exist based on other criteria. I am reminded of Irenaeus' maxim: Where the Church is, there is the Spirit; where the Spirit is, there is the Church. Interestingly, I encountered much writing quoting only the first part - as an unashamed Anglican, Reformed and Catholic, I consider the second part as of equal importance.
The second issue is whether it matters. Josephine offers the view that the Church is God's vehicle for salvation, that it is the best vehicle, but that still other vehicles may well achieve the same end. This is probably the default position of most charitable Christians trhough the ages. However, has it always been the official line?
I would imagine that the dogmatic position would be more that of Cyprian who insisted that salvation can only happen within the Church. A softening of that view may well be the natural result of different traditions having to rub up against one another and come to some accommodation, particularly in multi-cultural societies and the ecumenical movement.
On page 1, Trisagion assumed I was cnfusing two things in my view that the Roman Cathoilc Church had softened its position. I was not confusing anything at all. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three distinct positions articulated by Rome in history - that of Cyprian, that of John XXIII and the "sister churches", and that of Cardinal Ratzinger's talk of "ecclesial communities". I believe the Roman Catholic Church has articulated different stances to Reformed Christianity, both official and unofficially, ranging from the Pope who says Anglican orders are invalid to the French bishop who allowed an Anglican Canon to concelebrate whilst the latter was on holiday in his cathedral city.
Likewise, I believe there are nuances within Orthodoxy. Josephine and, say, Fr Pancratios of St Barbara's Church in Chester would say that they will not put a limit on the Spirit's activities. However, Alexander Schmemann made it quite clear, in discussion Orthodox participation in the WCC, that the ultimate position of the Orthodox Church is that it is the Church - anything else is lacking and is therefore not-Church.
The reason I am neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox is that I genuinely believe that I do not have to be either in order for my soul to be saved. I believe this to be a proper response to Our Lord's various teachings, even having taken account of the many and respectable fathers (and mothers these days, as Father Gerald would undoubtedly say*) of the Church who have sought to pronounce on such things. I make the assertion with both fear and trembling and with the knowledge that God's love is greater than the human ability to comrpehend it.
* interestingly, his amenuensis Mr Tomkins asserts that the Battle Culloden occurred in 1746. I think not.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I thought the position of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches was that they can say where the Church is, but they cannot say where the Church is not. Am I wrong?
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I thought the position of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches was that they can say where the Church is, but they cannot say where the Church is not. Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong. That is correct.
--------------------
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
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
And then I'd have to tell you it's none of my business; it's between them, their spiritual father, and God.
In this at least we agree. But isn't their spiritual father, God?
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Admin Warning
Priest,
You need to reacquaint yourself with Ship's Commandment 6, which reads, "Respect the Hosts." Your posts were inappropriate for this board. Wood was doing his job by pointing it out. If you disagree, you can bring it up in the Styx (also covered in Commandment 6) but you cannot argue with him here.
If you need some time ashore to meditate on the meaning of the original text of the Commandments, it can be arranged. Just keep on as you have been with Wood.
Scot
Member Admin
Agreed, I was out of order to critique the host, apologies to Wood.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Thanks Josephine.
Protestant churches believe in the Invisible Church, to which all Christians belong. All the wheat. Would I be right in saying that the Orthodox don't believe in an Invisible Church as a belief, but don't rule it out entirely? Is that too far?
The original meaning of ekklesia, is congregation, assembly, community. Can the Orthodox hope that all the wheat, inc those outside Orthodoxy, are in some kind of Mystical Community?
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I thought the position of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches was that they can say where the Church is, but they cannot say where the Church is not. Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong. That is correct.
Well, sort of. By being able to say where the Church is, then you accept certain criteria for judgment.
Let's take some examples - a historic episcopate and the veneration of icons. Now, a body that has neither cannot, logically, be Church if these two items are part of the criteria. It is inherent in being able to say where the Church is that you can successfully distinguish Church from not-Church.
However charitable one is trying to be (and I have no doubt that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic contributiors are being charitable), we cannot escape the fact that saying "This is Church" about X automatically says of not-X, "This is not-Church".
It seems to me that if a specific part of Reformed Christianity does not contain elements that Orthodoxy requires in order to make something "The Church", then that part of Reformed Christianity cannot be (part of) The Church. You can probably guess from my sig what criteria I am prepared to use.
I would also argue that, dogmatically speaking, the refusal to say "where the Church is not" is not quite the historic position of Orthodoxy. Cyprian is equally an Orthodox as well as a Roman Catholic authority, and there are many in Orthodoxy who would accept no place apart from Orthodoxy itself as the place where salvation, and therefore the Church, can exist. I hazare that Josephine's admirable position may not be the view of all Orthodox Christians.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elfed Presley:
and that of Cardinal Ratzinger's talk of "ecclesial communities".
Let's get this clear, this expression comes from Vatican II, not from J. Card. Ratzinger.
quote:
I believe the Roman Catholic Church has articulated different stances to Reformed Christianity, both official and unofficially, ranging from the Pope who says Anglican orders are invalid to the French bishop who allowed an Anglican Canon to concelebrate whilst the latter was on holiday in his cathedral city.
The foolish actions of a French Bishop who should have known better hardly counts as the Roman Catholic Church articulating a stance to Reformed Christianity. What the episode certainly demonstrates is (at best) ignorance or (at worst) reckless folly on the part of the French Bishop and bad manners on the part of the Canon.
Oh, by the way, the Battle of Culloden took place on 16th April 1746.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
To Dave: leaving the Pentecostal church of my youth was certainly my salvation, not my damnation, and any comfort I got was from imagining what The Church could be if you eviscerated it of all its divisive doctrines and the insistence that God is a conscious entity who will grant eternal life only to those who assent to the correct list of beliefs. In fact, I never joined the Pentecostal church where my father preached, nor any other: the divisiveness inside of Christianity and its condescending charity toward sinners, heathens, apostates, and heretics outside the church nauseated me too much to think it had anything to do with God. Those points were not made in my last post.
It is simply that with increasing age, when I see discussions like this that underscore the virulent dissent inside of Christianity over the correct set of God-ordained doctrines to be believed in order to attain salvation from spiritual sickness that leads inevitably to spiritual death, it reminds me of the yearning for peace that I felt as a youth, listening to my father's sermons and the resulting heated discussions in the parsonage about predestination and worship becoming too organized and liturgical, preventing the Spirit from moving people to tongues and interpretation. As a three year poster on The Ship, I've watched the list of off-limit discussion items grow to quite a length in Dead Horses, to prevent this exact same kind of emotional and divisive discussion. I've also watched many ex-Christians wander in, talk about what they dislike in Christianity, and watched them become engulfed by assertions that they are bringing too much baggage with them, they don't really know what real Christianity really is, they have no right to feel so negatively, that their beliefs are boring heresies from 371AD, and that Christians are generally sick and tired of the ill-informed criticism they receive and the distorted stereotypes they have to contend with.
"We are One in the Spirit," we sang. "We are One in the Lord, and we pray that our Unity may one day be restored, and they'll know we are Christians by our Love." It was the only thing I sang with heartfelt worship. It ran counter to most of what was preached: they'll know we are Christians by our proclamation that God appeared in human flesh only once, via Virgin Birth, proved this historical fact with inexplicable and undeniable miracles, and promised that he will return to judge the righteous to eternal life and the backslidden, heathen, apostate, and heretic to Eternal Punishment. In the meantime, join the Real Church and oh yes, love one another as I have loved you.
It seems now that when one runs across someone genuinely motivated by love, caring, and compassion, with not much of a care for material possessions and fame, the assumption is that they are an aging hippy, a psychologist, a generic tree-hugging liberal, or a soft-headed peddler of self-help books on Oprah. When one runs across a red-faced ideologue, arguing stridently about morality, demanding strict rules and regulations regarding such, lamenting the decay of morality in all of society (inevitably rooted in the evil that pervades every fallen human heart), and above all insisting on the necessity of recognizing one religion as the correct one, the only one Truly Ordained By God, the only one that will guarantee and provide life after death, one has found a Christian.
Or an Islamic fundamentalist.
I wonder when the day will come...thirty years from now perhaps...when Dead Horses will contain every single element of Christian doctrine and the only threads in Purgatory will be about politics, with Libertarians and Socialists calling each other to Hell periodically.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Protestant churches believe in the Invisible Church, to which all Christians belong. All the wheat. Would I be right in saying that the Orthodox don't believe in an Invisible Church as a belief, but don't rule it out entirely? Is that too far?
That is, I think, going further than most of us would be comfortable going. We're willing to say that there is wheat outside the wheatfield, that you can get treatment outside the hospital, that God has mercy on whom he has mercy. But we wouldn't be willing to call those things that go on outside the Church as being also the Church.
quote:
The original meaning of ekklesia, is congregation, assembly, community. Can the Orthodox hope that all the wheat, inc those outside Orthodoxy, are in some kind of Mystical Community?
We would tend to say, I think, that we hope (and some of us believe) that all the wheat will be gathered in, no matter where it finds itself growing. But, to us, the Mystical Community is the Church.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elfed Presley:
I hazare that Josephine's admirable position may not be the view of all Orthodox Christians.
YOu're right, of course. Not necessarily that my position is admirable (although I thank you for the compliment), but that it's not universal. In Orthodoxy, we've got a narrow band of "must believe" things, and a wider band where "we all believe so," even though it's not dogma. For everything else, there are many and varied opinions.
"What about the heterodox?" is one of those questions where you find many and varied opinions. However, I think (naturally) that my opinion has solid support within Holy Tradition, that it is truly the consensus of the wisest and holiest of those who have gone before me. And so it is what I believe. And I think those (relatively few, IME) Orthodox who believe otherwise are wrong.
They would say the same of me, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elfed Presley:
However charitable one is trying to be (and I have no doubt that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic contributiors are being charitable), we cannot escape the fact that saying "This is Church" about X automatically says of not-X, "This is not-Church".
I don't believe that what you are saying here is true. It is black and white logic. It is not a fact at all, because other considerations have to be taken into account.
If I were Orthodox, I would say that I can say that the Orthodox Church is the Church based on the authority given to it. The reason I cannot say that other churches are not Church, is because only God knows for certain. To say, 'The Anglican Church is not Church' would be a statement of great arrogance because only God knows for sure. To refuse Communion to an Anglican, can be taken as a statement of 'you don't belong to the true Church.' It can also be taken as, 'we can be sure about our Church, but we're not sure about yours. For us to have Communion together, it is our firm belief that we have to be sure.'
Please correct me if I'm wrong Josephine, and thanks for your previous reply.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
We're willing to say that there is wheat outside the wheatfield, that you can get treatment outside the hospital, that God has mercy on whom he has mercy. But we wouldn't be willing to call those things that go on outside the Church as being also the Church.
But equally Orthodoxy wouldn't be willing to call those things that go on outside the Church as not being the Church?
[ 09. September 2004, 19:04: Message edited by: Priest ]
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Adam came to a town, where there were two hospital buildings, one at the top of a hill, and one at the bottom. Speaking to residents of the town, he learned that both institutions practised slightly different forms of the medicine of the great Dr White, who had lived there many years ago. But that the staff at the two sites were renowned for the rivalry between them. A number of people told him that they never went to the hospital any more, but took over-the-counter pills instead, because they were so fed up and disgusted with the "our ward is better than your ward" attitude of the patients and medical staff.
So Adam went to talk to some of the patients from the building at the bottom of the hill. He asked if this was the Town Hospital. "Only part of it," he was told. "The hospital is the sum of all the wards put together, even though each ward is managed entirely independently. Dr White said that there should only be one hospital in the town." Asking about the building at the top of the hill, he was told "Oh, that's the Old Ward. They think they're better than us. They won't even fulfil our prescriptions, if one of our patients happens to be visiting one of theirs."
The New Ward people sounded quite sincere in their desire for better relations with the other group, and quite willing to co-operate in any hospital-wide initiative.
Adam climbed the hill. "Welcome to Town Hospital" said the notice by the door of the building. "But I thought this was only the Old Ward" said Adam aloud.
"You've been talking to the people in New Ward," said a friendly patient nearby, sitting on a bench. "They have some strange ideas there. That's only a clinic, really, founded by some doctors who left the hospital due to a professional disagreement".
Adam observed that the two institutions seemed identical in function, and that to an outside observer they were two very similar hospitals. The patient acknowledged that this was true, and explained that the important difference was that Dr White had said that anyone who came to his hospital would be healed, if they wanted to be, and that believing that was part of the cure.
Adam observed that the two institutions seemed (as far as one could tell, no statistics being kept) to have similar rates of cure, although comparisons were difficult.
"Maybe," said the patient. But we have Dr White's guarantee that the only patients leaving here uncured are those who don't really want to be healed. That might not be true down there. If you go down there you're taking a risk."
"You mean that if a sick man comes here and you can't heal him, it must be because he doesn't really want to be healed. If a similar patient goes there and they can't heal him, you don't want to rule out the possibility that this is an indication that the doctors down there aren't up to much."
The patient hesitated.
Adam, perhaps unwisely, continued. "But they said they're part of Dr White's hospital, and are applying his methods as best they can. Which is the same thing that you say."
"Saying doesn't make it so," replied the patient, and Adam had to admit that in general this was true.
"So how would I, as an outside observer, judge whether only you in Old Ward, or the doctors in New Ward, or both of you equally, are following Dr White's methods ?" he asked. "Presumably I'd have to study medicine..."
Some other patients had gathered around, and nodded at this.
"... and my conclusion will depend on whether I study under an Old Ward doctor," Adam continued. The patients nodded again, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
Adam thought hard for a bit. Something told him that raising the issue of the prescriptions could wait for another day. "Isn't this a circular argument ?" he suggested tentatively. "You choose to use the word 'hospital' in a way that excludes the good doctors and nurses down there in New Ward. The reason you give for that is your interpretation of something Dr White said, which you see as applying to Old Ward and not New Ward. But you only think that because you have defined Old Ward as being the hospital...". He smiled, hopefully.
"Suppose," put in one of the other patients helpfully, "the landlord at the Rabid Ferret decided to declare that his ale is exactly what Dr White ordered, and therefore announced his licensed premises to be part of the hospital under its new trading name of 'Ward 3'. Would that make him part of the hospital ?" The other patients shook their heads. "We have to draw the line somewhere. In the absence of an objective way of doing it, you should admit that the Old Ward definition is no better or worse than the New Ward definition, and respect the views of both wards."
Adam didn't agree. "If all definitions are equally valid, then you'd have to acknowledge the landlord's definition as no worse than your own. You clearly don't believe that." He paused, aware that this first part of his argument here may be more solid than what was to follow. "The way we judge correct use of words is by reference to common usage. If it's a square-bladed digging tool we call it a spade. If it's a residential institution devoted to the practice of healing people then it's a hospital."
"Maybe," said one of the patients. "But Old Ward is still the Town Hospital with a capital TH, because that's a proper noun and not a common one, and it belongs to the institution, and when the New Ward doctors left to found New Ward they left the Town Hospital behind them".
"I imagine that the New Ward doctors would say that the doctors, nurses and other staff who left were just as much a part of the hospital as those who stayed behind. Just as when you extended your buildings on this site, those who moved into the new block remained part of the hospital, even though they were working in a building which was not formerly a hospital building."
"You've got a point," said one of the other patients, "which is why we consider the hospital to consist of all the staff who work under the authority of our director, Dr Black".
"I think we're drifting off the subject" said Adam, not wishing to get into a discussion of the merits of Dr Black's regime. "Yes, there's a legal question as to whether, under common law, both factions or only one have the legal right to use the term "Town Hospital". But the point is that, in refusing to recognise the "hospitalness" of New Ward, you are treating the staff and patients there in a way in which you would not like to be treated yourselves, in other words acting contrary to morality."
Pausing just long enough to let that sink in, while ensuring that he got the last word, Adam stood up. "Right," he said. "I'm thirsty. Which way to Ward 3 ?"
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Russ
Nice story. Do you write caricatures for a living?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
One of the remarkable innovations of Dr White, was that he always applied a poultice to whoever needed admittance to the original hospital. It didn't matter the ailment, the poultice was always applied. It passed nutrients into the patient and acted rather like a tonic.
It was interesting to note that the Old Ward, who called themselves the Town Hospital, never took off a poultice applied by the New Ward when patients from the New Ward transferred themselves to the Old Ward.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Jim - I didn't notice your last post until now. It was sandwiched between one about Cardinal Ratzinger and one with greek words in. The sensitivity on my relevence scanner must need recalibrating.
Like you I'm not hopeful about where Christianity is heading, but it seems there are always people in the mainstream churches that manage to live with the contradictions and hold on to and reflect God. While that's the case, however mind-boggling I find some of what I see and hear, I can't write them off.
As far as SoF goes, at least this thread seems to be reviving the art of story-telling. I recall someone long ago using that to good effect, so maybe that's a positive development.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
"Right," he said. "I'm thirsty. Which way to Ward 3 ?"
At the end of the day, as long as there's Ward 3...
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
The policy on the poultice was, however, a relatively recent development (discussed in a report by the Town Council of Hospitals entitled "Bedpans, Enemas and Matrons") and arose out of the generally accepted belief that, in extremis, the administration of poultice does not require a doctor. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Can the Orthodox hope that all the wheat, inc those outside Orthodoxy, are in some kind of Mystical Community?
We would tend to say, I think, that we hope (and some of us believe) that all the wheat will be gathered in, no matter where it finds itself growing. But, to us, the Mystical Community is the Church.
Having gone on at excessive length (sorry - I just get carried away sometimes) using your hospital analogy, it occurred to me that I should have paid more attention to your wheatfield analogy earlier.
If we can all agree that there are both wheat and tares both inside and outside of any particular plot of land that has been designated as a field, that's encouraging.
It seems faintly ludicrous to argue over whether there is a Mystical Communion of all the wheat, or of all the plants in the field, or of only those wheat stalks in the field. Perhaps mystical communion is poetry, and problems arise if we try to reduce it to botany...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
