|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is the Orthodox Church the One True Church?
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Erin
quote:
Would there ever be any way that the Orthodox would accept the ordination of women to the priesthood?
... and this may surprise some of you ... YES!
HOW .... Ecumenical Council. On what grounds ... more detailed investigation into the relationship between the ministerial priesthood and the Eucharist. Orthodox do not accept for example the iconic argument against the ordination of women as we have never believed that the priest stands as a mini-Vicar of Christ ... in His place so to speak. Our great High Priest himself presides at the Eucharist and this is quite clear from our liturgical texts. I don't want to open this one up again but you can see I hope how Orthodoxy does recognise that there are many things that have not as yet been fully explored. If they had we would not be here .... the New Creation would have come upon us most fully.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Out of curiosity (and note to others: this is NOT an invitation to get in here and defend your practice of X, Y or Z, go start another thread if you're interested), what are the "non-negotiables" so to speak, that other churches would HAVE to ditch in order to be in full communion with the Orthodox churches?
And, again, NOT setting the subject up for discussion, but if I were a vocal advocate of women's ordination, but found myself in agreement with everything else about the Orthodox church, would they welcome me? Or would I have to reject that belief?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
WOW. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) (We really need a "jaw-dropping" smilie... this isn't an "eek," just a gasp of astonishment.)
Fr. G, could you pop down to Dead Horses and post about this on "Priestly Genitalia"? You might help at least one Shipmate (now, who could that be?) wrestle out this issue in a satisfactory manner...
I have a question or two which I think would be good in a public forum but I'd rather not derail this thread.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Erin,
I do not consider myself to be proof-texting, but reasoning from the Scriptures. I'm not an Orthodox Christian. Before I decided to attend an Orthodox service, I researched RC and Orthodoxy. I've not been a church member for 6 years, because of all the contradictory teachings in the churches I'd been a member of, in the previous 14 years. I've been to many evangelical churches, because I moved around a lot whilst in the British military fr 12 years.
1 Tim 3:15 first showed me that Scripture is not for private interpretation, doctrinally, then it led me to pray about finding a church that I could accept as a pillar and bulwark of truth.
As for women Priests, I've heard there are some in Orthodoxy who believe the issue should be addressed.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Erin
quote:
what are the "non-negotiables" so to speak, that other churches would HAVE to ditch in order to be in full communion with the Orthodox churches?
DITCH?! That's much more difficult to answer because Orthodoxy is usually something you embrace on top of rather than in place of anything else. I really don't know. The "filioque" would have to go but that's already gone in some parts of the Anglican Communion and Eastern Rite Catholics don't have to include it. I suppose certain Christian traditions would have to ditch their opposition to certain things ... for example, Catholic rejection of concilarism and certain Protestant traditions' rejection of bishops. I suppose the most important thing the west as a whole would have to ditch is its seemingly single minded obsession with doctrinal Augustinianism .... particularly in relation to original sin, eros etc.
quote:
And, again, NOT setting the subject up for discussion, but if I were a vocal advocate of women's ordination, but found myself in agreement with everything else about the Orthodox church, would they welcome me? Or would I have to reject that belief?
welcome me ... YES
reject that belief ... NO
There are a number of prominent theologians in the Orthodox Church who are in favour of the ordination of women, (eg. Elizabeth Behr-Siegel), or at least not implacably opposed to it, (Bishop Kallistos). I am of the Bishop Kallistos tendency ... if a Council of the Orthodox Church were to approve it I would happily go along with it. ONE of the reasons I left the Church of England was because I did not believe the CofE had the authority to do it. I have never been opposed to it on principle.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear David
I don't understand ... I thought we couldn't post on Dead Horses.
Do I have to talk about my prick anyway? It usually talks to me although I try not to think with it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Erin
quote:
Would there ever be any way that the Orthodox would accept the ordination of women to the priesthood?
... and this may surprise some of you ... YES!
HOW .... Ecumenical Council. On what grounds ... more detailed investigation into the relationship between the ministerial priesthood and the Eucharist. Orthodox do not accept for example the iconic argument against the ordination of women as we have never believed that the priest stands as a mini-Vicar of Christ ... in His place so to speak. Our great High Priest himself presides at the Eucharist and this is quite clear from our liturgical texts. I don't want to open this one up again but you can see I hope how Orthodoxy does recognise that there are many things that have not as yet been fully explored. If they had we would not be here .... the New Creation would have come upon us most fully.
![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif) ![[Happy]](graemlins/happy2.gif)
Okay, not reasoned argument, but I can't help it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
*blink* No, of course we can post on Dead Horses; it's the Archive which is locked. Dead Horses is where things which have -- at the time -- gone about as far as they can wind up, but people can still talk about them there. It just keeps them from dominating the other boards. When The Morality Of Homosexuality comes up, people are directed to one of several threads there, for instance.
The thread is called "Priestly Genitalia" because it's about the ordination of women, or lack thereof. Please come down and join in -- you have some things to say I haven't seen anyone else say!
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Yes, you can post in DH. You just can't start new threads.
So let me see if I understand this correctly -- setting aside the absurdity of the picture, the Orthodox Council could, theoretically, reconcile the Orthodox Church with churches that teach the concept of rapture?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
I apologize in advance for what will surely sound like a silly question, but...
Is there something akin to Theology for Dummies? I keep reading all these arguments about the Filoque and other finer points of theology, and they just make my head hurt. I'd like to find something that puts the basic theological positions of the major Christian groups side by side and see if I can make better sense of them than I do at the moment.
I confess that I am amazed people believe they understand the nature of God so well that they can make definitive statements about what that nature can and cannot be.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Paigeb,
Here's a link which is about Orthodox beliefs.
http://www.synaxis.org/cn/stjohn/abtorthodoxy.html
If you wanted to discuss any subject with someone privately, I am willing to correspond by email or PM. I can explain Protestant beliefs, as well as Orthodox. The motto of my former College, London Bible College, is 'Understand profoundly, to explain simply.' It's been a personal motto for 6 years now.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Thank you both.
Christina--I may very well e-mail you with questions after I've done some reading. I appreciate very much your gracious offer.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Catholics have rejected conciliarism?! In my tradition, there have been councils for the last two thousand years, with one in the 1960s. The Orthodox might not consider them valid, but they're being held all right...
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Erin you naughty person. Don't play innocent with me. You know Councils can't embrace ANYTHING and you know why.
Dear Jesuitical Lad ... sure you have councils ... but the papacy is constrained by them. Indeed, they are subordinate to the papacy. The Conciliar controversies of the Miidle Ages could be replayed though. That might be interesting for the common future of both our communions.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Aw, you know what I mean...
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Erin you naughty person. Don't play innocent with me. You know Councils can't embrace ANYTHING and you know why.
I don't know why. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
Erin, for what it's worth I've converted to Orthodoxy and disagree with the Church on the issue of ordination of women and homosexuality. I'm open to them being right and me wrong on both issues, but those areas of disagreement did not seem sufficient to not join. Though since I'm not a woman, the former doesn't affect me personally (though I wouldn't say it doesn't affect me)and the latter . . . well, I just hope God knew what He was doing when He flung me through the door!
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Nothing amazing there Chastmastr ... the Councils can't approve anything which has no witness in the Tradition whatsoever. The only thing that might lie within their remit to change are matters that do not strictly lie within the faith such as those things evidenced by the natural sciences but which may have been matters of faith before ... eg., suicide. In practice though these changes come about by osmosis through the office of the bishop in concert with his brothers.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
.
Unless, someone like yourself, can answer my question, 'where, apart from Orthodoxy, can one find a Church that can be considered the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'
Christina
Have come to this 'dialogue' very late, I know but just wanted to put my twopennyworth in regarding this rather provocative statement. Speaking entirely personally, any Church which regarded itself as the pillar and bulwark of truth, I would want to immediately leave on the grounds that truth is never fully to be found where you are but where you are called to be. And a Church which does echo, paradoxically, Pilate's question to Jesus, 'what is Truth?', is a Church which, to some extent, is no longer a pilgrim Church. Too many Churches, even Orthodoxy itself, believe, too often, the journey is over. In Dogmatic terms, as in experiential terms, that caanot be 'true'. Jesus said, He will lead us into all Truth and He is still leading us. We haven't arrived yet.
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
'which does not echo', of course. Sorry !
--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'
Christopher Fry
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Nothing amazing there Chastmastr ... the Councils can't approve anything which has no witness in the Tradition whatsoever.
Oh, that sense of "anything." Yes, I see what you mean now; I thought you meant that they couldn't embrace anything whatsoever, that they couldn't commit to anything, which didn't make any sense to me. I.e., "I can't eat anything" meaning "I can eat nothing whatsoever" as opposed to "I can't eat anything" meaning "I can't just go and indiscriminately eat anything." All is clear now. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arch-:
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
.
Unless, someone like yourself, can answer my question, 'where, apart from Orthodoxy, can one find a Church that can be considered the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'
Christina
Have come to this 'dialogue' very late, I know but just wanted to put my twopennyworth in regarding this rather provocative statement. Speaking entirely personally, any Church which regarded itself as the pillar and bulwark of truth, I would want to immediately leave on the grounds that truth is never fully to be found where you are but where you are called to be. And a Church which does echo, paradoxically, Pilate's question to Jesus, 'what is Truth?', is a Church which, to some extent, is no longer a pilgrim Church. Too many Churches, even Orthodoxy itself, believe, too often, the journey is over. In Dogmatic terms, as in experiential terms, that caanot be 'true'. Jesus said, He will lead us into all Truth and He is still leading us. We haven't arrived yet.
Hi Arch,
You make a good point, and certainly the Orthodox Church is a pilgrim Church. The Orthodox teach that the Christian life involves daily repentance, aligning our will with God's. Furthermore, there is a variety of theological opinion in Orthodoxy.
Let me add something to my previous posts, which may make things clearer.
If one believes in the statement of the Nicene reed, that there is 'one holy, catholic, apostolic Church', and this Church is visible, then we can get somewhere.
Prior to the East/West split, there was a undivided, holy, catholic and apostolic church. This Catholic Church, had proved itself to be the pillar and bulwark of the truth, in its opposition to various heresies that arose. These included the Canon of Scripture, the Trinity and the Chalcedonian Statement, for example.
So, the question of which was right and wrong, in the Schism of AD1054, gives us only 2 choices. Either the Orthodox were right, or the Church of Rome was right.
The Church of Rome acted on its own, without consulting the Eastern Churches regarding Papal Jurisdiction and the Filioque clause. Were the Orthodox rebels? Or, was the Church of Rome usurping an authority, that isn't hers by right?
Here's my objections to Rome.
1. To include the Filioque Clause into the Nicene Creed, is to state that the Bishops meeting at Nicea made a mistake, they got it wrong. Furthermore, it disregarded the Collegiate way in which the Ecumenical Councils did things, and changed it into a Monarchial way of doing things.
2. The Church of Rome in teaching that Apostolic Succession is only to found in her, disregards the Ecumenical Council which declared Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as Patriarchates.
Where did Jesus first build his Church, through the ministry of Peter? Jerusalem! It wasn't Rome.
If someone doesn't believe in the Nicene Creed, about the Church, then my arguments won't sway them. If one sees the statement as applying to the invisible Church, they may not be swayed either. However, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the statement about the Church, in the Nicene Creed, was understood as the visible Catholic Church, by those involved.
Does God want his people to be in one, holy, catholic and aopostolic, visible Church? I believe so, based on John 17. The evangelisation of the world is at stake.
Does this mean everyone should now become Orthodox or RC, depending on which you believe to be the Catholic Church? Not necessarily. As I wrote to Erin, God's timing is involved.
We are not saying that those Christian who refuse to become Orthodox are reblling or sinning. I can understand people getting that feeling when they read the arguments for Orthodoxy though. The Orthodox do not judge those Christians or Churches outside her Communion. That, to me, is another sign that the Orthodox are telling the truth.
They are not acting like a cult.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
So, the question of which was right and wrong, in the Schism of AD1054, gives us only 2 choices. Either the Orthodox were right, or the Church of Rome was right.
Well, there IS another option--that BOTH of them were wrong.
Since Jesus never defined the nature of God, or spoke on the issue of the Holy Trinity, what gives "the Church" (in any way you wish to define it) the right to lay those things out as dogma and demand that people believe them on pain of eternal judgment?
I say the Nicene Creed every Sunday, but I cannot get exercised over the theological minutiae in it. I believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died for my sins. What possible difference could it make whether or not I believe that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son?" How, in my daily practice as a Christian, can that POSSIBLY matter?
Most of the discussion on this issue makes me think to myself "And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear PaigeB,
It matters because the original Creed paints a picture of the unity, or oneness of God, being the Father. If the Father is Source of the Son and the Spirit, then when we think of 'God' we think of the Father.
If we add the Filioque Clause, then the Father is not the Source of unity. When we think of 'God' we think of God's essence. We end up thinking of God as an object, rather than a Person.
After the Clause was added, Anselm, Aquinas and others, started making arguments to try and prove the existence of God. This was because of the Filioque Clause, which made them think of god as an object, whose existence can be proved. Those wo do not accept the Clause, ask, 'Why would one try and prove the existence of one's Father?'
The Filioque Clause is very subtle, and it affects the way we think of God, and that has practical outcomes. What is the result of trying to prove the existence of God by rational arguments? Atheism. Every Atheist can discount any rational argument for God's existence.
If we reject the Filioque, we can concentrate on 'taste and see that the Lord is good.'
Your comment about pains of eternal judgement, simply isn't true. In fact, many Orthodox pray and hope for the eventual salvation of all people, and even the evil spirits. Hellfire and Damnation preaching is not found in Orthodoxy. What does the Nicene Creed say? 'He will judge the living and the dead.' It says nothing of eternal torment. It can be argued that eternal punishment is actually chastisement. Sulfur or Brimstone, in the Lake of Fire, is quite significant, as it was a purifying agent, was used to prevent contagion, and the root of the word, 'sulphur' in Greek, is basically the same word as 'divine.' It seems to be a divine, purifying fire.
As for practical issues regarding an acceptance or rejection of Orthodoxy. If the Orthodox Church are right, then an invitation to become Orthodox, is like an invitation to a Rich Spiritual Banquet.
I'm a former Baptist and Protestant. The amount of spiritual teaching I have had in 14 years, in how to overcome sinful habits, etc, is almost zero. I've been living on the spirtual soup and sandwiches of legalism.
Others may be in churches where it is more like a spiritual 5-course dinner.
I'm not writing as an Orthodox Christian, I've not been Chrismated yet. My views are those of someone who been deeply hurt throughout 20 years as a Christian, outside Orthodoxy. So deeply hurt, I've had 2 spells in a psychiatric ward, once for 3 months, and once for 2 months.
Please read what I've written previously on this thread, as I have made it clear that I believe God works in other churches too.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I missed something. 1 Tim 3:15 states that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. That is why it has rights.
In my experience of Protestantism, people act as if Paul had written, 'your own private interpretation of Scripture is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'
When Protestants differ on the meaning of certain Scriptures, they tend to 'demonise' the opposition. That is, 'they're only saying that because they don't have the Holy Spirit to the same extent we do', etc.
As for BOTH being wrong. Is the Pope the leader of ALL Christians, or not? That's the claim. That's what they imposed. I cannot see how Papal claims, and an opposition to these claims, can BOTH be wrong.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
ChristinaMarie wrote
quote:
It matters because the original Creed paints a picture of the unity, or oneness of God, being the Father. If the Father is Source of the Son and the Spirit, then when we think of 'God' we think of the Father.
If we add the Filioque Clause, then the Father is not the Source of unity. When we think of 'God' we think of God's essence. We end up thinking of God as an object, rather than a Person.
I'm not sure about this at all. It strikes me as dividing the substance for a start. And also what about the three persons being co-equal?
God is three Persons surely?
the problem is that attempting to discuss the Trinity is likely to lead to problems!
quote:
After the Clause was added, Anselm, Aquinas and others, started making arguments to try and prove the existence of God. This was because of the Filioque Clause, which made them think of god as an object, whose existence can be proved. Those wo do not accept the Clause, ask, 'Why would one try and prove the existence of one's Father?'
Just because they started trying to prove God after the filioque was added doesn't mean that it was because of the addition of the filioque. I think that it was related to other things. Perhaps the over dependence on Greek philosophy rather than our Jewish heritage.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Just a quick note to say that the Catholic Church recognises apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Carys
Whilst leaving 99% of Christina's points and your reply to her I should like to pick this one up and run with it ...
quote:
Just because they started trying to prove God after the filioque was added doesn't mean that it was because of the addition of the filioque. I think that it was related to other things. Perhaps the over dependence on Greek philosophy rather than our Jewish heritage.
As Augustinianism started to permeate the western Church more deeply his non-realist treatment of hypostases as "relations" gave priority to the divine "substance" as the defining characteristic of God. The "internal relations" approach to the Trinity is part and parcel of the filioque issue. Once the monarchy of the Father has been compromised, precious little distinctiveness can be ascribed to the hypostases. The essence / substance / consubstantiality of God moves to centre stage and the door is then opened to philosophic reflection on the nature of God rather than experiential. Inevitably after the Renaissance the west would hunt around for passing bits of Greek philosophy to serve this end .... Greek philosophy had been expunged from the Greek / East Roman Church centuries before in the legacy of the great cappadocian fathers, St. Basil and the two St. Gregory's (Nazianzus & Nyssa). Residual Neo-Platonism were dying embers by then. Greek philosophy had no future in the Greek Church because it retained the mystical and experiential dimension of its theology. In the post-filioqwue Augustinian tradition, however, scholasticism was already beginning to take root ... because the soil was already conducive to its growth. From then on, as Christina as pointed out it's but a short transition to claims and counter claims concerning Reason, the Enlightenment and reactive German Idealism / pietism.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
On the thread about Fr Gregory, that was closed, you made a snide comment about me having the arrogance of a young convert. I can agree that I was displaying the zealousness of a young convert, but to call me arrogant, is a moral value judgement, and as arrogance is a sin, you were calling me sinful.
quote:
And in another post:
It's not just the fact that we don't have much common ground, it is the fact that he responded to my post in another thread, with a very snide comment. I do not trust him, to argue rationally. I don't want another Ad Hominem attack, thank you very much. It isn't pleasant being insulted. Once bitten, twice shy.
I believe that my exact words were, "the touchingly arrogant confidence of the new convert", which certainly to me is not at all equivalent to simply calling you 'arrogant' or 'sinful'. And you are right that it is a value judgement. According to my understanding 'arrogance' relates to an attitude of superiority or presumption and it seemed to me that there was certainly at least elements of that in the particular phrase I was calling you on: quote:
There's only one option left, the Orthodox. They are the only church on the planet that have not added to what the undivided Church taught, or taken away from.
Furthermore, the post in question was in Hell, and was in response to a post by you in Hell. Of course you know that Hell is specifically a place for rants, complaints and personal arguments. To quote the Hell guidelines, "by starting a thread in Hell, you are drawing a large bullseye on your chest. Or, to switch metaphors: if you can't take the heat, stay outta the kitchen."
I certainly don't believe, on the basis of a post in Hell, that you have any warrant for assuming that I am either incapable of or will choose not to argue rationally in Purgatory. Was there anything irrational about my post on this thread?
quote:
You have stated in a thread you started, all the things you DON'T believe in. This includes the existence of angels and demons for one thing.
You put your own understanding, above Tradition and Scripture, do you not? Your liberal views are rejected by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, are they not?
Let me again begin by pointing out that my post, which you kindly duplicated on this thread, was made in Hell, place of rants etc, and as the rest of the thread pointed out was of semi-humorous intent. It is probably not a good idea to base your entire understanding of someone's theological framework on a shorthand description of it posted in a rant in hell.
In any case, you are incorrect in your first contention. I do not put my own understanding above Tradition and Scripture. If you really wish to know, I am quite happy to affirm the Scriptures as "the Supreme authority for faith and conduct"; understanding (reason) is one of the primary tools used in accessing and interpreting that Supreme authority; tradition is the context in which such access and interpretation takes place.
Furthermore, as to your second contention, with the exception of my view of the Virgin Birth, I do not believe that any of the other views expressed contradict the great ecumenical creeds which you seem to set such stock by. And I doubt that there is even one of my expressed views which does not have significant support from first rank theologians and scholars within most parts of the Christian tradition.
quote:
I ask you to consider, that you may be behaving arrogantly.
If so, you are at liberty to give rational arguments as to why this is so, here in Purgatory; or to have a moan about it in Hell. I encourage you to do either of the above.
quote:
As for your questions, we do not have enough common ground for me to respect your theology, therefore, I will not bother. I'm only interested in trying to persuade those who have some respect for Scripture and Tradition. Unless, someone like yourself, can answer my question, 'where, apart from Orthodoxy, can one find a Church that can be considered the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'
This is of course your prerogative, but since ISTM that my questions were reasonable ones, it does little to persuade me (and perhaps others) of the merits of the Orthodox position.
Finally, your question about a church 'apart from Orthodoxy, that can be considered the pillar and bulwark of the truth' makes little sense at all to me since it seems to have ripped 1 Tim 3:15 entirely out of its context. From the epistle, Paul (or whoever) desires the church in Ephesus to teach correct doctrine, and to live godly lives, since the household of God is the pillar and foundation of truth. The clear implication is that in fact the church at Ephesus has not been acting as pillar and foundation of truth, but that it ought to. Paul is not referring to some monolithic entity which is and will be the pillar and foundation of truth, rather he is drawing a picture of the way the true Church of Christ is, in order to exhort the Ephesians to conform to that pattern. If the metaphor has any concrete referent at all, IMO it is to the eschatalogical and universal church.
And one last thing, to Fr Gregory, who said: quote:
If someone (for example only) doesn't believe that God intervenes in the natural order; it's no use arging Chalcedon with such a person.
I am so glad that you said 'for example only', because if this was aimed at me it is wide of the mark. A quip in Hell to the effect that I do not believe in an 'interventionist' God does not mean that I do not have a more nuanced position which involves God's activity within the world.
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Lincz,
You're quite correct about taking your statements in Hell and arguing about them here. I do apologise for that. I've calmed down now, and wish by-gones, be by-gones. I retract everything I stated about why I didn't want to discuss with you, and apologise.
Most of the time, I'm good humoured, but sometimes I get angry and express it. I shouldn't have done, in your case. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'll get back to you later about the points you've made.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
If we add the Filioque Clause...we end up thinking of God as an object, rather than a Person.
Speak for yourself, please. As someone who never even heard the Nicene Creed until I was nearly in my 30s (I grew up in a fundamentalist church in the American South), I cannot claim to have been corrupted by it. I don't believe God is a "Person" anymore than I believe that God is an "object." God just IS. I alternate between amusement and annoyance with those who make claims about the nature of God.
quote:
After the Clause was added, Anselm, Aquinas and others, started making arguments to try and prove the existence of God. This was because of the Filioque Clause, which made them think of god as an object, whose existence can be proved.
And how, precisely, do their claims differ from the Orthodox claim that the nature of God is X? It seems to me that neither side has a monopoly on trying to "prove" things.
And when I said that BOTH sides might have it wrong, I meant in their understanding of the nature of God. RC's say one thing, Orthodox say another, Protestants say another. My view is that none of them have the whole picture, and for any one of them to claim they do is arrogance of the highest degree.
quote:
If we reject the Filioque, we can concentrate on 'taste and see that the Lord is good.'
I guess my position is that the Filioque really doesn't mean squat to me in my daily life. I don't have to reject it to concentrate on 'taste and see that the Lord is good.' Nor do I live and die by it--I live and die by my faith in Christ crucified.
quote:
Your comment about pains of eternal judgement, simply isn't true.
If it is true that the Orthodox Church is the "one true Church," then this would seem to be the logical result--even if, for whatever reason, you don't want to go that far.
quote:
As for practical issues regarding an acceptance or rejection of Orthodoxy. If the Orthodox Church are right, then an invitation to become Orthodox, is like an invitation to a Rich Spiritual Banquet.
I'm glad it feels that way to you. I believe one's relationship with a faith community SHOULD feel that way. But do you really think that non-Orthodox Christians don't feel the same way about their faith communities? And do you TRULY assume that the Nicene Creed affects the Banquet in any substantive way?
The bottom line for me is that no Creed, no Church, and no human being can adequately define the nature of God or pin God down into a concise statement. God is a Mystery--and a beautiful one, at that. Trying to spell out the precise nature of that Mystery seems, to me, to be missing the point entirely.
Although I confess it is an interesting way to spend a Saturday morning! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[fixed UBB for quotes]
[ 12. October 2002, 16:11: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Well, clearly I need more work on my UBB code! Apologies to all.
(It's a shame that my 50th post has to be one that acknowledges my ignorance about how to post a quote appropriately... )
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Lincz et al,
1 Timothy 3
Overseers and Deacons
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[1] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11In the same way, their wives[2] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
It seems to me, that Paul is giving instructions on how people should behave in the church of God. The church, literally translated, would be 'assembly.' Paul is saying, 'here's how various people should be in ANY Christian Assembly, I'm telling you by letter, because I may be delayed.'
I conclude that my points regarding the Assembly being the pillar and foundation, are well within the context of the passage.
Anyone reading the Church History of the first 500 years, will read the story of how these Assemblies PROVED beyond reasonable doubt, that they acted communally, as the pillar and foundation of the truth.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
PaigeB,
Whoa! The Orthodox and the RCC teach that God is a Mystery. A mystery is something that God has revealed something about, but NOT the whole picture.
You keep making accusations that aren't true.
Jesus stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. He didn't state: 'and the Son.'
Frankly, as a former fundamentalist myself, I say this. Christian fundamentalism not only is nothing like the Christianity of the Early Church, there's a hell of a lot of spiritual and mental abuse that goes on in it. All that hellfire and damnation preaching they do, is one of the major causes of turning people off Christ.
The Early Church taught that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. They didn't dicate to Him, that He has to damn people for eternity, annihilate them, or eventually save them all. Those are the 3 theological opinions as to what will happen to the wicked.
I know that there are fundamentalists who are godly and loving people, but I sincerely believe that that is despite their fundamentalism.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Lincz,
I've just re-read my posts on the Fr Gregory thread. This is the post you made your comment about my 'touching arrogance of a new convert.'
"That's how I used to feel about Fr Gregory's posts, and I commented in a post about how the Orthodox websites came across as arrogant, in their claims to be the true Catholic Church. His response was 'supposing it is true though, would it be arrogant then?'
This spurred me on to do more research regarding Orthodoxy, and now, I'm attending an Orthodox Church as an Explorer. I'm very happy there, and feel I've come home at last, after 20 years of confusion in free church Protestantism.
Paul wrote in 1 Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Ask yourselves this question. Which Church?
I respect Anglicanism, but I cannot see it as the pillar and bulwark of the truth, it is far too broad for that.
I respect RCism, but I do not believe in the Filioque, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.
There's only one option left, the Orthodox. They are the only church on the planet that have not added to what the undivided Church taught, or taken away from.
Sure, it sounds arrogant, that the Orthodox claim to be the true Church. Was Jesus arrogant when He said He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father, except through Him?
In Christ,
Christina"
Was that arrogant, really? Of course you quoted me out of context, didn't you? You only quoted this bit:
"There's only one option left, the Orthodox. They are the only church on the planet that have not added to what the undivided Church taught, or taken away from."
Yes, you judged me arrogant, by taking comments completely out of context. I feel you're trying to play mind-games.
Christina
"
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I retract everything I stated about why I didn't want to discuss with you, and apologise.
Your gracious apology is accepted, and I in turn am sorry that I offended you.
quote:
It seems to me, that Paul is giving instructions on how people should behave in the church of God. The church, literally translated, would be 'assembly.' Paul is saying, 'here's how various people should be in ANY Christian Assembly, I'm telling you by letter, because I may be delayed.'
I agree with this entirely.
quote:
I conclude that my points regarding the Assembly being the pillar and foundation, are well within the context of the passage.
Here you jump from 'ANY Christian Assembly' to 'the Assembly'. I'm not sure that this is a logically valid move.
quote:
Anyone reading the Church History of the first 500 years, will read the story of how these Assemblies PROVED beyond reasonable doubt, that they acted communally, as the pillar and foundation of the truth.
I am not enough of an expert on the Ecumenical Councils to debate in detail whether all of their pronouncements might be seen as being 'the pillar and foundation of the truth'. Let us assume for the sake of argument that it is so.
All this shows is that they were instances of particular Assemblies which were acting according to the pattern referred to by Paul. It does not logically follow that other Assemblies (arguably including the Synod of Toledo, at which the 'filioque' clause was added) are not equally acting as the 'pillar and foundation of truth'.
The only basis for arguing for a priority of the Ecumenical Councils stems from their very ecumenicity, but this is quite alien to Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 3. We may well feel that the Ecumenical creeds represent a touchstone of central Christian belief (as indeed I myself do). This does not allow us to invalidate the idea that any Assembly which holds to the truths of the gospel (including the Ecumenical Creeds) is thereby acting as the 'pillar and foundation of truth'. Thus, if my local Anglican, Baptist or URC church is acting according to Paul's model, what motivation do I have to leave it for Orthodoxy?
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
ChristinaMarie said
It seems to me, that Paul is giving instructions on how people should behave in the church of God. The church, literally translated, would be 'assembly.' Paul is saying, 'here's how various people should be in ANY Christian Assembly, I'm telling you by letter, because I may be delayed.'
Fine and dandy.
The link to to the next statement is impossible to follow(I thought Jesus was the foundation of the church).
quote:
I conclude that my points regarding the Assembly being the pillar and foundation, are well within the context of the passage.
To answer the question on this thread 'Is the Orthodox Church the One True Church?' if the answer is yes then the rest of us are apostate and are not 'church'.
If the answer is no then they are apostate to some extent.
The most likely answer is that they are part of the 'one true church' as are many other christian groups. This fits in with the empirical evidence of the Holy spirit and faith in Jesus being found in other assemblies which are the key marks of 'church'.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from Christina Marie:
quote:
When Protestants differ on the meaning of certain Scriptures, they tend to 'demonise' the opposition. That is, 'they're only saying that because they don't have the Holy Spirit to the same extent we do', etc.
Christina, the words you have quoted from Protestants you object to (and i object to that attitude mightily!) is equivalent to any church saying, "We are the one, true Church" - and labeling differing beliefs heretical.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
PaigeB,
Whoa! The Orthodox and the RCC teach that God is a Mystery. A mystery is something that God has revealed something about, but NOT the whole picture.
You keep making accusations that aren't true.
But I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. Merely noting that any attempt by "the Church" or individuals to pin God down into a statement is doomed to failure because we simply do not--nay CANNOT--know the nature of God.
And this is why I cannot get into a lather over the Creed. And why I do not feel compelled to find the "one true Church" because I do not believe such a thing exists.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Lincz and Nightlamp,
Lincz, if you haven't read the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and have been ignorant of the claims of Orthodoxy, through no fault of your own, then one should seek to do God's will and obey one's conscience. However, we are to INFORM our conciences too. Therefore, you specifically, after entering a bit of a debate about the claims of Orthodoxy, MAY be culpable, if you don't inform yourself of what the 7 Ecumenical Councils were about. We need to make INFORMED decisions.
Nightlamp, have you read the whole thread, as I've posted about the other churches, and it is hard to see how you can use 'apostate' terminology if you've follwed what I and Fr Gregory have written previously.
I personally, see it this way. The Orthodox have the fulness of the Christian Faith. The more another church teaches what the undivided did, as dogma, then the more truth they have.
When it comes to Anglicanism, my own opinion is, that those Anglicans who are like CS Lewis, in their beliefs, are very close to Orthodoxy.
Now the doctrine is settled in my mind, the main reason I want to be Orthodox, is to be set free from the power of sin in my life. The Orthodox emphasise that the Church is a Hospital for sinners, and that we are partakers in the divine nature, which will grow in us, the more we exercise ourselves, with God's grace, towards spiritual growth. I've had much divine healing, as God has led me, outside any church for 6 years, now it is time for some communal healing.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Dear PaigeB,
It matters because the original Creed paints a picture of the unity, or oneness of God, being the Father. If the Father is Source of the Son and the Spirit, then when we think of 'God' we think of the Father.
Christina
But here is an example, Christina, where there has been continuing reflection over the centuries as to the essential nature of the Trinity which has real implications for trinitarian practice as Christians. Many have commented that Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if co-equal and co-eternal, are not only relational in the economy of salvation but also in the very nature of their relationship one with another. Each defines The Other as Each is different from the Other and in this mutuality of definition and difference is found their One-Ness. Therefore, the Father cannot be seen as the source of their Unity because all three are co-equal and co-eternal.There relationality is the source of their unity which, I believe, has radical implications for the nature of community and the Christian life.
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracia:
from Christina Marie:
quote:
When Protestants differ on the meaning of certain Scriptures, they tend to 'demonise' the opposition. That is, 'they're only saying that because they don't have the Holy Spirit to the same extent we do', etc.
Christina, the words you have quoted from Protestants you object to (and i object to that attitude mightily!) is equivalent to any church saying, "We are the one, true Church" - and labeling differing beliefs heretical.
Dear Gracia,
No, it isn't. The Orthodox do not judge other churches. Neither do they deny that God is at work in them. You seem to be interpreting the claim, as a monopoly. It is not a monopoly of the truth issue, it is a question of fulness.
I've read many books by Protestants, that demonise the opposition, particulary fundamentalist writers, and Creationists. I've read and heard statements that 'Baptists don't love their children.' by those who believe in Infant Baptism. I didn't state that all Protestants are like that, but in my experience, it is true of where I've been and what I've read.
Have you ever read a book by a Cessationist?
Have you ever read the Evangelical Times?
If I stated that the 'reason why this Protestant won't convert to Orthodoxy, is because they are not serious about following God's will', I would be using 'demonisation' arguments. I don't do that though, and neither do the Orthodox, apart from certain extremists. I have written previously, that God's timing is important.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arch-:
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Dear PaigeB,
It matters because the original Creed paints a picture of the unity, or oneness of God, being the Father. If the Father is Source of the Son and the Spirit, then when we think of 'God' we think of the Father.
Christina
But here is an example, Christina, where there has been continuing reflection over the centuries as to the essential nature of the Trinity which has real implications for trinitarian practice as Christians. Many have commented that Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if co-equal and co-eternal, are not only relational in the economy of salvation but also in the very nature of their relationship one with another. Each defines The Other as Each is different from the Other and in this mutuality of definition and difference is found their One-Ness. Therefore, the Father cannot be seen as the source of their Unity because all three are co-equal and co-eternal.There relationality is the source of their unity which, I believe, has radical implications for the nature of community and the Christian life.
Dear Arch,
Co-equal and co-eternal refer to the fact that each is equally God, I believe. The Father has a role of Source, the Son of Mediator and the Holy Spirit as Power or Applicator. Like a wife sees her husband as the head, in their relationship, so Jesus sees the Father. In 1 Cor 15, Christ will hand over all things to the Father, and God will become All in All.
Paul states 'one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.' So, it seems to me that Paul saw the Father, primarily as God. Is there any Scripture that states, 'God the Son'?
The Orthodox, it seems to me, are following Paul on this, when they think of God, they think of the Father. They also think of God is Love, and that the Persons are in an eternal love relationship.
In 99, I had a mystical experience of the Trinity. All the time, I was aware of the Unity of the Godhead, but to the forefront of my mind and heart, came the Father, and I was lost in adoration, then He went, and was replaced by the Son, and I was adoring Jesus, then He went and the Holy Spirit revealed Himself, and I was adoring the Holy Spirit. I cannot explain how I knew the Father was the Father, the Son was the Son, or the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit. I just knew, and they were different, but I can't explain how I knew they were different.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I was only trying to make the point that there are three answers to the opening question ''Is the Orthodox Church the One True Church?
And they are yes or no or part of.
No other answer is really possible and from reading the posts the answer held by the Orhtodox is exactly the same as mine the Orhtodox faith is part of the 'the one true church' along with many other of gods assmeblies. But Fr Gregory does not want to say that but neither does he want to say other churches are apostate.
What i find intresting is that a major part of the orhtodox faith rests on the premis that the church was undivided before 1054. The concept of a monotholic united faith prior to 1054 is a myth but obviously a very powerful one. It is not that different from evangelical churches who want to get back to how it was in the beginning of the church.
Christinamarie you have not answered my other question with regards to the leap you make argument of timothy.
PS I have followed Fr Gregory's 'discussion' on this subject a number of times.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Nightlamp,
Sorry.
The link to to the next statement is impossible to follow(I thought Jesus was the foundation of the church).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I conclude that my points regarding the Assembly being the pillar and foundation, are well within the context of the passage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got the passage from biblegateway, and its default Bible is the NIV. It is not foundation, but bulwark. Bulwark is the word I've used on the other posts. A bulwark is a wall or other structure, used as a fortification.
So, from Church history, the Catholic Church in Ecumenical Council was acting as a bulwark against the false teachings of Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. That's how I see it, feel free to differ.
Is it not reasonable to argue that we need to discover our common ground, so that we can all be one Catholic Church again, as I believe, Jesus wants? Is it not reasonable to argue, that we go back to the teaching of the undivided Church, immediately prior to the East / West schism? I think it is.
Once unity is achieved, we can then hold Ecumenical Councils over various issues, that are at this present time, dividing us.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Just a quick note to say that the Catholic Church recognises apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church.
And the Anglican Communion recognizes it in both the Roman Catholic Church AND the various Orthodox bodies.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I'm picking up on the continuing appearance of the Augustinian idea that the Persons in their coequal consubstantiality are only differentiated by their relations. Relations with, I submit, insubstantial ontological grounding (save in the common essence) and distinction without division resemble the smile of the Cheshire Cat. Where's the cat? Or can we only talk of "catness."
We know the hypostases as Father, Son and Holy Spirit because of the economy of salvation and our experience of that, (as when Jesus prays the "Our Father" and I pray it). I don't pray to "Godness" and then try and fit the Trinity round that. Similarly with the Father. His monarchy is attested in Scripture and this should condition my experience as well. In praying to the Son I am enterring the movement of the Son to the Father and the Father to the Son. In praying to the Spirit I am enterring the movement of Spirit from the Father resting on the Son (and on me) ... correspondingly, also I am praying in the Spirit from the Father to be transformed into the image of the Son, deification. No amount of philosophical rambling about oneness and substance can deliver the goods on this one. God's substance is forever closed to us and completely shrouded in His transcendent mystery. We know though that he is Triune because of his loved poured out for us in the sending of the Son and the outpouring of the Spirit FROM THE FATHER.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
PaigeB, I agree about not being able to pin God down!
ChristinaMarie, I'm very glad that you found something that works so well for you!
Now, a question for those who believe we can/should have one agreed-upon faith, whether by going back to certain things, holding ecumenical councils, and the like:
Please--why do you think this would work????
Why do you think it would be a good idea????
![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
We are *always* going to have different ideas on things. No matter what the basis of putting the Church back together in a visible (and organizational?) way), there will *always* be people who disagree--therefore, there will always be people shut out.
I don't see that ecumenical councils will fix anything. Even people of good will, earnestly seeking God's guidance, can come up with different ideas. And, as the proposed council has been posited on various threads, certain groups would be shut out from the beginning.
If we try to visibly put the church back together, we'd have to:
- Give up things we truly believe
- Lie/pretend/keep silent, and believe them anyway
- Suddenly have an absolute unity of belief that has never occured in the entire history of Christianity
I'd really like to know!
I think that unity of spirit--heck, *simple kindness*--is far more important. I think non-Christians are far more put off by our eternal wrangling than they are by the different flavors of Christianity.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
