|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is the Orthodox Church the One True Church?
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Golden Key
Unity will not come by force but by a long process of dialogue and consensual convergence / resolution of disputed issues. This consensus will not be achieved by anyone being constrained to give up or concede on anything genuinely believed to be good or true.
To say that unity can't be achieved because it is too difficult to achieve this way is a counsel of despair and a violation of the command of Christ in John 17, (you have not said this I know but it is sometimes the next step in the argument with some people).
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Golden Key
Unity will not come by force but by a long process of dialogue and consensual convergence / resolution of disputed issues. This consensus will not be achieved by anyone being constrained to give up or concede on anything genuinely believed to be good or true.
But if no one has to give up "anything genuinely believed to be good or true", then what would be the "resolution of disputed issues"?
To say that unity can't be achieved because it is too difficult to achieve this way is a counsel of despair and a violation of the command of Christ in John 17, (you have not said this I know but it is sometimes the next step in the argument with some people).
I'm saying that the *kind* of unity you propose is impossible.
As I and others have said over and over, here and on other threads, but it's never addressed:
It's *treating each other badly* that's wrong. *That's* what needs to be fixed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Paul is writing to timothy about the management of the local church and from this you leap to talking about the ecumenical councils acting as a Bulwark against heresy. There is no real link between these two things.
I agree that the purpose of the Ecumenical councils was to oppose various heresies. The fault that crept into the church (I am aware for good anti-heresy reasons) and is still found in many Episcopal Church groups is the centring of power on the bishop and the priest.
The biblical writers never seemed to have imagined the possibility of one structurally united church. They seemed to have expected a diverse range of churches expressing different approaches to God from the charismatic of Corinth to the Liturgical nuts in Jerusalem but all sharing Christ as saviour. In the second century it appears that in many cases a Bishop ect was only one whilst he was in a particular post and ceased to be one when they moved.
What has always intrigued me is that it is likely that the word presbyter originated as the name for the elected leader of a guild. I believe that Paul always imagined that presbyters (priest) would come from the people and not be appointed by a Bishop.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Golden Key
I don't share your pessimism nor do I consider it licit or justifiable. Just because humans have screwed up in the past that doesn't absolve us from faithfulness to a divine command now.
Dear Nightlamp
No act of Christian disunity I am aware of in the first Millenium arose from the role of bishop, priest and deacon per se. Your other comments are unexceptional. That understanding of being a bishop or presbyter in one place and having the approbation of the people is still practised by the Orthodox Church today.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Golden Key
I don't share your pessimism nor do I consider it licit or justifiable. Just because humans have screwed up in the past that doesn't absolve us from faithfulness to a divine command now.
...but you're *still* not addressing the issue of the *kind* of unity. And, FWIW, you skip that every time I bring it up. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
"Paul is writing to timothy about the management of the local church and from this you leap to talking about the ecumenical councils acting as a Bulwark against heresy. There is no real link between these two things."
Okay, let's imagine I'm wrong and it applies to any local assembly, church.
Please explain how churches that teach Infant Baptism, Believer's Baptism, Transubstantiation and the other substantians, Amillleniallism, Pre-Millenialism, Post- milleniulism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholocity, Anabaptist Trail of Blood Theory, Eternal Damantion, Annihilation, Universal Reconciliation, Jesus is God as well as Man, Jesus is not God, the Holy Spirit is a Person, the Holy Spirit is a Power, etc, etc, etc.
The reality is, that all these things are held by various churches, as statements of faith, and there are many more. If one cannot apply what Paul said to the congregations in Ecumeniacal Council, it only applies to local churches, which ones? They teach contradictory things! Who can find a local church that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, outside the Catholic churches?
Paul's intructions to Timothy, were not just for one particular local church, but for any that Timothy had dealings with. If I stated, 'when you enter the Orthodox church, you'll find candles in a box as you walk in. Take one and light it.'
That applies to each and any local Orthodox church, just as Paul's instructions did. Therefore, it fits in with my Orthodox Catholic understanding.
Fr Gregory, could you help out on this one please?
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by golden_key:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Golden Key
I don't share your pessimism nor do I consider it licit or justifiable. Just because humans have screwed up in the past that doesn't absolve us from faithfulness to a divine command now.
...but you're *still* not addressing the issue of the *kind* of unity. And, FWIW, you skip that every time I bring it up.
Dear Golden-Key,
Thanks for your kind comment.
Jesus wanted unity so that the world would believe in Him. Therefore, it cannot just be a nice attitude towards everyone. It has to be such, that the world will recognise.
Many unbelievers dismiss the claims of Christ, because the churches can't agree on doctrine. Just as Jesus said, we have to be one, visibly, for the world to believe.
Have you read the 7 Ecumenical Councils?
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Where's Ham n Eggs? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
C'mon, you started this, what's your response? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Paul's instructions to timothy were about how to manage a local church. They have been appropriated by the church by being put into the Canon as being valid for the church in its various local contexts. i still see no linkage between them and the ecumenical councils?
So In the orthodox church when a priest leaves a congregation he is no longer a priest until another local congregation accepts them?
quote:
Fr gregory said No act of Christian disunity I am aware of in the first Millenium arose from the role of bishop, priest and deacon per
I never said it did. What I meant was the result of the church emphasising the role of the bishop as defender against heresy and also being the prophet (response to the Montanism) led to the power of the church being focused in the approved people, Bishops, priest ect. This is a major fault in many Episcopal ecclesiologies where authority does not lie in the people of God but in the bishops and priests as those who understand the tradition.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Everyone Who Has Recently Posted ... I am trying for a succinct set of comments on the points variously raised.
(1) Unity is organic. It is an identifiable body in one place in full structural and relational unity with all other bodies elsewhere. One bishop, one city; (we I admit are a long way from that!) The NT knows nothing of denominations. It speaks of the Church in Galatia, the Church in Corinth, the Church in Jerusalem. He moves easily between them because they are one Church and accept each other in interchangeable and organic relations .... simply a structural unity, not merely tolerant congregationalism.
(2) Mutually contradictory teachings and practices cannot be features One Church in unity with itself. Tolerance is good but it's not unity. It's "you do your thing and I'll do my thing."
(3) No linkage between congregations and councils ... what about the first apostolic council in Jerusalem (Acts 15)?
(4) Sorry ... that's not the case in the Orthodox Church. The most prominent theologians in the eastern tradition have often been laypeople or non-ordained monks. Great bishops have also been great theologians and defenders of the truth but not by virtue of their office alone. The Council of Chalcedon specified that if one's bishop embraces heresy by teaching it you leave his communion immediately and seek out the nearest Orthodox bishop. No monarchical episcopacy here.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Nightlamp,
Did you read my previous post which explained that the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, had to be accepted by the laity? The laity (the assembly) has the authority, as the pillar and bulwark, to reject the decisions of Bishops. Obviously, it is the leaders who have to be involved in debates, but the laity have to decide whether to accept or reject. In Orthodoxy, the power is in the community of people.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Where's Ham n Eggs?
C'mon, you started this, what's your response?
Christina
My head hurst! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
There have been many useful contributions to this thread. Thank you to everyone who has taken part.
It seems to me that the OP was most directly addressed by Father Gregory:
quote:
Each CHRISTIAN Church has indeed different criteria for judging where truth may be found. It's the CRITERIA we ought to discuss, not the claims.
So, adopting this approach, the OP could be answered by saying:
Using the Orthodox criteria for judging where truth may be found, the Orthodox Church is the true Church, and the claims of other churches cannot be verified.
Is this an accurate and complete answer?
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Thanks for your kind comment.
I've been on my own rough path, and know how important the search for Home is. ![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
Jesus wanted unity so that the world would believe in Him. Therefore, it cannot just be a nice attitude towards everyone. It has to be such, that the world will recognise.
...I'm thinking more in terms of "they'll know we are Christians by our love". We can disagree 'til the cows come home--but do we treat each other in a healthy way, with love???
I think there's already a de facto unity because we're Christians. We're not united in all--or most!--of our ideas. But if we can love each other *in spite* of that, *then* we have something to show the world.
And, as a tangent, my opinion is that Eucharist/Communion is a "sacrament" of unity, and should be open to all Christians, no matter what their affiliations.
Otherwise, we're kind of like the old poem:
Boston, the home of
The bean and the cod,
Where the Coles talk only to Cabots,
And the Cabots talk only to God.
(The Coles and Cabots being prominent Boston families.)
Have you read the 7 Ecumenical Councils?
I read at least some of them a long time ago.
I should perhaps explain that I've been on a
l-o-n-g, winding journey, including (but not limited to): nondenominational fund. (for *me*, mostly a good experience), assorted mainstream Protestant churches; liturgical churches; charismatic groups; Taize prayer; retreats;, vast amounts of reading (including a good deal of Orthodox; I'm expecially fond of "Way of a Pilgrim"); exploring various and sundry other faiths (and drawing on any truth I find there); and finding God in nature.
For me at this time, the formal stuff is unimportant. I'm more interested in down-in-the-trenches, how-to-survive-and heal spirituality.
There's a saying that circulates among folks in similar situations. And I'm saying it ONLY to emphasize the second half of it, and explain where *I* am:
"Religion is for those who are afraid of hell;
Spirituality is for those who've been there."
Again, I'm not at all attempting put down where anyone else is! I'm just explaining where *i* am, and why some things are more/less important for me than others.
--------------------
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
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
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.
That sounds suspiciously like theological monarchism with the 'Fatherhood' of God ultimately and essentially prior to the 'Sonship' and the 'Spirit of God'. This does not do justice to a fully trinitarian understanding where 'Fatherhood', 'Sonship' and 'Spirit' are co-eternal and radically co-equal, where each is defined by the essential relations one with another. These Three are One.
--------------------
'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
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Wow!
I don't feel like you put me down at all, I feel a kindred spirit. Our stories are very similar indeed. I've spent at total of 5 months on a psychiatric ward, 3 months first time, 2 months second. I still have manic depression.
Hell is being on Haldol. You're coninually restless, but stay in the same place for more than 10 seconds.
I agree about love, I just think there's more required.
We can agree to disagree, in love, yes?
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ham 'n Eggs
quote:
Using the Orthodox criteria for judging where truth may be found, the Orthodox Church is the true Church, and the claims of other churches cannot be verified.
No silly, that would be to prejudge the whole enterprise. You might want me to do that to provide you with an easy target but it's not actually what Orthodox believe when they participate in ecumenism, (nor for that Catholics because in THIS they have a similar approach). We want a genuine open ended discussion on what those criteria should be.
Dear Arch
The monarchy of the Father has an Orthodox biblical interpretation where the procession and generation is eternal and an heretical Arian / Pneumatochian version where the ontology is ranked or the economy temporally successive. The Cappadocians brought all this together but none of them sacrificed the monarchy of the Father in the process. As I said, the hypostases are not MERELY the relations. They are ontologically distinguishable centres of being (trying for a simile) but share attributes and coordinate actions by mutual participation / circumcession. The unity of the godhead is in the shared essence by which all 3 hypostases are utterly coequal. The dynamic of the economy, however, must respect the monarchy of the Father or else surrender its biblical integrity.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Christinamaria said Did you read my previous post which explained that the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, had to be accepted by the laity? The laity
I read it and completely failed to link it with any historical events. In Nicea (the first one) the the 300 odd bishops all agreed to a Creed and the few who didn't were cast out. There was no dashing off to check with the people to see if they agreed with the nicene creed. I know other things were agreed at the first ecumenical council.
Please point me in the general direction of a site that points out my error.
quote:
Fr Gregory said (3) No linkage between congregations and councils ... what about the first apostolic council in Jerusalem (Acts 15)?
Is the answer to my debate over the use of Timothy? sorry i was talking about Timothy.
quote:
Fr Gregory said the Church in Jerusalem. He moves easily between them because they are one Church and accept each other in interchangeable and organic relations .... simply a structural unity,
I agree with you up to the point of 'structual unity' there appears in the early church to be no common structural unity ie common understanding of what Bishop presbyter. Any way what do you mean by Structural unity?
It occus to me that the Orthodoxy considers that it harkens back to the time when there was free acceptance of ministry ect and there was simply the church at what ever place. This of course explains the distaste that is shown to the pope when he goes into Orhtodox areas of Eastern Europe for there is no reason to come here we have the church here already.
To follow the logic of rejecting denominationalism it would mean saying well I see the marks of the true church (either roman Catholic or Anglican in that place)so there is no point in being in competition with them for that would be going against the nature of church.
There is logic in setting up churches in other areas if they do not see the marks of the true church in those places already.
The orthodox by putting local congregations in the West are either accepting the branch theology of the church (denominationaism) or saying that they do not see the the marks of the true church present in a given place.
--------------------
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
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I believe the a fully explored doctrine of the trinity does acknowledge that the ontological essence of personhood or hypostases is in relationality and the inevitable processions that flow from such relations. I think this does challenge the idea that adhering to biblical integrity demands remaining faithful to the monarch of the 'Father', a 'Father' who is 'Father' only because of his relation to the 'Son', for example.
Trinitarian theology and practice challenges very deeply the 'myth' of the individual self, but that is another story.
But if we agree to disagree, and if we acknowledge the ultimate inadequacy of all 'God-talk' yet recognizing its symbolic power, I wonder whether our unity in Christ, as well as visible ecumenical meetings, can embrace difference, even at a doctrinal, dogmatic level.
Can a recognition and celebration of difference be a mark of unity rather than its bar?
--------------------
'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
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from Christina Marie:
quote:
No it isn't. The Orthodox do not judge other churches.
I am fairly confident that, collectively, "the Orthodox" do not. However, I have personally experienced negative judgment of my church's worship style - on this ship, by Fr.G.
In a thread discussing different types of church music, I mentioned that black gospel music had been a key factor in opening the truths of the gospel, and salvation through Christ - to me.
This music continues to be a large part of of the way i worship God, experience creative fellowship with other Christians, and feel his power, joy & love.
Fr.G responded by dismissing our style of music & worship, even implying that it is invalid!!
That felt to me like being judged by a man who was confusing his taste & culture with God's will.
I know this happens routinely IRL, but i am wary of what a church united under people who have cultural blinders on to such an extent, would be like.
from nightlamp:
quote:
...3 answers to the OP "Is the Orthodox Church the One True Church?, & they are Yes, No, or Part Of...from reading the posts the answer held by the Orthodox is exactly the same as mine: The Orthodox faith is part of the "one true church" along with many other of God's assemblies. But Fr. Gregory does not want to say that but neither does he want to say other churches are apostate.
I fully agree, & would love to see FrG address the point.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Wow!
I don't feel like you put me down at all, I feel a kindred spirit.
I think so, too!
We can agree to disagree, in love, yes?
Yup!
--------------------
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
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I have come to the conclusion that for some people, it is important for them to believe that there is 'one , true Church' and that they need to be part of it.
For others, such as myself, the proposition that this might exist appears so unlikely that it isn't something I would look for
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
To all those who object to the Orthodox claims of "fullness", how do you reconcile the sometimes wildly varying and conflicting beliefs of various denominations with the new testament emphasis on preserving the faith handed down by the apostles? Some churches belief some are called out and separated for God's service ("ordained"), some that there is not such calling out, or it is no different that what all Christians are called to. Some believe Christ is actually Present in the Holy Mysteries, that they are, in some way we don't understand, His Body and Blood and vehicles of grace. Some that it is merely a ceremony of bread and wine (or water or grape juice) to commemorate an historic/salvific event. Some believe baptisim is necessary, others that it isn't. Some believe Christ literally rose some that he didn't. Do none of these differences matter? When Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit who would guide us into all truth, was He mistaken? Or does everybody just glean some of the truth? Does God reveal Himself and guide His people or do we just try to figure Him out (or declare Him "unfigure-out-able") on our own? It seems to me that THESE are the questions that should inform a discussion of where is the "True Church" (a phrase I dislike as it implies all others are "False" Churches, which the Orthodox do not believe...well, except maybe the Mormons). It seems to me there is a great deal of "find what makes you comfortable, works for you, makes sense to you" emphasis over "find what's True" emphasis. Everything can't be true; especially when some of it is mutally exclusive. I know I'm a theological simpleton and perhaps just plain slow, but I don't see these questions being addressed and to me they are the key questions. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
To all those who object to the Orthodox claims of "fullness", how do you reconcile the sometimes wildly varying and conflicting beliefs of various denominations with the new testament emphasis on preserving the faith handed down by the apostles?
Ah yes. and the empirical difference between the claims of 'various denominations' and the 'claims' of the Orthodox is..........not much.
The only empirical difference is that that the Othodox claim to have the more of the truth than other 'competing denominations and oddly enough having a lot in common with some extremely evangelical church groupings.
--------------------
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
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Yes, you judged me arrogant, by taking comments completely out of context. I feel you're trying to play mind-games.
I have no idea what you mean by saying that I am playing mind games. Sure, I just picked out one quote - it seemed to exemplify your attitude which I felt was at least slightly arrogant.
Now since you admit that you yourself felt that the attitude displayed by Orthodox sites was arrogant, why are you so surprised and personally offended when I feel the same about the Orthodox views you are espousing?
quote:
Then you said:
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.
Perhaps I have been trapped by self-deprecating understatement again. I did not say that I was not informed of what the Ecumenical Councils were about. I said that I was not expert enough to debate in detail whether all that proceeded from them was 'pillar and foundation of truth'. By expert, I mean for instance someone who might have done serious post-graduate study of these Councils, or for whom they are an area of particular academic interest. My own specialty is the relationship of Theology and Science, so I did not wish to get mired in a debate about the details of the Ecumenical Councils, especially since it was not required by my argument regarding 1 Tim 3:15.
Speaking of which, it does not seem to me that you have answered the objection that both Nightlamp and myself have put to you - how do you justify your movement from Paul's usage which (as you yourself said) was about how ANY Christian assembly ought to be, to the idea that there is any one church which is the sole pillar and foundation of the church.
And BTW, I have the passage from the Greek and 'foundation' is a perfectly reasonable translation of 'hedraioma'. Indeed it is better than 'bulwark', as you have demonstrated that bulwark has overtones of fortification, whereas 'hedraioma' is more to do with undergirding and supporting, being derived from a word to do with sitting still or being stedfast.
quote:
Later you said:
Please explain how churches that teach Infant Baptism, Believer's Baptism, Transubstantiation and the other substantians, Amillleniallism, Pre-Millenialism, Post- milleniulism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholocity, Anabaptist Trail of Blood Theory, Eternal Damantion, Annihilation, Universal Reconciliation, Jesus is God as well as Man, Jesus is not God, the Holy Spirit is a Person, the Holy Spirit is a Power, etc, etc, etc.
The reality is, that all these things are held by various churches, as statements of faith, and there are many more. If one cannot apply what Paul said to the congregations in Ecumeniacal Council, it only applies to local churches, which ones? They teach contradictory things! Who can find a local church that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, outside the Catholic churches?
Paul's intructions to Timothy, were not just for one particular local church, but for any that Timothy had dealings with.
The way you can find a local church which is the 'pillar and foundation of truth', is to see whether what it teaches is in accord with the teachings of the gospel recorded in Scripture and understood in the context of the tradition of the church. One way of measuring that might be comparison with the Ecumenical Creeds.
What about the fact that different branches of the Church hold to different versions of the creed? Well, for my money, if Paul was here today and discovered us arguing about whether the church which was being 'pillar and foundation of truth' was the one which said 'proceeds from the Father' or the one which said 'proceeds from the Father and the Son'; I think he would throw his hands up in horror and curse us all for fools.
I'm sorry if this approach doesn't give you a nice easy solution to which churches are being 'pillar and foundation of truth' and which aren't. ISTM that that is the nature of the fallen world we live in, and that navigating these tricky decisions is what faith and Christian maturity is all about.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
St. Sebastian,
I can't help feeling your concept of "truth" sounds a bit cut and dried. Everything can't be true, but a lot of things can have some truth. No-one's route to God is going to be perfect and no one path suits everyone. Language is an imperfect means of conveying Divine mystery and can act as no more than a pointer. No one theology "explains"
God in the way that a science book can explain how the T.V works. No-one can have a monopoly on "truth" because there can be no adequate means of expressing the nature of God. This doesn't mean there is no truth, it just means that, as someone on these boads once put it, you just have to be humble before the mystery. The Truth is bigger than we are.
You say:
quote:
It seems to me there is a great deal of "find what makes you comfortable, works for you, makes sense to you" emphasis over "find what's True"
I don't see a whole lot of difference in these two statements because even if you decide to find "what's true" you choose the epistemology by which you judge that. Just because you choose the Orthodox epistemology over the Pentecostal, it doesn't mean you haven't made a personal choice about which theology suits your concept of truth.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
To all those who object to the Orthodox claims of "fullness", how do you reconcile the sometimes wildly varying and conflicting beliefs of various denominations with the new testament emphasis on preserving the faith handed down by the apostles?
Ah yes. and the empirical difference between the claims of 'various denominations' and the 'claims' of the Orthodox is..........not much.
The only empirical difference is that that the Othodox claim to have the more of the truth than other 'competing denominations and oddly enough having a lot in common with some extremely evangelical church groupings.
Nightlamp,
It's historical evidence that clinches it in favour of Orthodoxy.
The differences that St Sebastian outlined in his post, all happened from AD1517 onwards, when Martin Luther came onto the scene. Every difference between Protestant groups happened after AD1517.
The Orthodox Church go back to AD33, from the Orthodox perspective, or AD1054 from a Roman Catholic one. If anyone rejects the claims of Rome, then historically, it is the Orthodox that one can look to. If you look to any Protestant denomination or Church, their distinctives happened after AD1517. This includes the distinctives of the Church of England, as a Reformed Church.
One central issue is that of Eucharist. The RC's and Protestants are split on this issue. How does the Bread and Wine turn into the Body and Blood of Christ? People have been martyred over this issue. Is it transubstantian, consubstantiation or another substantian, or is it the Zwinglian Symbolic view, or perhaps, the Salvation Army were right to drop it, because of all the trouble?
What is the Orthodox view? The Bread and Wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, how it is done, is a Mystery. Debating abot how it is done, is a result of rationalistic thinking, in the West, ie we have to understand things, before we believe in them. If Abraham had been a Westerner, he'd have said to God, 'You want me to sacrifice Isaac!? Well, tell me what your going to do when I've done it, then I'll make up my mind.'
Orthodoxy is quite often portrayed by those outside her, to be narrow. I've found the opposite to be true. I've already mentioned Communion.
What about the fate of the wicked? Orthodoxy teaches what the Nicene Creed states, that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. They do not teach as dogma, eternal torment, annihilation or Universal Reconciliation. These 3 are theological opinions.
Every Western free church I've been to, has had eternal punishment as a statement of faith!
It's the Western Chuches who are narrow, who define things too much. What is the fruit of this tendency? 30, 000 denominations with 247 being added every year. (According to a recent post elsewhere, from a Christian statistics book)
To say that the Orthodox claims are alongside Protestant claims, is to discount history. Ask yourself this question, if you're a Protestant. Have I been taught the Church History from AD33 onwards in my denomination, or is there a big gap between around AD500 and AD1517?
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Gracia
Would you like to quote my alleged comments on the invalidity of your worship style? I vigorously rebut I ever said any such thing. Please quote the thread and date while you're at it. "Present the body!" if you want a charge of murder.
Dear Arch
There is of course room for a western and eastern emphasis in trinitarian debate but we should probably eschew the extremes of both.
Dear Nightlamp
Structural unity is one Church manifested in eacch place with one overseer/bishop. The Orthodox plant conngregations in the west for two reasons:-
(1) To minister to their own since as a matter of conscience 99% of Orthodox would not feel comfortable worshipping in a non-Orthodox church.
(2) To present the Orthodox Faith including those elements not present in western churches because no one else is going to do it and everyone has a right to hear and see. When east and west are reunited such presences will dissolve back into the one bishop one city scheme.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracia:
from Christina Marie:
quote:
No it isn't. The Orthodox do not judge other churches.
I am fairly confident that, collectively, "the Orthodox" do not. However, I have personally experienced negative judgment of my church's worship style - on this ship, by Fr.G.
In a thread discussing different types of church music, I mentioned that black gospel music had been a key factor in opening the truths of the gospel, and salvation through Christ - to me.
This music continues to be a large part of of the way i worship God, experience creative fellowship with other Christians, and feel his power, joy & love.
Fr.G responded by dismissing our style of music & worship, even implying that it is invalid!!
That felt to me like being judged by a man who was confusing his taste & culture with God's will.
I know this happens routinely IRL, but i am wary of what a church united under people who have cultural blinders on to such an extent, would be like.
from nightlamp:
quote:
...3 answers to the OP "Is the Orthodox Church the One True Church?, & they are Yes, No, or Part Of...from reading the posts the answer held by the Orthodox is exactly the same as mine: The Orthodox faith is part of the "one true church" along with many other of God's assemblies. But Fr. Gregory does not want to say that but neither does he want to say other churches are apostate.
I fully agree, & would love to see FrG address the point.
Dear Gracia,
I can't answer for Fr Gregory, but I can share a few of my own thoughts.
God can use a donkey to convey truth. (Balaam's ass) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
If God can be known from Creation, then He isn't limited in the ways He can speak to us, I'm glad that He spoke to you, through that music.
One of the differences between Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church, when it comes to language, is that the RCC imposed Latin on everyone. That is, until recently.
The Orthodox taught in the language of the people. ST Cyril even invented an alphabet for the Slavic nations.
I would hope that Orthodox missionaries also incorporate cultural differences in their missions.
One disturbing trend I noticed before I discovered Orthodoxy, is that many of the new churches, such as New Frontiers, only seem to have the latest songs in their services. There is a distinct lack of familiarity. Someone who is 70 years old, and not been to church for 40 years, going to one of these churches, would not recognise a single worship. I think this is wrong, it is faddish, in my opinion.
I've been involved in leading services, and I always made sure there was something new, but ALSO, something old and familiar, such as a John Wesley hymn.
Restricting worship songs, to only those that are new, appeals to young people, maybe up to the age of 40, but it leaves others out. The Church should be for everybody.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Fr gregory said To minister to their own since as a matter of conscience 99% of Orthodox would not feel comfortable worshipping in a non-Orthodox church.
The reasons you have given is exactly the same as shall we say any other church planters.
By planting churches in the west the Orthodox has sold itself into the branch model of the church because it is saying our truth claims have more validity than those who are already here.
The actions of the Orthodox show themselves to be a denomination or part of the whole church of Christ.
--------------------
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
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
To all those who object to the Orthodox claims of "fullness", how do you reconcile the sometimes wildly varying and conflicting beliefs of various denominations with the new testament emphasis on preserving the faith handed down by the apostles?
ISTM that the vast majority of Christian churches do agree on the fundamentals of the faith - the 'faith handed down by the apostles'. All of the various peripheral issues mentioned in this thread are precisely that - peripherals.
The idea that there must be one church which has it correct on all those peripherals is like the KJV only crowd's insistence that there must be one perfect Bible version - it may be comforting but it's not (IMO) true!
--------------------
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
Lincz,
"Now since you admit that you yourself felt that the attitude displayed by Orthodox sites was arrogant, why are you so surprised and personally offended when I feel the same about the Orthodox views you are espousing?"
Simple, I told Fr Gregory that they SEEMED arrogant, I left room for being wrong about my feelings.
You, on the other hand, labelled me as BEING arrogant. I told Fr Gregory how I felt, you took it upon yourself to judge me as arrogant. That is a big difference.
Not only that, 'arrogant' means 'having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance; merit, ability, etc. conceited, overbearingly proud.'
Now, please show me where I've displayed this supposed arrogance. Be specific.
As for playing mind games, any comment along the lines of ,'you're putting me off Orthodoxy' is an emotional manipulative tactic. I couldn't give tuppence! I'm not here to convert everyone to Orthodoxy, I'm here to answer the OP, and any comments by others. If I can communicate data that will help someone be more informed about the Orthodox question, great.
As for the debate about 'foundation' or 'bulark', it can mean either. So, we look at the context. In its immediate context, it can mean either. However, Nightlamp has pointed out that Jesus is the foundation. I would add the apostles and prophets, Jesus being the cornerstone. Therefore, I would argue, that bulwark is more appropriate, otherwise we have 2 foundations.
I would add this: If the apostles are the foundation of the building, then anything not built on that foundation, is another building. The Early Church very quickly argued Apostolic Succession against the Gnostics, who were claiming they had teachings from the Apostles, that the Church, or Churches, did not have.
One sign therefore, of the True Church, is that it is visibly built upon the Apostles. It's not built on the NT, as it is built on the Apostles themselves, and furthermore, it was the Church that decided what was the NT, again, acting as the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Observation
Anglicans here who probably get stung by Orthodoxy's criticism of "branch theory ecclesiologies" ... "denominationalism" ... "invisble churches" and the like set about trying to prove that Orthodox have these things as well. Am I alone in regarding this strategy as a rather suspect form of self defence / justification?
Anyway ... the Branch Theory .... devised by Anglicans for Anglicans and, arguably going back to the great Richard Hooker himself. This is the idea that the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has different branches roughly accommodated to different geographical areas (post dating the Reformation in fact). These branches (originally not including "non-conformists") consisted of Rome, Orthodoxy and the CofE. (What Hooker thought about other areas of continental Europe I have no idea). The idea of a "branch" is to legitimise the belief that the CofE is the Catholic (and Reformed) Church in England; no different in fact to that body preceding the Reformation in England but shorn of bits that were never really "catholic" anyway.
Later on, "non-conformist" (old Anglican designation) Protestants devised their own branch theory but without the need for ORGANIC VISIBLE STRUCTURAL links to the stem and root ... hence denominationalism. After this development the pan-Protestant world (including Anglicans who would rather drop dead rather than being thought of as Protestant!) reconstructed Christian unity as an inward, intentional and spiritual unity of separate Churches ... more strictly as the heavenly body of the elect from whatever source.
Now, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Cathlicism maintaining a presence here in the UK until Catholic Emancipation and beyond, nor church planting by Orthodox today. Why do we both of us do this rather than accept Anglicanism's branch theory and withdraw to our "countries of origin"? Since everyone knows that our self understanding is not denominational it has to be agreed that questioning our acceptance of the FULNESS of Catholic faith and life in other churches IS the issue. None of us here ... Catholic or Orthodox have been dishonest about that even though it has made many furious. Would you rather we were dishonest and gave you a more acceptable answer and joined you on your "branch?" I think not.
So there we have it. We are all Christians, without question. We all belong to churches, without question. We all share together huge areas in common, without question. But are we all the same? No. We are not. Would we be happy to pack up, go and give everyone a "ticket" to the nearest non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Church? Absolutely not. We are here because we believe that in a few hundred years (or maybe a few decades) there will be a new church configuration in the west in which words the words "catholic" "orthodox" and "protestant" will have radically changed. We are going to be part of that. We shall then be indeed the One Church we are most certainly not now. We do no service to Christian unity by pulling the wool over our own eyes ... and attempting to do so to others as well.
--------------------
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:
Now, please show me where I've displayed this supposed arrogance. Be specific.
Fine, but lets take it to where it belongs.
quote:
As for the debate about 'foundation' or 'bulark', it can mean either. So, we look at the context. In its immediate context, it can mean either. However, Nightlamp has pointed out that Jesus is the foundation. I would add the apostles and prophets, Jesus being the cornerstone. Therefore, I would argue, that bulwark is more appropriate, otherwise we have 2 foundations.
Yes it can mean both, but as I have argued etymologically I think foundation is superior. Further, it is a metaphor and you may construct different metaphors with the same referent, or use the same metaphor wrt different referents. So there is no problem seeing the church as the pillar and foundation of truth in one context, and seeing Christ as the foundation of the faith, or of the church in another context.
quote:
I would add this: If the apostles are the foundation of the building, then anything not built on that foundation, is another building. The Early Church very quickly argued Apostolic Succession against the Gnostics, who were claiming they had teachings from the Apostles, that the Church, or Churches, did not have.
One sign therefore, of the True Church, is that it is visibly built upon the Apostles. It's not built on the NT, as it is built on the Apostles themselves, and furthermore, it was the Church that decided what was the NT, again, acting as the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
You may make this argument, but I and many others would disagree, and in any case it is not self-evident but relies on a particular systematic framework which is not accepted by Protestants. Quite clearly we are moving away from a discussion of 1 Tim 3:15.
--------------------
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
Fr Gregory the unavoidable fact is that the Orthodox Church is acting in many ways like a denomination in the UK. From reading here, it acts like an Evangelical church that is certain in it's rightness. It is similar to many of the new churches who also do not want to be called a denomination I respect their wish and your wish.
Self understanding does not change what all those outside see.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
What others see depends on their real knowledge ... I think you are judging superficially. Do you think that just because we have set up shop here we're acting like a denomination? That kind of remark can only come from someone who deep down believes that territorial integrity has been being violated ... someone who believes that the branch theory gives the Church of England the "spiritual title deeds" to this country. That's how I see your contribution ... but I have been an Anglican for a long time so I do know it from the inside, (and not from within just one tradition either).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Talking about Anglicans claiming spiritual deeds to the nation... it's interesting to note that when the Catholic Church returned to the British Isles in the 19th century in full, diocesan form, it was barred from establishing dioceses alongside the Anglican ones - i.e. covering identical areas (which Catholics would have seen as a proper restoration.) As a result, dioceses such as Southwark emerged.
Since then, Anglican dioceses have been established using the same borders as the Catholic ones - there is, for instance, an Anglican bishop of Southwark.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Gosh that was fun.
Here have a grape to peel.
So in a sense, when Chesterton wrote 'Orthodoxy' he wasn't. Well thats a new perspective I suppose.
N
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory, I do like Iraneaus but it is just that, 'like'. Augustine, Iraneaus, both are just ideas that fly through my head. Without your concepts of authority, they are just ideas for me.
Whether the Father spoke the Word and breathes the Spirit or if The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son - who knows. I really and honestly don't care, it is bordering on the meaningless for me.
I don't disagree with you, I just cannot be personally bothered.
Is this at the heart of Christianity? I say NO.
--------------------
ahhh ... Bisto!
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Hull Hound,
The resultant schism of East and West, was surely one of the most significant events of religious history.
How can you, as an RE teacher, not be bothered to understand the significance of the Filioque Clause?
I can understand many Christians not being bothered, but an RE teacher?
In Christ,
Christ
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
Christinamarie, I said I thought it was personally meaningless. I'm not in front o my class now.
I didn't post this to offer alternatives to the doctrine but to ask why it is important.
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
...Anglicans here who probably get stung by Orthodoxy's criticism of "branch theory ecclesiologies" ... "denominationalism" ... "invisble churches" and the like set about trying to prove that Orthodox have these things as well. Am I alone in regarding this strategy as a rather suspect form of self defence / justification?
No, I'm sure you can find some other exclusionists to join you in it. But it does, now that you mention it, look very much as though YOU are attempting, well, "a rather suspect form of self defense/justification."
quote:
...Would you rather we were dishonest and gave you a more acceptable answer and joined you on your "branch?" I think not.
I'd personally rather you were honest and admitted that your chosen denominations were not, in fact, The One True Church, and that others have legitimate sacraments and orders, etc. That wouldn't suit your self-image, but shutting doors on your fellow Christians doesn't seem in keeping with the NT I know and study.
Oh, and as to "99% of Orthodox not feeling comfortable in a non-Orthodox" setting, as previously noted (and agreed to by you) hundreds of Orthodox in the American Midwest did in fact manage to make themselves comfy in Episcopal churches. (My friend Stavros and I were talking about that just today, during coffee hour.)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Rossweisse // is this a deceased equine yet?
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Rosseweise
quote:
I'd personally rather you were honest and admitted that your chosen denominations were not, in fact, The One True Church, and that others have legitimate sacraments and orders, etc. That wouldn't suit your self-image, but shutting doors on your fellow Christians doesn't seem in keeping with the NT I know and study.
But that isn't the Orthodox Church's position so why would I lie? I won't go down the validity route because that (western obsession) is not the issue as far as Orthodox are concerned. The "validity" of a CHURCH depends on its living of the Orthodox life .... which certainly can happen outside the canonical boundary of the Orthodox Church herself.
quote:
Oh, and as to "99% of Orthodox not feeling comfortable in a non-Orthodox" setting, as previously noted (and agreed to by you) hundreds of Orthodox in the American Midwest did in fact manage to make themselves comfy in Episcopal churches. (My friend Stavros and I were talking about that just today, during coffee hour.)
I don't deny that happened. No church is immune from loss of its membership. Indeed in the history of Christianity many Orthodox did in fact convert to Islam. No doubt they felt comfortable there as well. NOT that I am saying that becoming Episcoplaian is equivalent! I am making a more general point.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
But that isn't the Orthodox Church's position so why would I lie?...
God save us from the zeal of the convert who believes s/he now has a hammerlock on Truth, and can't engage in genuine discussion with those who -- thoughtfully, reasonably and with facts to back them up -- disagree in any way.
quote:
...many Orthodox did in fact convert to Islam. No doubt they felt comfortable there as well. NOT that I am saying that becoming Episcoplaian is equivalent! I am making a more general point.[/QB]
Oh, I don't think so. I think you are, in fact, saying that your fellow Christians -- even those of the Catholic denominations -- are no more legitimate in your sight than Muslims. (And aren't you overlooking a basic aspect of how those ex-Orthodox came to be Anglican in the first place?) I find that insulting (as I think you intended it to be), and I think this is the last time I will try to engage you in discussion. You seem to be capable only of proselytizing.
And now I will end this post before it gets as Hellish as I'm tempted to make it.
![[Flaming]](graemlins/angryfire.gif)
Rossweisse // who also doesn't want to make you go through the effort of spelling "Rossweisse" again
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Rossweisse
There's no talking to you. I refute your ill founded charges and all you can do is repeat them in different forms. I consider this exchange closed.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Thanks for spelling my name right, if nothing else. Ciao.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Rossweisse,
Please remember what I wrote about my experience of communion on the other thread.
If Orthodoxy was in the right in AD1054, by rejecting Papal Supremacy and the Filioque, then the Roman Catholic statements about the invalidity of Anglican orders, etc aren't woth much, are they? I mean, if the Papacy is heterodox, then what are its Judgements against Anglicans worth?
I think there is hope for the Anglican Church and the Orthodox to be in Communion as sister Churches. With God, all things are possible.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
My grannies, Rossweisse, Father Gregory has explicitly stated several times that no Orthodox is saying non-Orthodox Christians are not Christians. To say that he is saying Anglicans are no more legitimate than Muslims seems a willful and radical distortion of his position. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Wulfstan, I see your point. Perhaps I am thinking with too little grey. However, since we're talking about the self -revelation of God, and, for the Orthodox anyway, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I don't understand how there can be so MUCH grey. Of course God, in His essence, is incomprehensible, but he has revealed some of Himself, hasn't He? Where, in branch theory (which in some sense is clearly true, which is why I find it more useful not to talk of the True Church but instead to talk of "fullness")do you draw the line? Are Mormons, with their radically different understanding of virtually all "o"rthodox Christian doctrines, just a branch of Christianity? We all, I think, agree that the heart of Christianity is a relationship with God. The thing is, how can you have a relationship with someone about whom you know little or about whom you believe untrue things? At some point don't you reach a place where all paths are NOT leading to the same destination but are, however subtly, veering off at a tangent? (by the way, I'm NOT implying that Anglicans don't know God or don't know much about Him! I'm speaking in broad generalities).
I also see your point about my having made a choice about which theology suits my concept of truth. I didn't mean to imply some kind of immunity to my own prejudices. However, I didn't choose Orthodoxy because it made me comfortable and was what I wanted it to be. Otherwise I'd be a Unitarian or something easy.
Nightlamp, your statement "By planting churches in the west the Orthodox has sold itself into the branch model of the church because it is saying our truth claims have more validity than those who are already here. doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that claiming to have a "fullness" of the Gospel (which I think is more accurate than claiming more validity to our "truth claims" than you) automatically means we are claiming to be a denomination? So if we said "we have nothing special to offer that isn't being offered elsewhere" would make us NOT claiming to be a denomination? It seems to me the opposite would be true.
Well, that's enough of me, I think. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
[Rossweisse, it seems to me that Father Gregory was making the point that it may be possible for people to leave the Orthodox Church, and learn to be comfortable with the fact.]
I'm not quite sure where my precis was wrong, but I think that I am picking up clues from this thread.
I am personally finding that it is instructive about the Orthodox church - perhaps I would have been better advised to say that
Using the Orthodox criteria for judging where truth may be found, the Orthodox Church is the true expression of orthodoxy, and the claims of other churches are open for discussion.
Regards,
H&E
(trying to be sane and objective, despite all the deeper readings that people are putting into others posts and perceived agendas)
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
ChristinaMarie wrote:
quote:
...With God, all things are possible.
Yes indeed, and a comforting thought it is. But human beings too often get in the way of that.
quote:
Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
...Father Gregory has explicitly stated several times that no Orthodox is saying non-Orthodox Christians are not Christians. To say that he is saying Anglicans are no more legitimate than Muslims seems a willful and radical distortion of his position....
Oh, I think not. He said that "99%" of Orthodox could never be comfortable in another denomination, I reminded him of a certain Orthodox movement to Anglicanism, and he said (inexact quote), yeah, well, over the centuries, plenty of Orthodox have converted to Islam, too. To me, the comparison is inescapable, and if he doesn't know how offensive it is, then he really hasn't thought the matter through. After certain recent threads, I don't see how he could have failed to do so.
Bear in mind that I do not think that the other Orthodox necessarily here share that rigid and exclusionary mindset. Indeed, Fr. Gregory is -- I am happy to say -- the first member of an Orthodox denomination with whom I have ever had an unpleasant series of exchanges. I hope he's the last.
Rossweisse // always sorry when denominational concerns get in the way of the realization that we are first and foremost sisters and brothers in Christ
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
