|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is the Orthodox Church the One True Church?
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
quote:
Still, I think that yours is the view which results from a secular history of Christianity - describing events without actually looking in and asking:
Well, who was right?
I think, that it has more to do with the different answers we are expecting. I hope I'm not maligning you (although I suspect that I'm oversimplifying) when I suggest that in any given controversy between the Catholic Church and anyone else you see it as the case that the Holy Catholic Church insists that 2+2=4 whilst the other side in the controversy insists that 2+2=5.
I tend to look at it as if one side was insisting that 2+2=3.7 whereas the other side is insisting that 2+2=5. To strangle the analogy to death, I would suspect that it is usually the case that whilst one side is closer to the truth because 3.7 is closer to 4 than 5 is, but that the other side had a point because the sum of 2+2 is definitely a whole number.
It depends on your view of truth, I suppose as to whether you imagine any given body can definitively possess it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I do not think it unreasonable to point out that all the spilts derive from the West, and question whether that may be a sign that the Papacy was in the wrong in AD1054.
Dear ChristinaMarie
You seem to think that Orthodoxy is immune from splits and schism. I beg to differ: what about the controversy between the Possessors and Non-possessors (Nils Sorsky and co) in the 16th century and the very violent conflict with the Old Believers in Russia (Nikon vs Avvakum) from the 17th century, to name but two examples? Others have pointed out that there have been more splits in Russian Orthodoxy since then. Protestants don't have a monopoly onn schism - it's as easy as human nature ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from Wulfstan:
quote:
To say "my limited and imperfect understanding of God is superior to your imperfect and limited understanding of God" seems to me somewhat perverse.
Amen & Amen!!!!
from PaulTH:
quote:
The Orthodox faith has a spirituality that is almost totally lacking in protestantism,
I’ll take your word for it, that that is the situation in England, but I can assure you it is NOT the case in the U.S.
I go to a church where there are the most devout and truly holy & humble people (esp.women) I have ever encountered. We have a woman MD & the pastor’s wife, who use their lunch hour almost every day to pray together, for us, & the larger world. Their holiness truly radiates from them.
With my own limited experience of Protestantism (as everyone’s experience is necessarily limited) I don’t know if this is common or not, but I have to stand up and protest negative blanket statements like the above.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles
Shipmate
# 357
|
Posted
As a member of the (Roman) Catholic Church I am most willing to accept the Orthodox Church as a part of the One True Church!
--------------------
Charles
Posts: 115 | From: Blairgowrie, Perthshire, Scotland | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Regarding splits in the Orthodox Church. In my last parish there was a little Romanian Orthodox congregation which used the church building after we were finished with it. There are three Romanian Orthodox congregations in Montreal - each under different ecclesiastical authority and none of them speak with each other.
I've had a couple of friends (were once Ian Mackenzie or Fred Jones - are now Father Nicholas or Father Gregory) who speak glowingly of the 'One-ness' of Orthodoxy over and against the multitude of protestant expressions of Christianity. Not sure it holds water.....
Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, Quebec
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Those are Orthodox splits and not protestant splits so they are different.
--------------------
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
Everybody has banana splits ... what matters is the characteristics of the fruits not the nuts that fall of the edge.
--------------------
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
Told you Orthodox splits were different to Protestant splits because each Orthodox group have that deeper inner sense that they have got tradition correct as opposed to the Bible.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Hi Hull Hound,
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think the most important thing, from a practical perspective, and very relevant to RE, is how the Filioque was added to the Creed, and the results.
Prior to the addition, decisions on Creeds, etc were made in Ecumenical Council. The Filioque Clause was added by Rome, without a Council. They acted arbitrarily, claiming they had the right to do so, because the Pope wasn't just first among equals, but had universal jurisdiction.
Those now know as Orthodox not only objected to the Filioque itself, but the claims of Papal Supremacy, and its dictates.
Hi, I asked you why it is important not what it is. I suspect this wasn't intended to be received as patronising.
Regarding the 11th century split (a reality as you know before then) being the cause of the Reformation. No comment.
I don't intend to critcise Orthodoxy so I won't and I'll stop here.
--------------------
ahhh ... Bisto!
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
Wulfstan, thanks for not savaging me in your reply. I'm not doing a good job of conveying what I want to. Maybe it comes down to what we believe about the Holy Spirit guiding us (by "us" I mean Christians, not just the Orthodox). If God has revealed some of Himself to us, doesn't it stand to reason that He has helped us understand that (through councils and Tradition, I believe the Orthodox would say). Or are we just inferring what we can using our own faculties of reason and our own standards? I think what I'm having difficulty with is that it often sounds like we're talking about an object called God and we're trying to figure It out, instead of a Person called God who is trying to be in relationship with us. It also seems like many of us believe God is unknowable so anything anyone comes up with is as valid as anything else. To me this seems to undermine the idea of His self-revlation and the participation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. I understand your comment about metaphor and the inadequacies of language, but it almost sounds like your position is that no church body can speak with authority. Mormons (to pick on an easy target)are just as likely to be right as the CoE or RC's or O's. That seems contrary to the strong emphasis in the NT on right belief and right practice. I'm not sure I understand drawing a line "somewhere, but it tends to be on what they DO rather than what they THINK."trying to separate the two is, imo, like separating faith and works.
Please don't take umbrage. I must have inferred what you didn't reply. And my value-judgement against Unitarians is based on my limited experience in their churches and my understanding that they accept any beliefs or none.
Oh, and what do you mean I don't think it's clearly true at all. regarding the branch theory. I thought that you were supporting it?
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
I tend to look at it as if one side was insisting that 2+2=3.7 whereas the other side is insisting that 2+2=5. To strangle the analogy to death, I would suspect that it is usually the case that whilst one side is closer to the truth because 3.7 is closer to 4 than 5 is, but that the other side had a point because the sum of 2+2 is definitely a whole number.
It depends on your view of truth, I suppose as to whether you imagine any given body can definitively possess it.
On the equation analogy: sometimes it's also a matter of different groups holding (variously)
2+2=4
2x2=4
1+3=4
1x4=4
and so on...
On definitive truth: no one has it, especially in an all-encompassing sense!
--------------------
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
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
ChristinaMarie, thank you for your sincere and thoughtful reply. I have no quarrel with you.
Charles, I am willing to accept the Roman Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican and assorted other bodies as parts of the One True Church.
Rossweisse // having one of those "why are we squabbling over 'Filioque' moments"
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Rosseweisse, thank you.
Nightlamp, the story of the Florentine Council from an Orthodox perspective, is that it was the laos who rejected the decisions of the Bishops.
As for the evidence from the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Well, if the dog don't bark, there's no intruder. (Sherlock Holmes) These Councils were accepted by the laos, therefore there's no historical story about the fuss that was made, coz there wasn't any. Fr Gregory may be able to give a better account, if you're not satisfied.
If my posts have upset anyone, I do apologise. My perspective is, that in a debate, we're in a different situation than in a church, or in an Ecumenical meeting. I've posted to argue my reasons as to why I accept the Orthodox position. Obviously, to do that fully, I have to explain why I reject Protestantism, Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. This doesn't mean I'm joining a different religion, I'm arguing for fulness. I regard all those who trust in Jesus as their Saviour and Lord, as my brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers.
What I will try and do in future though, is state these things in my first post, and emphasise more, that my statements are my personal opinions and beliefs. I belive all knowledge is based on belief anyhow.
Thanks to JL for his input, I've followed the links you provided, and have found them informative.
Thanks to Bessie, for emphasising the love aspect, and that the Orthodox have been bad too.
One thing I would dearly love to see happen to promote unity. I would love to see the Roman Catholic Church, change their stance on Anglican Orders, to the Orthodox position, ie no judgement. I know as well as I can know that Anglican orders are valid, because the last 2 occasions I've taken communion, in Anglican churches, God has blessed me. I'd changed from a Zwinglian position to a Real Presence belief. The first time, I was moved to tears. The second time, I was under conviction to take communion, had sleep problems, so stayed up all night, to ensure I got to church. I was blessed taking communion. When I came home, Donna, who was not a Christian, told me I looked absolutely radiant. (In Orthodoxy, this phenomenom is recorded) I went to bed at 4pm. When I got up at midnight, Donna had been converted. I cannot believe it was coincidence, that Donna, who I'd known for 2.5 years, was converted the day I took communion, under conviction. I hadn't taken communion for 6 months.
Rossweisse, it really is true, that silence from the Orthodox, is a non-judgement, and not a 'we're think they're invalid, but won't say so.'
Love in Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
But shining faces at communion are no proof of the real presence.
I am not being rude let me explain my experience.
I had a member of the congregation who saw me at last communion comment on the fact that my face was doing something similar.
Fine you say. Point proven.
No.
I on grounds of conscience did not partake. This decision relates to my understanding of communion.
Sorry it is a case of thunderstorms over Rome.
Jengie
Note: Legend has it that during first vatican council there was a terrific thunderstorm over Rome. Everyone agreed this was a sign from the almighty but they could not decide whether the Lord was pro or anti the council.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie:
But shining faces at communion are no proof of the real presence.
I am not being rude let me explain my experience.
I had a member of the congregation who saw me at last communion comment on the fact that my face was doing something similar.
Fine you say. Point proven.
No.
I on grounds of conscience did not partake. This decision relates to my understanding of communion.
Sorry it is a case of thunderstorms over Rome.
Jengie
Note: Legend has it that during first vatican council there was a terrific thunderstorm over Rome. Everyone agreed this was a sign from the almighty but they could not decide whether the Lord was pro or anti the council.
Hi Jengie,
I agree with you wholeheartedly, it does nothing no prove the real presence. Let me give some more details. At the communion, I believed in consubstantian. At the second, I held the Orthodox view, that the Bread and Wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. How it is done, is a mystery.
Now, if my shining face was of God, then it was because I'd been obedient. I'd stayed up all night, to ensure I obeyed God. I have felt something at Anglican Communion, I have never felt anything at Baptist and other free church communion. I fet something when I was confirmed, 20 years ago, by an Anglican Bishop. Later, when I became a Baptist, I felt nothing when baptised.
As for your shining face, well, it was probably because you were obeying your conscience. It doesn't mean necessarily, that you were right. We have don't have perfect knowledge, if we obey God according to what we believe, He will bless us, I believe.
When I was a fundamentalist, I destroyed over £100 worth of Rock music tapes, while in the RAF. That was a mistake. However, someone saw me, and word got round, and I was embarrassed, and many ridiculed me. However, I found out that one of my biggest detractors, who always gave me stick for my beliefs, was shaken to the core. He was telling everyone that there must be SOMETHING in my beliefs, is I was willing to destroy hundreds of pounds worth of cassettes. So, I have no problem with God working through our mistakes, and i don't kick myself, for believing in things, I no longer do, because now I can explain things to many different types of people.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
St Sebastian said:
quote:
If God has revealed some of Himself to us, doesn't it stand to reason that He has helped us understand that (through councils and Tradition, I believe the Orthodox would say). Or are we just inferring what we can using our own faculties of reason and our own standards?
Well, after a fashion, but not in a straightforward way. To a great extent we ARE just using our own faculties of reason and understanding, if only to decide on which epistemology seems to be the best for discerning spiritual truth. This seems to be the kind of decision you are making when you choose Orthodoxy which has pretty clear views on the subject, and if that's helpful to you, go for it.
I would NOT agree however that the means that God uses to help us understand him/herself is uniform. The Church, writings of Church Fathers etc are all useful but not the last word. That, I feel, really would be too easy and would allow us to abdicate our own critical faculties too much.
Any individual or organisation only has authority because we decide that it does (or because it can force us to!), they are human or human creations and as such are fallible. If something happens to change our opinion of them, we'll move on. This can be either because we no longer agree with what the organisation espouses or because it's actions have discredited it too much to trust anymore. The Holy Spirit may well be at work in all this, but I would hesitate to suggest that my particular institution has special protection simply because of what it claims to be rather than what it does.
As to the importance of right belief and practice, of course it's important, but part of the challenge is to uncover what it is. You just have to have faith that you have chosen the right path for you and apply it as best you can, whilst accepting you could be wrong.
With regard to seperating thought and action, well this could get contentious but...
Take the Filioque clause (please!), the Orthodox objections to this may be correct, but does including it actually inspire anyone to act in a specifically evil fashion, and can we prove this?
Is God incapable of overcoming us having a flawed understanding of his nature? If so what chance have any of us got? (This doesn't mean we can't understand him/her at all, just the understanding will always be limited.)
Similarly with Mormons, having dropped polygamy, which I think could have been demeaning to women, what do they think that directly inspires evil actions? Personally I think there is an authoritarian streak within it that I find deeply suspect, but is that inherently Mormon or just part of the way they've developed? (Actually I don't know the answer to that one, I'm not an expert!)
We can't prove that one church is right in the way that we can prove that the earth goes round the sun. Consequently we just have to make a value judgement, stick to it and hope God will assist us along the way.
Incidentally, might not Unitarians have a role in this too? It may be helpful to people to go to a church which does not expect them to assent to too specific a set of beliefs too soon. It may be that they find they can't in all conscience align themselves with any other group. Is this such a bad thing? It certainly isn't necessarily an easy option.
Re: Branch theory, I'd never heard of this before Fr. G. mentioned it on another thread. I'm not sure the existence of a diversity of churches needs any theoretical justification and certainly not with regard to the ecclesiology of other churches. I'm Anglican and I've never been a member of any other church. I see no other denomination in which I think I'd be any happier. This doesn't mean I regard Anglicanism as superior to anything else or as inferior. I don't see why anyone else should feel any different. They certainly don't have to justify their existence to me, even if their views are identical. If this is Branch theory, I guess I am in favour and didn't quite get it!
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
ChristinaMarie said As for the evidence from the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Well, if the dog don't bark, there's no intruder.
Well the dog didn't bark because there was no dog.
Seriously, earlier you accused me of not reading your posts when you were pontificating how the laity were consulted over the Ecumenical councils and how this was important to the Orthodox. The fact is the laity (except for the odd learned non-ordained person who was at the council) weren't consulted they were just informed that this is what the church now believes.
--------------------
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
Dearest Nightlamp,
Look, my good-looking friend. I've read about it, okay. I'm new to Orthodoxy, I don't know everything about it. That is why I've invited Fr Gregory to answer your question. He will have the answer in his head. For me to find the answer, I'll have to find the book, and type in what it says.
I'll have a look for it, and get back to you, if Fr Gregory don't get in first.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Does only the laity at the time of the council determine its validity, or is it the laity of the Church's entire future history? When's the chronological cut-off point after which the laity's opinion becomes irrelevant? When can a council be declared, with certainty, to be valid?
I think this "laity acceptance" model is seriously problematic...
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Nightlamp,
From 'The Orthodox Church' by Timothy Ware, new edition.
p251 and 252
"The relation between the bishop and his flock is a mutual one. The bishop is the divinely appointed teacher of the faith, but the guardian of the faith is not the episcopalate alone, but the whole people of God, bishops, cleargy, and laity together."
Bessie, when we crossposted, you asked if I thought I knew better than a bishop. My answer is this, no I don't. However, is it possible that I or anyone else can be orthodox about something, and a bishop in error? Yes, Bishop Kallistos says so. Personally, I believe that one of the reasons why bishops findings have been rejected, at certain times, is so God can keep the bishops humble.
I believe that Bishop Kallistos is wrong about viewing the Pope today, as first among equals. I'm with the hard-liners, on this issue, that the Papacy is in error, and has schismed from the undivided Church. I hope to meet Bishop Kallistos one day, as I live near his Church in Oxford, and if I get the chance, I'm going to ask him if we can still consider the Pope as first among equals, today. It may be, that in his book, he expressed his beliefs poorly, and others, including myself, have misunderstood him. We all can express ourselves poorly, including Orthodox Bishops.
"Infallibility belongs to the whole Church, not just to the episcopate in isolation."
"This conception of the laity and their place in the Church must be kept im mind when considering the nature of an Ecumenical Council. The laity are guardians and not teachers; therefore, although they may attend a council and take an active part in the proceedings (as Constantine and other Byzantine Emperors did), yet when the moment comes for the council to make a formal proclamation of the faith, it is the bishops alone who, in virtue of their teaching charisma , take the final decision.
But councils of bishops can err and be deceived. How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore its decrees are infallible? Many councils have considered themselves ecumenical and have claimed to speak in the name of the whole Church, and yet the Church has rejected them as heretical: Ephesus in 449, for example, or the Iconoclast Council of Hieria in 754, or Florence in 1438-9. "
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ah, but who is the Church, ChristinaMarie?
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Does only the laity at the time of the council determine its validity, or is it the laity of the Church's entire future history? When's the chronological cut-off point after which the laity's opinion becomes irrelevant? When can a council be declared, with certainty, to be valid?
I think this "laity acceptance" model is seriously problematic...
Dear JL,
1 Tim 3:15 states that the church (in Greek, assembly) is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Roman Catholicism has other ideas, doesn't it?
It seems to me, that the monarchial view of Church leaders, telling the people what they are to believe and do, with or without their consent, depends on mistranslating ekklesia (called out assembly) as church. (house of God)
If english translations had the word 'congregation' instead of 'church' no one would have to explain, time and time again, that 'the church is the people.'
Why isn't it correctly translated? Because of money! People wouldn't buy a Bible without the traditional word 'church.'
Some may argue that ekklesia means 'called out ones.' Well, that is based on an exegetical fallacy, determing the meaning of a word, from its root. The roots means 'those called out'. In Acts, where the town clerk rebukes the crowd for being an unlawful ASSEMBLY, the Greek word is ekklesia. Now, would the town clerk say, 'You're an unlawful called out ones!' No, of course not.
It's like the word greenhouse. Imagine someone living 2000 years from now reading a book about English gardens, and thinking that the English had houses painted green! Green + house. That's an exegetical fallacy.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Matt,
I've already explained what I believe the church is, maybe you've missed it. If you check my posts on this thread, you'll find it.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Does only the laity at the time of the council determine its validity, or is it the laity of the Church's entire future history? When's the chronological cut-off point after which the laity's opinion becomes irrelevant? When can a council be declared, with certainty, to be valid?
I think this "laity acceptance" model is seriously problematic...
Dear JL,
1 Tim 3:15 states that the church (in Greek, assembly) is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Roman Catholicism has other ideas, doesn't it?
It seems to me, that the monarchial view of Church leaders, telling the people what they are to believe and do, with or without their consent, depends on mistranslating ekklesia (called out assembly) as church. (house of God)
Well, the Catholic understanding has always been that the Church is both the clergy and the laity, who together constitute the People of God.
Anyway, what about my questions?! I know they may be a bit nitpicky for a convert, but I'd like a response from one of our resident Orthodox at some point...
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear JL,
"Well, the Catholic understanding has always been that the Church is both the clergy and the laity, who together constitute the People of God."
Indeed, but the Clergy make decisions that have to be accepted by the laity, even if the laity disagree. When the Pope speaks ex-Cathedra, his statements cannot be judged as erroneous by the laity, can they?
In Orthodoxy, the decisions of Bishops in Council, can be rejected, as it is the people as a whole, who are infallible, not just the leaders.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
From the Catechism in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA):
quote:
Q. What is the Church?
A. The Church is the community of the New Covenant.
Q. How is the Church described in the Bible?
A. The Church is described as the Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and of which all baptized persons are members. It is called the People of God, the New Israel, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and the pillar and ground of truth. ...
Rossweisse // perhaps helpful, perhaps not
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Rosseweisse,
If every Anglican believed what you did, we'd be close to unity I'm sure.
Thing is, it states, what I've been stating about being the pillar of the truth.
I accept Anglican orders and communion, etc, but I can't reconcile Anglicanism's acceptance of Bishops who deny the Virgin birth, miracles, the invisible realm, etc, with being a pillar and bulwark of the truth. The Church had 7 Ecumenical Council's, the last one being about Icons, which is related to the issue of the Incarnation.
Reformed Anglicans will not accept the use of Icons, even though the undivided Church accepted them. How can the Anglican Church claim to be the pillar and bulwark of the truth, as the statement you posted states, yet deny what the undivided Church taught?
Believe me, I'd be Anglican but for this. I'd rather go to my local Church, than have to travel to the City.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Christina, it seems to come down to a choice between too much tolerance (the Anglican position) and too little (the position in the other Catholic Churches, to say nothing of many Protestant groups). Since I think the dangers of too little tolerance ( the snap! crackle! pop! of burning "heretics" in the past, the little-heralded situation with the Russian Orthodox Church oppressing Roman Catholics and others in Russia today, and lots of other examples from lots of other places) are greater than those of too much, I stick with too much.
I have preferred to stay on as a (relatively) conservative voice in the branch of the Church in which I was raised to being driven out by the intolerant; my hide is thick enough to deal with it. I wish people like -Spong would just say, "Okay, I'm a Unitarian, and I apologize for taking up space in your pulpit," but, when it comes down to it, I'd rather put up with their outrages than a heavy-handed "thought police" approach.
Rossweisse // your mileage, of course, may differ
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CowboyUK
Apprentice
# 3428
|
Posted
Seems to me the one true church is the body of Christ perfected and operating in accordance with the whole of scripture. Unfortunately since we are all sinners, the body of Christ will never be perfected until he reurns to take us home.
--------------------
There's bound to be rough waters and I know I'll take some falls
But with the good Lord as my captain I can make it through them all
- Garth Brooks (The River)
Posts: 37 | From: Riding the wide open prairie of Life | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear Rossweisse,
According to my beliefs, you should be where God wants you to be, and if that is where you are now, then I accept that you are following God's will. Not that my opinion matters, but I wanted to make the point.
It isn't just following our reason that determines God's will for us, we have to listen to Him. God wants people on all sides, if we are going to achieve unity, I believe.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Nightlamp
If you don't know that the People of God can and have rejected councils in the past, you don't know your Church history. Read what happened in Constantinople on the streets after the Council of the false union of Florence.
--------------------
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
I have been talking about the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
Sorry I see when wrong change the goal posts.
--------------------
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
Nightlamp,
If a Council is accepted by the laity it seen as truly Ecumenical, if it is rejected, it goes on historical record that the laity rejected it!
If the dog don't bark (the laity accept) no mention of the acceptance is needed. They didn't cast lots!
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Quite so Christina .... Nightlamp is only interested in the "ayes!" .... which never make the newspapers.
It seems that a few (very few) people here seem to have a vested interest in perpetuating their own stereotypes about Orthodoxy. They would, of course, claim that we are doing the same for Protestants. The difference is, of course, that we speak from having been Protestant Christians. If I hadn't been a Protestant Christian AND been blessed by that I would not have become Orthodox. Others take different routes. That's just my story. However, my memory is not faulty.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
Me, too, Fr. Gregory.
That's my story, as well. And, the parish I'm in is more than half, converts from Protestantism.
Fr. Nicholas (my pastor) is very quick to say we are to be thankful for our Christian background, whether Protestant or Catholic. For all these are Christian and hold some Orthodox beliefs and traditions, whether they recognise it or not.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Does only the laity at the time of the council determine its validity, or is it the laity of the Church's entire future history? When's the chronological cut-off point after which the laity's opinion becomes irrelevant? When can a council be declared, with certainty, to be valid?
I think this "laity acceptance" model is seriously problematic...
No Orthodox takers for this one?!
Well, if anyone does finally decide to answer it (and show me that my doubts about the laity acceptance model are misguided), I'd appreciate it.
Thanks! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Dear JL,
I think the answer to your question is in the last few posts, but I can add something.
The Bishops, who are the appointed teachers, meet in Council, right? They make the statements and sign their names.
Then, each goes back to his respective local church and churches, and proclaims the Council's findings. ie the Nicene Creed.
If the laity accept, then it is recognises as a genuine Ecumenical Council. If they reject, then it is not considered a genuine Ecumenical Council.
Look at the examples of previous posts.
Now, Tradition. Tradition is a living thing, not a dead thing. The Holy Spirit is at work in the Church. Now, suppose someone has a revelation that they believe from God. The question is, does the revelation agree with and add to Tradition already formulated in the Councils, or does it contradict? If it is in accordance, then the new revelation will be brought to Council, and proclaimed to the Church, as a whole. If the laity reject it, it will be rejected. The Church as a whole , both clergy and laity, are the Guardians of the truth.
The 7 Ecumenical Councils contain revealed truth, which opposes the heresies of the time. The dogma expressed stands forever. Christ isn't 2 natures in One Person, only for a while.
Love in Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
JL,
"Does only the laity at the time of the council determine its validity, or is it the laity of the Church's entire future history? When's the chronological cut-off point after which the laity's opinion becomes irrelevant? When can a council be declared, with certainty, to be valid?"
A bit more. The decisions of the Councils are signed by the bishops. Now, the acceptance of the laity, is a more organic thing, they didn't go round and ask everyone to sign.
Once the Nicene Creed was accepted, for example, adult converts were required to believe the Creed. And so on with the other Council's statments later.
Could we have a situation today, where the Orthodox Church as a whole decides to reject part of the Nicene Creed as false? No. Of course not, once it's established, it is set in stone as it were.
Liberalism and Orthodoxy do not mix. A Liberal Christian could not in clean conscience give assent to the Nicene Creed, for example, if they didn't believe in the Virgin Birth.
If someone is born into an Orthodox family, they may grow up and not believe everything Orthodoxy teaches. If they started to teach these things, they would be disciplined.
In Christ,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
ChristinaMarie,
I respect you, and your responses contained a lot of sense. But you've glossed over the main point. You say acceptance by the laity is "organic", and that it must take place. But you haven't explained at what point the council is held to be validated by lay approval, and what the bounds for this laity are.
For example, let's say I hold a meeting and say that the decisions made at the meeting will be valid so long as the inhabitants of Gloucester approve it. Unless I provide more information - i.e. who constitute the inhabitants of Gloucester, when they cease to have a say in the matter, why someone who disagrees after a certain point will be evicted rather than allowing their opinion to annul the meeting's decisions - then it seems to me that such a system would be vague and rather fudgey. In fact, so long as I don't totally outrage the inhabitants of Gloucester (by, for instance, suggesting something as unChristian as reconciliation with Durham) then I can be pretty certain that they'll just accept whatever I chuck at them.
To this problem of vagueness as regards chronological cut-off points and who gets a say (i.e. constitutes "laity") I'd add that there doesn't seem to be any procedure for determining what the laity think. Do they have to riot? And who decides if the laity have accepted the council or not? The bishops Then we have bishops determining whether their councils are valid - sounds rather Catholic to me. And what if the bishops ignore the laity? Unless you're claiming impeccability for the bishops - which seems to me an even bigger claim than papal infallibility - there's always the chance of manipulation in a system so loose and ill-defined.
So, the two things I'd appreciate - from any onboard Orthodox - are:
- An explanation of the process by which the laity's views of the council come into play in the validation (or lack thereof) of any particular council
- An explanation of when the laity's views of any particular council cease to be an issue
Thanks! Tradition is a separate issue, IMHO, and one which I would probably agree with an Orthodox understanding of (although not when it comes to defining its content!)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
christinamarie
If a Council is accepted by the laity it seen as truly Ecumenical, if it is rejected, it goes on historical record that the laity rejected it!
If you look carefully at this statement you should realise that arguing from complete silence, is shall we say weak.
Your explaination of this complete silence is no one thought it that important that all the assemblies of God ie the whole of christiandom accepting something was that important to note down.
My explaination is that no one asked them.
By Occams Razor what do you think is the most likely event?
If you wish to check on this web page you will notice it says
quote:
The greater number hastened to take advantage of this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces
Which would suggest strongly that the council decided and everyone followed.
--------------------
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
This is going to be lambasted as a fudge but I'm loud and proud about it so there.
.
One of the problems with the western mind is "definition" ... the desire to be neat and tidy .... when this, when the other, who, with whom and how often. Yes, the double entendre is deliberate .... it begins to sound like a sex manual. Making love is an organic thing and defies definition. So it is with concilar processes ... they are messy, (an anathema to the western mind), but they are a process of speaking the truth in love. Who can say when I knew for sure that I loved my wife. The deed is done now.
--------------------
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 Jesuitical Lad:
Well, who was right?
After establishing Peter as the Rock (Matthew 16:18), Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. As Christians, I think we have to look for this Church in history, trying to find the thread that goes all the way back to Jesus.
This process is what leads many to come to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and is also what leads many "Bible Christians" to hold a "trail-of-blood" view of history prior to the Reformation, identifying with heretics down the ages who were squashed by the established Christian bodies of the time.[/QB]
That this process leads in at least three different directions argues that it won't answer the question of who is right.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
That may be a laudable thing to say Ruth but it is not a logical sequitur. Not that I would want to claim rightness. Most people are right to some extent and none right to the full extent ... fulness perhaps.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This is going to be lambasted as a fudge but I'm loud and proud about it so there.
.
One of the problems with the western mind is "definition" ... the desire to be neat and tidy .... when this, when the other, who, with whom and how often. Yes, the double entendre is deliberate .... it begins to sound like a sex manual. Making love is an organic thing and defies definition. So it is with concilar processes ... they are messy, (an anathema to the western mind), but they are a process of speaking the truth in love. Who can say when I knew for sure that I loved my wife. The deed is done now.
Councils are doubtless messy. The councils held since the Schism have shown no signs of going "Western" in that sense, despite the absence of the Eastern Orthodox!
But, in truth, I do consider your answer a fudge - and a pretty big one, too. If Orthodox Christians are going to invoke "lay approval" as the criterion for deeming a council valid or invalid, an inability to define what this approval consists of makes Orthodox claims sound rather confused.
I won't labour the point, though...
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
First off, apologies for double post. And apologies to those who find such apologies irritating. I think there was a thread about it in Hell a while back...
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Well, who was right?
After establishing Peter as the Rock (Matthew 16:18), Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. As Christians, I think we have to look for this Church in history, trying to find the thread that goes all the way back to Jesus.
This process is what leads many to come to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and is also what leads many "Bible Christians" to hold a "trail-of-blood" view of history prior to the Reformation, identifying with heretics down the ages who were squashed by the established Christian bodies of the time.
That this process leads in at least three different directions argues that it won't answer the question of who is right.[/QB]
Well, I think that a critical examination of the history without prior desire to confirm any particular side's version of affairs will lead people to one conclusion time and time again.
But I'll let you guys guess which one I'm referring to. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gregory:
[QB]That may be a laudable thing to say Ruth but it is not a logical sequitur.
Then I wasn't clear. Jesuitical Lad said, and I paraphrase, that looking at history leads Catholics to think they're right, Orthodox to think they're right, and Protestants to think they're right. If we accept that, then it seems that looking at history is not going to answer the question of who's right. Even if one is interested in answering the question, it seems fruitless.
All Christians can trace some kind of "thread" that leads back from themselves to Jesus, unless they claim to have received a special revelation from God while having never had any contact with other Christians - and I don't know anyone that nuts, thank goodness.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Jumping right into the thread with little regard for what's gone on before.
Why even ask if the Orthodox Church is the One True Church? Why not simply be thankful that God has been gracious to the Romanians, the Russians, the Greeks, the Armenians, the Serbs and the Arabs? There are a plethora of Orthodox congregations in Montreal. With the exception of one small congregation of the truly disgruntled who've all changed their names to Anselm and Chrystostom - and who've always struck me as 'poseurs' who within six months are talking disparagingly about the 'West' as if if were something alien to them - the congregations are uniformly ethnic.
This does not pose a problem to me. We should understand that borders are fluid and that we have people from the East in our midst. And then continue to be good western folks in our respective traditions.....Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.....
I mean the Orthodox have not been overly gracious in their welcome of evangelists from other denominations in the 'Homelands'. The message would seem to be that 'this is the east, this is Greece which has an Orthodox majority. Your ministrations are not appreciated'.
So why are we having this discussion in the West? The answer to the thread would appear to be 'no' and shouldn't we move on to something else?
Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
I'm thinking the attitude we take on this says something about what we believe about how God guides and governs the Church. I think Catholics and Orthodox have a . . . stronger belief that the Holy Spirit is the life of the Church and therefore a guarantor of infallibility, though we obviously differ on the mechnism He employs. It seems other Christians are more comfortable relying on "inspired reason", so to speak.
Wulfstan, I see and appreciate your points (sounds like I'm playing a weird form of Poker), but am not sure I agree. This opens up the question of does right belief matter or not? If you believe Hell awaits the heretic or misguided, then it really really does. If you believe heresy or misguidedness impedes relationship with God, then it matters, though not as much. If you believe there is an Enemy who seeks to deceive, then again, it matters a great deal. I know and love some wonderful Mormons, but I've also seen the damage the LDS church has done to Mormons. I like a quote I picked up on SOF from a post by IanB once: ". . . every single heresy represents a diminution in the witness of the church, and for every diminution, the universality of the message is dimmed and someone, somewhere, loses hope."
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
Forgive the double post, but my phrase Catholics and Orthodox have a . . . stronger belief that the Holy Spirit is the life of the Church suddenly strikes me as having implications I didn't intend. I did not mean to imply that I think others don't believe the Holy Spirit is the life of The nor their Church.
Rasberry, disagree with your "ethnic" take on the Church. I think to take a "they've got their version we've got ours" attitude misses the point.
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
quote:
Forgive the double post, but my phrase Catholics and Orthodox have a . . . stronger belief that the Holy Spirit is the life of the Church suddenly strikes me as having implications I didn't intend. I did not mean to imply that I think others don't believe the Holy Spirit is the life of The nor their Church.
Fine, so once you deduct the overstatement, what remains? Hello?
quote:
Rasberry, disagree with your "ethnic" take on the Church. I think to take a "they've got their version we've got ours" attitude misses the point.
It may miss the point of what 'ought' to be. As it pertains to Montreal, however, it simply is the case that the Orthodox here are found in ethnic congregations and that they represent nations which are not known for their tolerance of western Missionaries. This is news?
I was just taking it to the next step. The truly enlightened among my brethren, in the Prayers of the People, pray for the Patriarchs of the East and of the West as if this were a reality. Is it not a reality?
Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
