quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
This question , no matter what denomination or grouping it is used about, always comes down to :
* one's interpretation of history
* the importance of doctrinal difference
* whether you believe in the 'one, true church' as a concept.

The Orthodox, using the arguments they do with regard to both doctrine and history, can create a scenario which points th their being the 'one , true church', as can the Roman Catholics. Some evangelical protestants create the same sort of picyure based not on an organisation, but those who hold a particular view of salvation and scripture against those who don't, hence dividing into 'true Christians' and others.

I don't agree with any of them, because I don't start from the place they start from. I think in such a diverse and pluralist world, it is unlikely that any organisation or doctrine will hold or be the absolute truth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden_key:
...at which question Jesus rolls his eyes, mutters "oy vey!", and says, "Dad, they're at it again!"

(Nothing personal, H&E--just the overall topic!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So, ChristinaMarie, what you're basically arguing is that all revelation of God ended with the insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed.

---

No, not quite Erin,

Consider this. Which revelations of God since AD 1054 are actually from God. Calvinism or Arminianism? Infant Baptism or believer's baptism?
Episcopal, Presbyterian or Congregational Church government? Transubstantian, consubstantian or some other susbstantiation? Ooops! Nearly forgot, or the Zwinglian symbolic view? The Rapture? Pre-Millenianism, Post-Millenialism or Amillenianism?

Need I go on?

One can have revelations from God, without making them into dogmas.

Take Judgement. The Church teaches that Jesus will return to Judge the living and the dead.

Every single statement of faith in free churches I've beeen to, add to that. They state that unbelievers will be resurrected to eternal torment. They thus expel anyone who believes in annihilation or has a hope for Universal Reconcilation.

That Jesus is going to judge the living and the dead, we can all agree on. As to what His judgement will be, is up to Him. There is room for theological opinion regarding fate of the wicked.

Back to revelation, what about the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc?

Erin, please tell me in your opinion, which church has had revelations from God, and can be described as 'the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'

Please folks, if I'm wrong about Orthodoxy, I'd like someone to show me. I know that the truth sets us free, I do not wish to be bound with error.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
So tell me, Christina, what church was Timothy talking about? More importantly, what church existed at the time?

You have made claims for Orthodoxy, it's up to you to defend them. Pulling out a phrase from a scripture is not a defense.
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Christina,

Alternative conclusions drawn from Paul's famous phrase
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
JL,

I believe it was the Church of Rome that is guilty of Schism, not the Orthodox Churches. The Church of Rome, did not consult with the whole Catholic Church when it inserted the Filioque Clause, and made its other claims.

I believe also that the Roman Catholic Church relies on the mistranslation of the Greek word 'ekklesia' as 'church.' 'Church' means 'house of God', ekklesia means 'assembly.'

All Christians, I believe, belong to the invisible Assembly. This is found in Ephesians, where Paul tells us that we are seated together in the heavenly places in Christ. ie Assembled.

The visible Assemblies, have been promised that the Holy Spirit will keep them from error. It is the Assembly that Paul says is the 'pillar and ground of the truth.' NOT, as the RC claim, the Magisterium.

When the Bishops meet in Ecumenical Council to counter heresy, and formulations of orthodoxy, the process does not end when the Bishops have come to their conclusions.

The process ends, when the Assemblies, ie the laity, ALSO agree with what has been decided. The Assembly, NOT the Magisterium, is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Erin, I hope this answers your question. For the first thousand years, the Bishops of the Assemblies met at Ecumenical Councils, the laity accepted their decisions. To say that the Magisterium is the pillar and ground of the truth, can make sense with the loose word, 'church' but it doesn't fit into the word, ekklesia, which means Assembly.



In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
What about non-Chalcedonian Christians who rejected the conclusions of Chalcedon? If a council is only validated when the entirety of the laity accept it, then has Chalcedon been validated?

Or is there some special percentage of the laity who have to approve a council for it to be valid?
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I'm in full agreement with Christina and Fr Gregory on this one. Christina has advanced her case so well, that there's little to add, but both historically, and geographically, being closest to the cradle of Christianity, no other church can make the claims to authenticity which Orthodoxy does.

I agree with the Orthodox position on the filioque, and it's relevance to the Trinity which was very well explained by Christina. In addition I agree with their position on original sin and death and judgement. I think that we, in the west have much to learn from Orthodoxy.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Jesuitical Lad

Ratification by the laos has to be measured against other canons as well .... the God-bearing fathers and mothers of the Church, our elder brother in Rome, [that one needs some attention ], wider sources of biblical interpretation. Monophysitism was and is a heresy. It was an heretical Alexandrian trend (by other names and semantics) BEFORE Chalcedon. We do not consult such sources where and when a vital part of the apostolic faith is distorted or denied.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Christina, it doesn't. If all Christians are part of the Assembly, then how on earth can the Orthodox lay claim to being THE church? I mean, there are far more non-Orthodox than there are Orthodox, so if acquiesence of the laity is necessary, then it's pretty clear that the Orthodox church is just another branch of Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Erin

The Assemblies that met in the Ecumenical Councils were all Orthodox and Catholic at the outset but contained certain trends and emphases that could, and indeed in some circumstances did become heretical. As soon as a bishop embraced heresy (a CHOICE against the whole) then ALL his coomunities, IF they stayed with him were no longer Orthodox and Catholic assemblies. If there was an Ecumenical Council (in Orthodox terms) today other Christians would be present as observers but they would not have voting rights. Heretics were not granted anything like this post factum. It seems that we have a new type of Christian now .... not Orthodox but not beyonfd the pale heretic either. New situations require new provisions .... oh, I'm sorry, we were supposed to have "stopped" at the filioque weren't we?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
That was Christina's argument, not mine.

quote:

---

Since the schism, the Orthodox Church has stuck by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. What the undivided Catholic believed in, in 1000AD, the Orthodox do today.

---

quote:

---

All Orthodox agree in saying that the Orthodox church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, confessing belief in the article on the Church in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. However, there is no unanimous interpretation of the verb 'to be' in the statement. Very conservative even fanatical, Orthodox would simply understand the statement in an exclusive manner close to the well-known Roman-Catholic attitude still professed in the early twentieth centrury: 'No salvation outside the Church' - only in this case, not the Church of Rome but the Orthodox Church which is the only one in which all grace and all means of salvation are to be found.
At the other end of the spectrum, other Orthodox would interpret the same statement in a manner much closer to what we find in Vatican II Decree on Ecumenisim: the Una Sancta subsistit in (subsists in) the Roman Catholic Church, in this case the Orthodox Church , thus leaving open the difficult question of the determination of frontiers of the Church. Such people would refer to the gospel statement which they interpret to mean that the Holy Spirit 'bloweth where it listeth' (John 3.8) As a result they say:'We know where the Church is; but we do not know where it ends'

---

• the Orthodox Church maintains the true faith handed down to the Apostles; and,
• we haven't changed anything in a thousand years

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
No Christian Church is totally devoid of truth, some have added to, some have taken away from what the undivided Church believed. All except the Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

As the Filioque Clause is in dispute, let me argue as to why I believe the original Nicene Creed is right, and the Filioque Clause is wrong.

---

quote:

---

To call someone arrogant, when one does not know their their teaching, is not a good thing, in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Dear Linzc,


On the thread about Fr Gregory, that was closed, you made a snide comment about me having the arrogance of a young convert. I can agree that I was displaying the zealousness of a young convert, but to call me arrogant, is a moral value judgement, and as arrogance is a sin, you were calling me sinful.

You have stated in a thread you started, all the things you DON'T believe in. This includes the existence of angels and demons for one thing.

You put your own understanding, above Tradition and Scripture, do you not? Your liberal views are rejected by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, are they not?

I ask you to consider, that you may be behaving arrogantly.

As for your questions, we do not have enough common ground for me to respect your theology, therefore, I will not bother. I'm only interested in trying to persuade those who have some respect for Scripture and Tradition. Unless, someone like yourself, can answer my question, 'where, apart from Orthodoxy, can one find a Church that can be considered the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'

Christina

---

Ummm...so you will only respond to those who share a particular theological understanding? And..if they do not, you consider a dissenting opinion to possibly be arrogance because it is based on a theological framework you dismiss?

So, who the heck are you going to discuss theology with? Seems to be this ship is open to more then just people who's framework you consider worthy.

Oh, BTW, I consider the old ladies and men in my church who pray and search out the scriptures to be "pillars and bulwarks of the truth". But, as that theological position does not fit into your understanding of tradition or your understanding of the Timothy passage, I suppose I am not worth bothering about??!!
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear OgtheDim

There IS a problem here though when minds don't meet. We might get further if we took a step back and laid out some basic premises behind our positions. Otherwise we risk shooting in different directions most of the time because we're on different targets. We may even be using different and incompatible equipment. If someone (for example only) doesn't believe that God intervenes in the natural order; it's no use arging Chalcedon with such a person.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Ogthe Dim,

Here's the full quote from Lincz:

"Ok now, I don't believe in souls or spirits, I don't believe in miracles, I don't believe in a personal devil, I don't believe homosexuality is a sin, I don't believe in hell, I don't believe in the virgin birth, I don't believe in an interventionist God and I'm pretty sure I don't believe in a physical resurrection.

SO THEN WHAT THE FUCK DO I HAVE TO STOP BELIEVING IN SO THAT I'M NOT CALLED A BLOODY CONSERVATIVE!"

It's not just the fact that we don't have much common ground, it is the fact that he responded to my post in another thread, with a very snide comment. I do not trust him, to argue rationally. I don't want another Ad Hominem attack, thank you very much. It isn't pleasant being insulted. Once bitten, twice shy.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
OgtheDim wrote:

"Oh, BTW, I consider the old ladies and men in my church who pray and search out the scriptures to be "pillars and bulwarks of the truth". But, as that theological position does not fit into your understanding of tradition or your understanding of the Timothy passage, I suppose I am not worth bothering about??!!"

That's a very nice attitude, respecting the wisdom of elders, but Paul's words were, 'the assembly', not 'the elders of the assembly' or 'the leaders of the assembly'. The elders play their part, sure, but the whole assembly is involved, I believe.

Let the reader decide, is my viewpoint, NOT I am right and you are wrong.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
It's been forever since I studied councils and heresies, so I'm not much use on that front.

Also (and maybe this is my ignorance showing through, I don't know), I do find it puzzling to see Orthodox prooftexting. That's not something I ever experienced before in my life.

I do not want to discuss this subject's validity, but I think it would be illustrative of the way that Orthodox regard revelation. Would there ever be any way that the Orthodox would accept the ordination of women to the priesthood?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Erin

quote:

---

Would there ever be any way that the Orthodox would accept the ordination of women to the priesthood?

---

... and this may surprise some of you ... YES!

HOW .... Ecumenical Council. On what grounds ... more detailed investigation into the relationship between the ministerial priesthood and the Eucharist. Orthodox do not accept for example the iconic argument against the ordination of women as we have never believed that the priest stands as a mini-Vicar of Christ ... in His place so to speak. Our great High Priest himself presides at the Eucharist and this is quite clear from our liturgical texts. I don't want to open this one up again but you can see I hope how Orthodoxy does recognise that there are many things that have not as yet been fully explored. If they had we would not be here .... the New Creation would have come upon us most fully.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Out of curiosity (and note to others: this is NOT an invitation to get in here and defend your practice of X, Y or Z, go start another thread if you're interested), what are the "non-negotiables" so to speak, that other churches would HAVE to ditch in order to be in full communion with the Orthodox churches?

And, again, NOT setting the subject up for discussion, but if I were a vocal advocate of women's ordination, but found myself in agreement with everything else about the Orthodox church, would they welcome me? Or would I have to reject that belief?
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
WOW. (We really need a "jaw-dropping" smilie... this isn't an "eek," just a gasp of astonishment.)

Fr. G, could you pop down to Dead Horses and post about this on "Priestly Genitalia"? You might help at least one Shipmate (now, who could that be?) wrestle out this issue in a satisfactory manner...

I have a question or two which I think would be good in a public forum but I'd rather not derail this thread.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Dear Erin,

I do not consider myself to be proof-texting, but reasoning from the Scriptures. I'm not an Orthodox Christian. Before I decided to attend an Orthodox service, I researched RC and Orthodoxy. I've not been a church member for 6 years, because of all the contradictory teachings in the churches I'd been a member of, in the previous 14 years. I've been to many evangelical churches, because I moved around a lot whilst in the British military fr 12 years.

1 Tim 3:15 first showed me that Scripture is not for private interpretation, doctrinally, then it led me to pray about finding a church that I could accept as a pillar and bulwark of truth.

As for women Priests, I've heard there are some in Orthodoxy who believe the issue should be addressed.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Erin

quote:

---

what are the "non-negotiables" so to speak, that other churches would HAVE to ditch in order to be in full communion with the Orthodox churches?

---

quote:

---

And, again, NOT setting the subject up for discussion, but if I were a vocal advocate of women's ordination, but found myself in agreement with everything else about the Orthodox church, would they welcome me? Or would I have to reject that belief?

---

welcome me ... YES
reject that belief ... NO

There are a number of prominent theologians in the Orthodox Church who are in favour of the ordination of women, (eg. Elizabeth Behr-Siegel), or at least not implacably opposed to it, (Bishop Kallistos). I am of the Bishop Kallistos tendency ... if a Council of the Orthodox Church were to approve it I would happily go along with it. ONE of the reasons I left the Church of England was because I did not believe the CofE had the authority to do it. I have never been opposed to it on principle.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear David

I don't understand ... I thought we couldn't post on Dead Horses.

Do I have to talk about my prick anyway? It usually talks to me although I try not to think with it.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Erin

quote:

---

Would there ever be any way that the Orthodox would accept the ordination of women to the priesthood?

---

... and this may surprise some of you ... YES!

HOW .... Ecumenical Council. On what grounds ... more detailed investigation into the relationship between the ministerial priesthood and the Eucharist. Orthodox do not accept for example the iconic argument against the ordination of women as we have never believed that the priest stands as a mini-Vicar of Christ ... in His place so to speak. Our great High Priest himself presides at the Eucharist and this is quite clear from our liturgical texts. I don't want to open this one up again but you can see I hope how Orthodoxy does recognise that there are many things that have not as yet been fully explored. If they had we would not be here .... the New Creation would have come upon us most fully.

---

Okay, not reasoned argument, but I can't help it.


 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
*blink* No, of course we can post on Dead Horses; it's the Archive which is locked. Dead Horses is where things which have -- at the time -- gone about as far as they can wind up, but people can still talk about them there. It just keeps them from dominating the other boards. When The Morality Of Homosexuality comes up, people are directed to one of several threads there, for instance.

The thread is called "Priestly Genitalia" because it's about the ordination of women, or lack thereof. Please come down and join in -- you have some things to say I haven't seen anyone else say!
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Yes, you can post in DH. You just can't start new threads.

So let me see if I understand this correctly -- setting aside the absurdity of the picture, the Orthodox Council could, theoretically, reconcile the Orthodox Church with churches that teach the concept of rapture?
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 
I apologize in advance for what will surely sound like a silly question, but...

Is there something akin to Theology for Dummies? I keep reading all these arguments about the Filoque and other finer points of theology, and they just make my head hurt. I'd like to find something that puts the basic theological positions of the major Christian groups side by side and see if I can make better sense of them than I do at the moment.

I confess that I am amazed people believe they understand the nature of God so well that they can make definitive statements about what that nature can and cannot be.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Try ReligiousTolerance.org.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Dear Paigeb,

Here's a link which is about Orthodox beliefs.

http://www.synaxis.org/cn/stjohn/abtorthodoxy.html

If you wanted to discuss any subject with someone privately, I am willing to correspond by email or PM. I can explain Protestant beliefs, as well as Orthodox. The motto of my former College, London Bible College, is 'Understand profoundly, to explain simply.' It's been a personal motto for 6 years now.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 
Thank you both.

Christina--I may very well e-mail you with questions after I've done some reading. I appreciate very much your gracious offer.
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Catholics have rejected conciliarism?! In my tradition, there have been councils for the last two thousand years, with one in the 1960s. The Orthodox might not consider them valid, but they're being held all right...
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Erin you naughty person. Don't play innocent with me. You know Councils can't embrace ANYTHING and you know why.

Dear Jesuitical Lad ... sure you have councils ... but the papacy is constrained by them. Indeed, they are subordinate to the papacy. The Conciliar controversies of the Miidle Ages could be replayed though. That might be interesting for the common future of both our communions.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Aw, you know what I mean...
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Erin you naughty person. Don't play innocent with me. You know Councils can't embrace ANYTHING and you know why.

---

I don't know why.
 

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
Erin, for what it's worth I've converted to Orthodoxy and disagree with the Church on the issue of ordination of women and homosexuality. I'm open to them being right and me wrong on both issues, but those areas of disagreement did not seem sufficient to not join. Though since I'm not a woman, the former doesn't affect me personally (though I wouldn't say it doesn't affect me)and the latter . . . well, I just hope God knew what He was doing when He flung me through the door!
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Nothing amazing there Chastmastr ... the Councils can't approve anything which has no witness in the Tradition whatsoever. The only thing that might lie within their remit to change are matters that do not strictly lie within the faith such as those things evidenced by the natural sciences but which may have been matters of faith before ... eg., suicide. In practice though these changes come about by osmosis through the office of the bishop in concert with his brothers.
 

---

Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
.

Unless, someone like yourself, can answer my question, 'where, apart from Orthodoxy, can one find a Church that can be considered the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'

Christina

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Nothing amazing there Chastmastr ... the Councils can't approve anything which has no witness in the Tradition whatsoever.

---

Oh, that sense of "anything." Yes, I see what you mean now; I thought you meant that they couldn't embrace anything whatsoever, that they couldn't commit to anything, which didn't make any sense to me. I.e., "I can't eat anything" meaning "I can eat nothing whatsoever" as opposed to "I can't eat anything" meaning "I can't just go and indiscriminately eat anything." All is clear now.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arch-:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
.

Unless, someone like yourself, can answer my question, 'where, apart from Orthodoxy, can one find a Church that can be considered the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'

Christina

---

Have come to this 'dialogue' very late, I know but just wanted to put my twopennyworth in regarding this rather provocative statement. Speaking entirely personally, any Church which regarded itself as the pillar and bulwark of truth, I would want to immediately leave on the grounds that truth is never fully to be found where you are but where you are called to be. And a Church which does echo, paradoxically, Pilate's question to Jesus, 'what is Truth?', is a Church which, to some extent, is no longer a pilgrim Church. Too many Churches, even Orthodoxy itself, believe, too often, the journey is over. In Dogmatic terms, as in experiential terms, that caanot be 'true'. Jesus said, He will lead us into all Truth and He is still leading us. We haven't arrived yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
So, the question of which was right and wrong, in the Schism of AD1054, gives us only 2 choices. Either the Orthodox were right, or the Church of Rome was right.

---

quote:

---

It matters because the original Creed paints a picture of the unity, or oneness of God, being the Father. If the Father is Source of the Son and the Spirit, then when we think of 'God' we think of the Father.

If we add the Filioque Clause, then the Father is not the Source of unity. When we think of 'God' we think of God's essence. We end up thinking of God as an object, rather than a Person.

---

quote:

---

After the Clause was added, Anselm, Aquinas and others, started making arguments to try and prove the existence of God. This was because of the Filioque Clause, which made them think of god as an object, whose existence can be proved. Those wo do not accept the Clause, ask, 'Why would one try and prove the existence of one's Father?'

---

quote:

---

Just because they started trying to prove God after the filioque was added doesn't mean that it was because of the addition of the filioque. I think that it was related to other things. Perhaps the over dependence on Greek philosophy rather than our Jewish heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
On the thread about Fr Gregory, that was closed, you made a snide comment about me having the arrogance of a young convert. I can agree that I was displaying the zealousness of a young convert, but to call me arrogant, is a moral value judgement, and as arrogance is a sin, you were calling me sinful.

---

quote:

---

And in another post:
It's not just the fact that we don't have much common ground, it is the fact that he responded to my post in another thread, with a very snide comment. I do not trust him, to argue rationally. I don't want another Ad Hominem attack, thank you very much. It isn't pleasant being insulted. Once bitten, twice shy.

---

quote:

---

There's only one option left, the Orthodox. They are the only church on the planet that have not added to what the undivided Church taught, or taken away from.

---

quote:

---

You have stated in a thread you started, all the things you DON'T believe in. This includes the existence of angels and demons for one thing.

You put your own understanding, above Tradition and Scripture, do you not? Your liberal views are rejected by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, are they not?

---

quote:

---

I ask you to consider, that you may be behaving arrogantly.

---

quote:

---

As for your questions, we do not have enough common ground for me to respect your theology, therefore, I will not bother. I'm only interested in trying to persuade those who have some respect for Scripture and Tradition. Unless, someone like yourself, can answer my question, 'where, apart from Orthodoxy, can one find a Church that can be considered the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'

---

quote:

---

If someone (for example only) doesn't believe that God intervenes in the natural order; it's no use arging Chalcedon with such a person.

---

I am so glad that you said 'for example only', because if this was aimed at me it is wide of the mark. A quip in Hell to the effect that I do not believe in an 'interventionist' God does not mean that I do not have a more nuanced position which involves God's activity within the world.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Dear Lincz,

You're quite correct about taking your statements in Hell and arguing about them here. I do apologise for that. I've calmed down now, and wish by-gones, be by-gones. I retract everything I stated about why I didn't want to discuss with you, and apologise.

Most of the time, I'm good humoured, but sometimes I get angry and express it. I shouldn't have done, in your case.

I'll get back to you later about the points you've made.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
If we add the Filioque Clause...we end up thinking of God as an object, rather than a Person.

---

quote:

---

After the Clause was added, Anselm, Aquinas and others, started making arguments to try and prove the existence of God. This was because of the Filioque Clause, which made them think of god as an object, whose existence can be proved.

---

quote:

---

If we reject the Filioque, we can concentrate on 'taste and see that the Lord is good.'

---

quote:

---

Your comment about pains of eternal judgement, simply isn't true.

---

quote:

---

As for practical issues regarding an acceptance or rejection of Orthodoxy. If the Orthodox Church are right, then an invitation to become Orthodox, is like an invitation to a Rich Spiritual Banquet.

---

I'm glad it feels that way to you. I believe one's relationship with a faith community SHOULD feel that way. But do you really think that non-Orthodox Christians don't feel the same way about their faith communities? And do you TRULY assume that the Nicene Creed affects the Banquet in any substantive way?

The bottom line for me is that no Creed, no Church, and no human being can adequately define the nature of God or pin God down into a concise statement. God is a Mystery--and a beautiful one, at that. Trying to spell out the precise nature of that Mystery seems, to me, to be missing the point entirely.

Although I confess it is an interesting way to spend a Saturday morning!

[fixed UBB for quotes]

[ 12. October 2002, 16:11: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 
Well, clearly I need more work on my UBB code! Apologies to all.

(It's a shame that my 50th post has to be one that acknowledges my ignorance about how to post a quote appropriately... )
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Dear Lincz et al,

1 Timothy 3

Overseers and Deacons

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[1] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11In the same way, their wives[2] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

It seems to me, that Paul is giving instructions on how people should behave in the church of God. The church, literally translated, would be 'assembly.' Paul is saying, 'here's how various people should be in ANY Christian Assembly, I'm telling you by letter, because I may be delayed.'

I conclude that my points regarding the Assembly being the pillar and foundation, are well within the context of the passage.

Anyone reading the Church History of the first 500 years, will read the story of how these Assemblies PROVED beyond reasonable doubt, that they acted communally, as the pillar and foundation of the truth.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
PaigeB,

Whoa! The Orthodox and the RCC teach that God is a Mystery. A mystery is something that God has revealed something about, but NOT the whole picture.

You keep making accusations that aren't true.

Jesus stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. He didn't state: 'and the Son.'

Frankly, as a former fundamentalist myself, I say this. Christian fundamentalism not only is nothing like the Christianity of the Early Church, there's a hell of a lot of spiritual and mental abuse that goes on in it. All that hellfire and damnation preaching they do, is one of the major causes of turning people off Christ.

The Early Church taught that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. They didn't dicate to Him, that He has to damn people for eternity, annihilate them, or eventually save them all. Those are the 3 theological opinions as to what will happen to the wicked.

I know that there are fundamentalists who are godly and loving people, but I sincerely believe that that is despite their fundamentalism.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Dear Lincz,

I've just re-read my posts on the Fr Gregory thread. This is the post you made your comment about my 'touching arrogance of a new convert.'

"That's how I used to feel about Fr Gregory's posts, and I commented in a post about how the Orthodox websites came across as arrogant, in their claims to be the true Catholic Church. His response was 'supposing it is true though, would it be arrogant then?'

This spurred me on to do more research regarding Orthodoxy, and now, I'm attending an Orthodox Church as an Explorer. I'm very happy there, and feel I've come home at last, after 20 years of confusion in free church Protestantism.

Paul wrote in 1 Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Ask yourselves this question. Which Church?

I respect Anglicanism, but I cannot see it as the pillar and bulwark of the truth, it is far too broad for that.

I respect RCism, but I do not believe in the Filioque, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.

There's only one option left, the Orthodox. They are the only church on the planet that have not added to what the undivided Church taught, or taken away from.

Sure, it sounds arrogant, that the Orthodox claim to be the true Church. Was Jesus arrogant when He said He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father, except through Him?

In Christ,
Christina"

Was that arrogant, really? Of course you quoted me out of context, didn't you? You only quoted this bit:

"There's only one option left, the Orthodox. They are the only church on the planet that have not added to what the undivided Church taught, or taken away from."

Yes, you judged me arrogant, by taking comments completely out of context. I feel you're trying to play mind-games.

Christina

"
 

---

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I retract everything I stated about why I didn't want to discuss with you, and apologise.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me, that Paul is giving instructions on how people should behave in the church of God. The church, literally translated, would be 'assembly.' Paul is saying, 'here's how various people should be in ANY Christian Assembly, I'm telling you by letter, because I may be delayed.'

---

quote:

---

I conclude that my points regarding the Assembly being the pillar and foundation, are well within the context of the passage.

---

quote:

---

Anyone reading the Church History of the first 500 years, will read the story of how these Assemblies PROVED beyond reasonable doubt, that they acted communally, as the pillar and foundation of the truth.

---

quote:

---

ChristinaMarie said
It seems to me, that Paul is giving instructions on how people should behave in the church of God. The church, literally translated, would be 'assembly.' Paul is saying, 'here's how various people should be in ANY Christian Assembly, I'm telling you by letter, because I may be delayed.'

---

quote:

---

I conclude that my points regarding the Assembly being the pillar and foundation, are well within the context of the passage.

---

quote:

---

When Protestants differ on the meaning of certain Scriptures, they tend to 'demonise' the opposition. That is, 'they're only saying that because they don't have the Holy Spirit to the same extent we do', etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
PaigeB,

Whoa! The Orthodox and the RCC teach that God is a Mystery. A mystery is something that God has revealed something about, but NOT the whole picture.

You keep making accusations that aren't true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Dear PaigeB,

It matters because the original Creed paints a picture of the unity, or oneness of God, being the Father. If the Father is Source of the Son and the Spirit, then when we think of 'God' we think of the Father.

Christina

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracia:
from Christina Marie:

quote:

---

When Protestants differ on the meaning of certain Scriptures, they tend to 'demonise' the opposition. That is, 'they're only saying that because they don't have the Holy Spirit to the same extent we do', etc.

---

Christina, the words you have quoted from Protestants you object to (and i object to that attitude mightily!) is equivalent to any church saying, "We are the one, true Church" - and labeling differing beliefs heretical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arch-:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Dear PaigeB,

It matters because the original Creed paints a picture of the unity, or oneness of God, being the Father. If the Father is Source of the Son and the Spirit, then when we think of 'God' we think of the Father.

Christina

---

But here is an example, Christina, where there has been continuing reflection over the centuries as to the essential nature of the Trinity which has real implications for trinitarian practice as Christians. Many have commented that Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if co-equal and co-eternal, are not only relational in the economy of salvation but also in the very nature of their relationship one with another. Each defines The Other as Each is different from the Other and in this mutuality of definition and difference is found their One-Ness. Therefore, the Father cannot be seen as the source of their Unity because all three are co-equal and co-eternal.There relationality is the source of their unity which, I believe, has radical implications for the nature of community and the Christian life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Just a quick note to say that the Catholic Church recognises apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church.

---

And the Anglican Communion recognizes it in both the Roman Catholic Church AND the various Orthodox bodies.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I'm picking up on the continuing appearance of the Augustinian idea that the Persons in their coequal consubstantiality are only differentiated by their relations. Relations with, I submit, insubstantial ontological grounding (save in the common essence) and distinction without division resemble the smile of the Cheshire Cat. Where's the cat? Or can we only talk of "catness."

We know the hypostases as Father, Son and Holy Spirit because of the economy of salvation and our experience of that, (as when Jesus prays the "Our Father" and I pray it). I don't pray to "Godness" and then try and fit the Trinity round that. Similarly with the Father. His monarchy is attested in Scripture and this should condition my experience as well. In praying to the Son I am enterring the movement of the Son to the Father and the Father to the Son. In praying to the Spirit I am enterring the movement of Spirit from the Father resting on the Son (and on me) ... correspondingly, also I am praying in the Spirit from the Father to be transformed into the image of the Son, deification. No amount of philosophical rambling about oneness and substance can deliver the goods on this one. God's substance is forever closed to us and completely shrouded in His transcendent mystery. We know though that he is Triune because of his loved poured out for us in the sending of the Son and the outpouring of the Spirit FROM THE FATHER.
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
PaigeB, I agree about not being able to pin God down!

ChristinaMarie, I'm very glad that you found something that works so well for you!

Now, a question for those who believe we can/should have one agreed-upon faith, whether by going back to certain things, holding ecumenical councils, and the like:

Please--why do you think this would work????
Why do you think it would be a good idea????


We are *always* going to have different ideas on things. No matter what the basis of putting the Church back together in a visible (and organizational?) way), there will *always* be people who disagree--therefore, there will always be people shut out.

I don't see that ecumenical councils will fix anything. Even people of good will, earnestly seeking God's guidance, can come up with different ideas. And, as the proposed council has been posited on various threads, certain groups would be shut out from the beginning.

If we try to visibly put the church back together, we'd have to:

• Give up things we truly believe
• Lie/pretend/keep silent, and believe them anyway
• Suddenly have an absolute unity of belief that has never occured in the entire history of Christianity

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).

---

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.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
"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
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 

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
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Where's Ham n Eggs?

C'mon, you started this, what's your response?

Christina
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Where's Ham n Eggs?

C'mon, you started this, what's your response?

Christina

---

My head hurst!

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?
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
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.

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.
 

---

Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Fr Gregory said (3) No linkage between congregations and councils ... what about the first apostolic council in Jerusalem (Acts 15)?

---

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,

---

quote:

---

No it isn't. The Orthodox do not judge other churches.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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"

---

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.

---

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)

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
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Now, please show me where I've displayed this supposed arrogance. Be specific.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.)



Rossweisse // is this a deceased equine yet?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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.

---

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.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
But that isn't the Orthodox Church's position so why would I lie?...

---

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.



Rossweisse // who also doesn't want to make you go through the effort of spelling "Rossweisse" again
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Thanks for spelling my name right, if nothing else. Ciao.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
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.

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.
 

---

Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
[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)
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
ChristinaMarie wrote:

quote:

---

...With God, all things are possible.

---

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....

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hull Hound:
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.

---

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.

Here's the results. 30, 000+ Protestant denominations. The Papacy is responsible for all the division, because their claim to Supremacy is not of God, IMO. If Rome had not done what it did in AD1054, Protestantism, would probably have not come into being. If the Papal claims were of God, how come the Papacy got involved in so much evil during the middle ages? The crusades, the assassination 'blessing' to anyone who would murder Elizabeth I, indulgences, etc. It's no wonder Martin Luther protested!

So, in one sense, I agree that many Christians will not be that interested in the Filioque debate. That is for those of us who feel called to understand these things, as part of our personal ministry. Historically though, I believe every Christian needs to understand the reasons for the East / West schism. If the Orthodox were guilty, then surely there would be thousands of splinter groups from Orthodoxy today, because of the sin. The splintering though, happened on the Roman side.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 


Eek! I'm running for cover and reconsidering my immediate desire to have a ship tag that labels me as an Orthodox Christian!

I'd be in over my head if I tried to argue that last post, ChristinaMarie - but this doesn't jive with the Orthodoxy I'm learning to know and love.

My suggestion is to go back and take another read of "The Orthodox Church" by Kallistos Timothy Ware - we Orthodox have some sinful episodes in our history, too - which he rightly acknowledges in his book. We weren't all lily white and Roman Catholicism all sinful black.

Besides, we can't be pointing a finger at anything in history and say "it's because of sin". We are not to judge - that's not our business - Judging right and wrong and issuing consequences is up to God.

This can't be the Orthodox way - I didn't sign up for anything but Love.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Dear Bessie,

I'm not an Orthodox Christian, so I will at times come across as Protestant, regarding RCism. I've not only read Bishop Kallistos' books, I've read critiques of his books too. He's not the Orthodox Pope you know, he's not infallible, and his views are not accepted by all Orthodox. That is, his latest edition of 'The Orthodox Church.'

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.

Neither do I think it unreasonable, to debate in a vigourous fashion for what one believes is true. I am fully aware that I will have responses.

I also think it is reasonable to ask 'If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, should we expect him to be making assassination requests for a certain Monarch?'

I will re-read about Orthodox bad behaviour, but in a Church of sheep and goats, that is to be expected. It shouldn't be expected from the Vicar of Christ on Earth, if the claims are true.

As for love. Love rejoices in the truth, and is willing to be provocative, in an attempt to provoke people to think and research important issues. There's nothing wrong with vigorous debate, as far as I am aware. When the Ecumenical Councils met, they had to thrash out the truth, it was heated at times.

Love in Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
No, Timothy Ware is not infallible, but I believe that any disenchantment with his writings come from his depictions of Orthodox spirituality and not of his accounts of clearly verifiable events in history.

And since I'm posting again - I'll further my prior argument. We Orthodox have a number of schisms throughout history; and nowhere near healing most. What about the non-Calcedonians? As well, there are 4 tragic splits from Russia alone which have occurred in the last 100 years.

In your line of reasoning that Rome's "sin" is the cause of all the "splinter groups" in Protestantism - could not the same be said of ours?
 

---

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
ChristinaMarie -

Here's a link to a website that argues exactly the opposite - that Orthodoxy is guilty of division and schisms and that the Catholics have remained steadfast and undivided throughout history.

their view

Not quite as easy an argument as your premise maintains.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Christina, I appreciate your patient and through posts. They and the thread as a whole is an interesting church history lesson for me.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
...That is what Fr Gregory stated in its full context. He SPECIFICALLY states that a move to Episcopalian is NOT an equivalent.

You are twisting what he stated, it seems to me. Let the readers decide. It seems to me, you just don't like the guy. I might be wrong, but that's how it seems....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Christina, I appreciate your patient and through posts. They and the thread as a whole is an interesting church history lesson for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
No, Timothy Ware is not infallible, but I believe that any disenchantment with his writings come from his depictions of Orthodox spirituality and not of his accounts of clearly verifiable events in history.

And since I'm posting again - I'll further my prior argument. We Orthodox have a number of schisms throughout history; and nowhere near healing most. What about the non-Calcedonians? As well, there are 4 tragic splits from Russia alone which have occurred in the last 100 years.

In your line of reasoning that Rome's "sin" is the cause of all the "splinter groups" in Protestantism - could not the same be said of ours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Either the Orthodox were guilty of Schism, or the RC were. Which one, Bessie? Is the Pope the leader of all Christians?

---

quote:

---

Here's the results. 30, 000+ Protestant denominations. The Papacy is responsible for all the division, because their claim to Supremacy is not of God, IMO. If Rome had not done what it did in AD1054, Protestantism, would probably have not come into being. If the Papal claims were of God, how come the Papacy got involved in so much evil during the middle ages? The crusades, the assassination 'blessing' to anyone who would murder Elizabeth I, indulgences, etc. It's no wonder Martin Luther protested!

So, in one sense, I agree that many Christians will not be that interested in the Filioque debate. That is for those of us who feel called to understand these things, as part of our personal ministry. Historically though, I believe every Christian needs to understand the reasons for the East / West schism. If the Orthodox were guilty, then surely there would be thousands of splinter groups from Orthodoxy today, because of the sin. The splintering though, happened on the Roman side.

---

The truth is, that both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics had a hand in the schism. It's like any divorce. Both parties have some culpability in the matter.

This does not cause me to love and believe the truth of Orthodoxy any less. Converting was not something I did on a whim. I did plenty of searching, reading and waiting. This is a lifetime decision - can't be taken back, easily.

Have you read my posts thoroughly, I say back to you? I quite understand the schisms. I am not going to repeat what I've already said. Please review.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Hi Ruth,

I get your point, but what happened was that the Church of Rome declared the Pope to be the spiritual leader of all Christians, with jurisdiction over all churches.

They added the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, without an Ecumenical Council, and tried to impose this on Churches which didn't accept the Filioque.

Surely, if someone is trying to force you to do something against your will, that is bullying.

The Orthodox refused to be bullied, is a better explanation, I believe.

It was the RC that excommuniacted the Orthodox. Just like they did with the CofE.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Hi Bessie,

Sorry if I came over as patronising, I didn't mean to be. I apologise.

If you read what you pasted of my comments, you'll see I put 'IMO' , in my opinion. I also asked questions, provocative ones. I also stated, 'I believe.' These things are there to show that I am not dictating what truth is, or what God's will is, but am arguing a case, from my perspective (I've stated my presuppositions, I don't believe we can be totally objective) and am awaiting responses. There is a difference between, I believe and I know.

Now, let us wait for Fr Gregory to comment. You see, you and I are new to Orthodoxy, right? We're both going to Antiochian, right? Fr Gregory is also Antiochian. I know him, I don't know you. I ask Fr Gregory questions and seek his guidance sometimes, as my Church is a mission Church, and my Priest isn't readily available, you see. I want guidance from a Priest. If he thinks I'm out of order, in any way, and you are right in what you've said, I'll listen to him, and sort things out. That will include a public apology to all concerned on this thread, and I will thank you for bringing these things to my attention.

Please don't mistake my zeal, for being unloving. The opposite of love, isn't hate, it is apathy, I believe.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
And I've read that critique already, thank you.

I refer you to page 60 and 61 of the new edition of "The Orthodox Church" - I'm giving a small quote only - "each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back with sorrow and repentance. ... both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level"...

Whether anyone criticises Kallistos Ware's writings is neither here nor there. This statement still stands, for me, as true Christianity - no matter what flavor.

What point are you making? You are more spiritually and factually with it than a noted Orthodox scholar, leader and Bishop?

Please.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I know too little church history to comment properly, but enough about human nature to ask a question. What happened prior to the claim of papal supremecy and insertion of the filoque? Surely they weren't dreampt up over night by some power hungry pope, the ideas that led to these decisions must have been circulating for a while, probably (the church being composed of human beings) with some fairly unpleasant comments from both sides of the debate. To blaim the RC for the schism seems very much like blaming one spouse for causing a divorce when the marriage has been breaking down for a long while.

Sorry, but I'll be away for a couple of days but hope to see an answer to the question when I get back.

Alan
 

---

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:

Now, let us wait for Fr Gregory to comment. You see, you and I are new to Orthodoxy, right? We're both going to Antiochian, right? Fr Gregory is also Antiochian. I know him, I don't know you. I ask Fr Gregory questions and seek his guidance sometimes, as my Church is a mission Church, and my Priest isn't readily available, you see. I want guidance from a Priest. If he thinks I'm out of order, in any way, and you are right in what you've said, I'll listen to him, and sort things out. That will include a public apology to all concerned on this thread, and I will thank you for bringing these things to my attention.

Please don't mistake my zeal, for being unloving. The opposite of love, isn't hate, it is apathy, I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know too little church history to comment properly, but enough about human nature to ask a question. What happened prior to the claim of papal supremecy and insertion of the filoque? Surely they weren't dreampt up over night by some power hungry pope, the ideas that led to these decisions must have been circulating for a while, probably (the church being composed of human beings) with some fairly unpleasant comments from both sides of the debate. To blaim the RC for the schism seems very much like blaming one spouse for causing a divorce when the marriage has been breaking down for a long while.

Sorry, but I'll be away for a couple of days but hope to see an answer to the question when I get back.

Alan

---

Hi Alan,

You're quite right that the Filioque question didn't just pop up in AD1054. I think it was Augustine of Hippo who first came up with it.

Prior to AD1054, the undivided Catholic Church, had resolved issues with heretics, by Ecumenical Council. There were 7. The whole Church was involved, as the decisions of the Bishops, had to be accepted by the people. Those 7 Councils never had a problem with the people, but there's been at least one held in Orthodoxy, where the people rejected the Bishops decisions. You see, if the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, it involves all members of the assembles (churches), not just the leaders.

Rome, in AD1054 decided to make dogma in a new way. Instead of an Ecumenical Council, they inserted the Filioque into the Nicene Creed, without consulting what are now know as the Orthodox. From an Orthodox perspective, they usurped an authority that was not their's by right. The Pope was declared to have jurisdiction over ALL Churches. The Orthodox respected the Pope as the First among equals, but this new thing, was literally, dictatorship. Rome claims we should all do what she tells us.

Now, either the Pope should be recognised as the spiritual leader of ALL Christians, as was claimed in AD1054, or he should not.

It was decided in Ecumenical Council, prior to the Schism, that Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, shared responsibilty for overseeing the Church, each looking after its own people. In AD1054, Rome disregarded this, and procalimed herself as the overseer of everybody.

Now, can you see Alan, that to change these things, decided in Ecumenical Council, is to deny that the Holy Spirit led those earlier leaders, and kept them from error? That is the implication, of the addition of the filioque clause. Let's face it, if the Nicene Fathers got the Nicene Creed wrong, perhaps they got other things wrong too.

Thus, the Church must have ceased to be the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Tim 3: 15.

These are my arguments for your and everyone else's consideration.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Dear Bessie,

Thanks for your kind words.

You posted:

"Who was it that said there is no unrest in Orthodoxy?"



What I like about Orthodoxy, is the LACK of dogma, and the understanding we can have different historical and theological opinions.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
This is from a RC website called New Advent.

"The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy. "

According to this, the Roman Catholic teaches eternal damnation as dogma. I would rather go with the Orthodox, who stick with the Nicene Creed, that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. That way, I'm not telling Jesus what He has to do with the wicked, and I can hope and pray that God will have mercy. Is it totally out of the question, that God, Who is Love, may punish as chastisement, rather than just vengeance? If New Advent is correct, yes, it is definately everlasting punishment.

In Orthodoxy, it is considered a holy attitude to hope and pray that all will be saved. Is that not an expression of loving one's neighbour and one's enemies?

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
I've just done some research after reading the link that Bessie posted about the Roman Catholic version of history.

Here is a link to a Roman Catholic Site, which explains that they hold to the Councils too. The Roman Catholic Church has had more Councils since the East / West split.

Notice how many of the RCC Councils, which are held to be infallible, were convened, among other things, to wage war in the Crusades. The Crusades, it seems, were by direct order of infallible Ecumenical Councils. What I've stated is in the article.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Now, I don't know about you, dear reader, but I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit would direct Christ's True Church, in Ecumenical Council, to wage war against Moslems and others. Can you?

Whatever bad things have happened in the Orthodox Church, they haven't happened by order of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

I only offer this for your thoughtful consideration.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I must say reading through this fascinating thread that my sympathies lie with Christina and Fr. Gregory. I would find conversion to RC'ism impossible, largely because of my view of papal infallibility. I think a Pope as primmus inter pares would be accepted by most of Christendom, but that isn't going to happen and the present system is unacceptable to many Christians.

I have much sympathy with Orthodoxy and find much of its theology more logical than western theology, including the filioque. The Orthodox faith has a spirituality that is almost totally lacking in protestantism, but my greatest stumbling block there is my inability to see the importance of doctrine over experience and indeed my inability to sign up to every jot and tittle of Christian theology as it has come down to us.

With reference to the Great Schism, although it takes two, I think Christina is right. Rome got hooked on political power early in its history and decided it could dictate to the whole world. The protestant schism was in rebellion to this as had been the Great Schism.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Christinamarie said What I like about Orthodoxy, is the LACK of dogma,

---

quote:

---

Sorry if I came over as patronising, I didn't mean to be

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
This is from a RC website called New Advent.

"The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy. "

According to this, the Roman Catholic teaches eternal damnation as dogma. I would rather go with the Orthodox, who stick with the Nicene Creed, that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. That way, I'm not telling Jesus what He has to do with the wicked, and I can hope and pray that God will have mercy. Is it totally out of the question, that God, Who is Love, may punish as chastisement, rather than just vengeance? If New Advent is correct, yes, it is definately everlasting punishment.

In Orthodoxy, it is considered a holy attitude to hope and pray that all will be saved. Is that not an expression of loving one's neighbour and one's enemies?

In Christ,
Christina

---

quote:

---

From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church . . . Peter . . . rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvellous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him.

{Sermons, 4:2; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, p. 275}

[after citing Lk 22:31-32] . . . special care is taken of Peter by the Lord, and he asks specially for the faith of Peter, as if the state of the others would be more certain if the mind of the chief were not overcome. So then in Peter the strength of all is fortified, and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the stability which through Christ is given to Peter, through Peter is conveyed to the apostles . . . Since then, beloved, we see such a protection divinely granted to us, reasonably and justly do we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our leader, rendering thanks to the eternal King, our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, for having given so great a power to him whom he made chief of the whole Church . . .

{Sermo 4 - Gaudeo, dilectissimi in J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina (Paris, 1866), 54:149

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Is the Church variously represented by the terms Orthodox, Russian, Eastern, Greek, Serbian, etc. the One True Church?

---

quote:

---

that it may be possible for people to leave the Orthodox Church, and learn to be comfortable with the fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Christina,

I think it's meant in the sense that whereas, as a Church, the Catholic Church prays for souls in purgatory and souls on earth, it does not say prayers for souls in Hell. On an individual-by-individual case, though, it's impossible to know who is where, so one prays in hope. But one does not consciously offer prayers for "the damned"; to do so would be to question God's judgment and to ignore what Christ teaches about the nature of Hell.

I think that's how to make sense of the statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Is the Church variously represented by the terms Orthodox, Russian, Eastern, Greek, Serbian, etc. the One True Church?

---

You cannot be serious. Of course it is not. The Church of England is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as spoken of in the creed.

Did any of the "Orthodox" churches invent the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer? Of course not.

Q.E.D

---

quote:

---

The laity (the assembly) has the authority, as the pillar and bulwark, to reject the decisions of Bishops.

---

with regards to the ecumenical councils.

I am kind of assuming there is none.
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
I think the Council of Florence (1438-45), where the Eastern Orthodox bishops accepted the inclusion of the filioque in the creed, is generally held by modern Orthodox as an example of a council which was invalidated by the laity's refusal to accept it. Although the history as I see it suggests it was more a case of the bishops changing their mind after the event...

FAQ: Some Eastern Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church is under anathema...
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
A couple of comments:
I'm not willing to dismiss JPII's overtures to the Orthodox as simply "fine words." I see them as a dying man's efforts to bring about a reconciliation within a family he loves. The Roman Catholic Church is a very complex critter, and things change very slowly. I would beg my Orthodox brothers and sisters to be patient. I would also ask them to be open to the possibility that reconciliation might occur on a basis that would surprise both of us. I'm not sure what purpose there is at this point in drawing lines in the sand -- e.g. "We will NEVER accept/give up the filioque," "We will NEVER back down on infallibility." Who knows, speaking with each other in faith, hope and love might lead us to new insights on these questions that will enable us to reconcile without either side "surrendering."

Finally, the following news item seems relevant to this thread.

FCB

quote:

---

John Paul II Urges Christians to Examine Conscience on Ecumenism
Romanian Orthodox Patriarch Concludes Visit to Rome

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 13, 2002 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II urged all Christians, including Catholics, to make an examination of conscience to see where they have delayed or are delaying progress toward full ecclesial unity.

The Pope made his appeal today in the presence of Romanian Orthodox Patriarch Teoctist, who ended his weeklong visit to Rome by participating in a eucharistic celebration presided over by the Holy Father.

Orthodox and Catholics have been divided since the schism of 1054, in which Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople exchanged excommunications. The excommunications were lifted in 1965, but both Churches have yet to attain full communion.

"Through baptism we form part of the one Body of Christ, but, unfortunately, have we not, at times, rejected this invitation?" the Pontiff asked in his homily.

"Have we not, perhaps, torn the Lord's seamless robe, by separating ourselves from one another?" the Pope continued. "Yes, our reciprocal division is contrary to his will."

"To attain full communion, we must overcome our slowness and smallness of heart," John Paul II added. "We must cultivate the spirituality of communion, which is capable of regarding a brother in the faith as someone who belongs to me."

"We must nourish incessantly the passion for unity," he said.

Patriarch Teoctist, who earlier had delivered a homily under the Archangel Michael's cupola, stressed similar words: "The division, separation, isolation of Christians among themselves are not ways of witness of Christ, who prayed that all might be one."

"The spiritual crisis of our time requires that we rediscover the connection between penance and conversion, or the return to Christ, meek and compassionate, on the one hand," the patriarch said, "and the reconstruction of communion between the Churches, on the other."

"Contemporary secularization is accompanied by a fragmentation and an impoverishment of the interior spiritual life of man," the Orthodox leader said. "Thus, secularization impoverishes spiritual communion among Christians even more. Hence, together we must unite the quest for holiness of Christian life with the realization of Christian unity."

The Romanian Orthodox Church is a historical bridge between Catholics and Orthodox. It is the only Latin country that became part of the Orthodox realm after the schism of 1054. The very etymology of its name denotes nostalgia for its past, linked to Rome.

Romania was the first Orthodox country visited by the Pope, in May 1999. Patriarch Teoctist's visit to Rome was in gratitude for that papal visit.

In responding to the patriarch's address, John Paul II said: "In celebrating the authentic Eucharist according to their respective traditions, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches already live a profound communion, although it is still not full."

"May the blessed day arrive soonest when we will really be able to live our perfect communion in fullness," the Pope exclaimed.

Patriarch Teoctist and John Paul II were able to share the Liturgy of the Word. They also professed together the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, in Romanian, in keeping with the liturgical formula of the Byzantine Churches, demonstrating that the fundamental theological problem of the schism between the two Churches has been surmounted.

But the two leaders separated for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

In the peace greeting, established by the liturgy, the Bishop of Rome and the bishop of Bucharest embraced, and, at the end of the Mass, they blessed the congregation together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
My reputation for being an awkward Bastard is now ruined.

Anyway to the matter in hand Christinamaria I asked for evidence to support this assertion

quote:

---

The laity (the assembly) has the authority, as the pillar and bulwark, to reject the decisions of Bishops.

---

with regards to the ecumenical councils.

I am kind of assuming there is none.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, how can you have a relationship with someone about whom you know little or about whom you believe untrue things?

---

quote:

---

Are Mormons, with their radically different understanding of virtually all "o"rthodox Christian doctrines, just a branch of Christianity?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

How does diversity diminish the potential for the existence of absolute truth? There's no relationship there at all.

---

quote:

---

If the Papal claims were of God, how come the Papacy got involved in so much evil during the middle ages? The crusades, the assassination 'blessing' to anyone who would murder Elizabeth I, indulgences, etc. It's no wonder Martin Luther protested!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

quote:

---

How does diversity diminish the potential for the existence of absolute truth? There's no relationship there at all.

---

Diversity does not diminish the potential for the existence of absolute truth. But I think that it makes it more likely that absolute truth is not owned by one body.

---

I can't see why that's the case either! Let's imagine a world in which most people are born entirely useless at mathematics. Now, along comes the perfect mathematician one day, and establishes a community in which the truths of mathematics, as taught by him, are faithfully preserved - even after he leaves the community. He keeps watch from afar on the community's activities, preventing it from sliding into error and giving mathematical advice when the community consults him.

Around this community is the rest of humanity, ignorant of even basic arithmetic and holding to wildly divergent claims about things such as 2+2=7, 2+2=1, etc. etc.

The fact that the rest of humanity hold many different opinions has absolutely no relation on whether or not the community holds to an absolutely correct version of mathematical rules, calculations, etc.

(Clunky analogy, I know, but my point is that there's no relationship between people holding divergent beliefs and whether or not any one of those beliefs is absolutely correct.)
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
It's a very clever analogy JL, but it won't surprise you to find out that it's not one I think actually holds.

A better analogy (IMO) would be something like this. There is some basic knowledge of Mathematics allied with vast amounts of ignorance. The Perfect Mathematician demonstrates a Mathematical system that allows for a development of understanding and knowledge of the subject.

The followers of the PM survive an initial bout of persecution and persuade the head of state to establish them as the faculty of Mathematics at the University. They then spend vast amounts of time attempting to deprive Mathematicians of the old school of tenure and arguing amongst themselves about abstruse Mathematical problems.

They persuade the head of state to allow them to enforce their own understanding of Mathematics by law. The fractured state of political authority in the state leads to a major schism over Filoque's Theorem followed by a succession of other schisms a few hundred years later. Cynics become rather prone to ask what any of this had to do with the original mathematician, whose name is often invoked and whose teachings are often ignored. Different maths lecturers give different answers to questions and people occasionally wistfully opine that the science might progress if the different lecturers occasionally talked, or better still, listened to each other. Occasionally one of the different schools throws up a figure so brilliant he seems to be inspired by the Perfect Mathematician, but this is all too rare. Students at the university increasingly abandon the study of Mathematics for physics, as the physics faculty claims to have taken over the role that Mathematics once had as Queen of the Sciences.

Not of course, that theology or ethics are as clear cut or simple as Mathematics....
 

---

Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
ROTFL
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
a major schism over Filoque's Theorem

---

Well, that made me laugh!

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?

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.
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
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?

---

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

Yours in Christ

Matt
 

---

Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
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.

---

quote:

---

The Orthodox faith has a spirituality that is almost totally lacking in protestantism,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
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...
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Ah, but who is the Church, ChristinaMarie?

Yours in Christ

Matt
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 

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...

---

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...


 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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. ...

---

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!
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
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

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!

---

quote:

---

The greater number hastened to take advantage of this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces

---

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]

---

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...
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregory:
[QB]That may be a laudable thing to say Ruth but it is not a logical sequitur.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
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.

---

This is the most sensible thing I have heard you say Fr Gregory! Now, why not apply this type of reasoning to the idea that there has to be one monolithic church grouping which is (as ChristinaMarie seems to say every second post, 'the pillar and foundation of truth'). In fact the way in which the church holds the truth is a lot messier, a lot more organic and a lot less defined than you suggest. Who is the pillar and foundation of truth? Why all those who proclaim the glorious gospel of Christ even amongst their doctrinal failings, differences and tensions.

Was there ever an 'undivided church'. No of course not - the truth is a lot messier, more organic and less defined than that.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
FCB,

I think the difference between Church law and Church teaching on matters of faith and morals is a lot clearer than you imply. If people in the Church choose to reject councils, it is they - and not the councils - who are held to be at fault.

ChristinaMarie,

I respectfully disagree. I think Catholicism has proven more successful than nearly any other strand of Christianity in adapting to local cultures and allowing authentic Christian expression to take hold in different settings. That's why we so frequently get ignoramuses from Anglophone cultures accusing us of syncretism, paganism, etc.

That, in addition to the enormous number of rites and worship styles available to Catholics, leads me to think that it's not a case of "melting-pot" at all. We just happen to have a common focal point in the authority of the papacy, and commonly-held beliefs. How they're expressed is a different matter, varying from place to place and age to age.

---

Dear JL,

It wasn't that long ago that Latin was used in all Roman Catholic Churches, correct?

Then, instead of letting people who like using Latin, carry on, it was forbidden by the Second Vatican Council, was it not?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not saying I'm definately right.

Having a common language for services, fits into the melting pot idea.

Allowing people to hold services in their own language, including the Greek communities in the UK, to have their services in Greek, is more like the Canadian approach to multi-culturalism.

I believe that Greek, Russian, etc, Orthodox, should be reaching out to the indiginous population too though.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Christina,

Those who want to hear Latin masses can do so pretty much whenever they want - both in the Tridentine rite (pre-VII) and in the Novus Ordo, which was born as a result of Vatican II.

Even before the Second Vatican Council, Latin was - as far as I know - not in use in the Eastern rites, and some of the more ancient Western rites.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Thanks JL,

That's cleared up a prejudice then. I publicly drop the melting pot analogy, as it is inaccurate, and apologise to JL, in particular, and anyone else concerned.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Christina,

No problem. Actually, the thing that really upset me was the comparison of the Catholic Church to the United States...


 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
ROTFL!

cue Erin......

I wouldn't like to be in yours shoes, JL.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
...Orthodoxy in Ottawa, TOronto and Winnipeg (the cities where I have lived in Canada) is stiflingly ethnic. There are some converts to mainline Orthodox groups, but they are very few. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
That's a good point, and it actually fits in with what I've previously stated. It is fullness of truth we are claiming.

---

Ok, I think it is time to define this term 'fullness'. My dictionary says, "the quality or condition of being full or complete". Are you claiming that Orthodoxy holds the complete truth? Or do you mean something else? Perhaps this will help us define the bounds of this debate a little more.
 

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
Wulf,

I agree with you and feel the same way. Nor would I EVER presume to have any idea who was "hell-bound" or not (nor would any appropriately orhthodox Orthodox Christian). Bear in mind we belief Hell is the Presence of God for the "unsaved", and I have no idea what it takes to cause someone to experience God that way.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is at what point does Truth matter and what point doesn't it, and why? I have a visceral dislike of "everybody has their own truth, all part of The Truth", mostly, I think, because it seems to make God sort of distant and disinterested; and object to be examined instead of a Person to be loved and loved by.

Your posts have been gracious and considered and deserve a response in kind, but I'm brain-fried right now and can't seem to compose a coherent thought, so I'll try again tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is at what point does Truth matter and what point doesn't it, and why? I have a visceral dislike of "everybody has their own truth, all part of The Truth", mostly, I think, because it seems to make God sort of distant and disinterested; and object to be examined instead of a Person to be loved and loved by.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
That's a good point, and it actually fits in with what I've previously stated. It is fullness of truth we are claiming.

---

Ok, I think it is time to define this term 'fullness'. My dictionary says, "the quality or condition of being full or complete". Are you claiming that Orthodoxy holds the complete truth? Or do you mean something else? Perhaps this will help us define the bounds of this debate a little more.

---

Hi Lincz,

First of all, I believe that the Church has always had full possession of the truth. The Ecumenical Councils were about defining the truth. Christians knew that God was Father, Son and Holy Spirit, lonf before the Trinity was defined. It was when wolves and false teachers arose, teaching heresy, that the Church had to define the truth. Consider Scripture, that contains the truth. Which interpretation is right though? Today, there are lots to choose from.

The definitions become part of Tradition, but Tradition is seen as the work of the Holy Spirit, it is a living Tradition, not a dead one. Therefore, no doubt, God will raise another Church Father or Mother, who will receive revelation from God, from their close walk, not academic ability, and may define the truth in a new way, which accords to the Tradition already established.

To the Anglicans and other non-RCs, the Orthodox invitation is to consider accepting the Ecumenical Councils, that they currently reject.

To the Roman Catholics, it is an invitation to drop the dogmas that have developed since the Schism, to form one Church, and then hold Ecumenical Councils if needed, over certain issues.

There are other issues, I'm sure, but I'm not in a position to explain those.

I've recently been reflecting on the revelation of the Trinity I had in 99, the details of which I've posted on this thread. I know you're interested in 'Person' regarding the Trinity. Let me share with you, my new definition of Person, borne from my theological eduaction plus my experience. It isn't new, but it is new to me, and it's practical, and illusrates what I've written above about defining the truth.

"When speaking of God as 3 Persons, the word Person means, 'One who relates, both to the
other Persons in the Trinity, and to ourselves, and is distinguishable from the other Persons
through our nous.' (the part of us that understands spiritual revelation)"

When I pray to the Father, I'm not just using a different Name, but I feel I'm talking to a different Person, from when I pray to Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Donna, who's a new convert, has the same experience. I've had this truth for donkey's years, but never defined it. Now I've defined it, I can use it for those puzzled about the Trinity, both Christians and non-Christians.

I hope this personal example, illustrates how the Church has always had the truth, but the Holy Spirit works throughout history, to define the truth.

BTW, it just so happens that the nearest English speaking Orthodox Church to you, that I'm aware of, is the one Donna and I go to, at All Hallow's in the City of London. After the service, we have a fellowship meal, and spend around 2 hours together. If you wanted to get first-hand knowledge and experience, you'd have plenty of time to talk to our Priest Fr Michael Harper. We could have a mini-ship meet too.

I can only explain so much.

In Christ,
Christina
In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Has it ever occurred to you Raspberry Rabbit, that it is quite understandable for Christians to react with anger, when Evangelical Missionaries come to your country and tell you that you're not really a Christian if you're Orthodox?

Christina

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
...Orthodoxy in Ottawa, TOronto and Winnipeg (the cities where I have lived in Canada) is stiflingly ethnic. There are some converts to mainline Orthodox groups, but they are very few. ...

---

This has certainly been my experience in the American midwest. I visited a number of Orthodox churches at a time when I was painfully unhappy with the path ECUSA was taking, and was very much the outsider at every single one. I have to say that I was never welcomed at any of those six churches, either; I'm too obviously not Greek or Russian or Serbian or whatever. I felt more at home in the Conservative synagogue where I used to sing; there was a lot more English used during the service.

Your other points are well taken too. Thanks you for your post.

Rossweisse // who retains an affection for souvlaki

---

quote:

---

What the Orthodox want, in time, is there to be the Greek Orthodox, the Nigerian Orthodox, the Brazilian Orthodox, etc. Churches united in a common belief, without imposing a foreign culture. We shouldn't expect Africans to worship like the English, for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OgtheDim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Has it ever occurred to you Raspberry Rabbit, that it is quite understandable for Christians to react with anger, when Evangelical Missionaries come to your country and tell you that you're not really a Christian if you're Orthodox?

Christina

---

Yeah that would anger me too.

Same sort of anger happens when you are told your faith is O.K. because it has vistages of the Orthodox in it.

Maybe that's why there is a bit of flame to this discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
...1. As an English person, I may feel a bit strange in a Greek, or Serbian Church, whether it is Orthodox or not. I may get feelings of, 'Why don't these people speak English? We're in England!' I may think 'when in Rome do as the Romans do.' I may get unpleasant feelings of being a foreigner in my own country, as I sometimes do in Asian areas, such as Southall, outer London.

2. What was your motivation for trying out the Orthodox? Did you feel God was leading you to the Orthodox, or were you just disgruntled with your Church, or was it a bit of both? If your motives were impure, then your judgements may be colored by them. I'm not saying they were, I'm just asking you to prayerfully consider this. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Dear Og,

Prior to my accepting Orthodoxy, I has Anabaptist beliefs, inc the trail of blood. My favourite theologian was Menno Simons.

You feel insulted! According to Anabaptist views of what Church is, the whole undivided Catholic Church was apostate. What changed my Anabaptist views of Church, was studying Church History and Christology . We studied the Radical Reformation in detail.

The beliefs of Menno Simons and Conrad Grebel, are still my beliefs today, regarding salvation, for example. The central issue is to do with the purity of the local church. This emphasis led to banning and split after split among Anabaptists. I now believe that the local church contains sheep and goats, and that we are to love the goats and seek to convert them to sheep. The pure church emphasis throws the goats out of the church!

In Christ,
Christina

---

Hey...Christina I was trying to point out how two groups on this thread felt insulted.

Surely you are not saying your views (which I could counter, but that's not the point of the OP) on Anabaptist theology justify the supposed insults??

I actually thought I was extending a hand here trying to find common ground.


 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
Dear Og,

I'm sorry if I've missed the point of your post, but which 2 groups? Please elaborate.

One cannot answer a question about why the Orthodox Church sees herself as the True Church, without ruffling feathers, you know. However, if I've gone over the top, I'm willing to retract 'insulting' statements.

In Christ,
Christina
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
One cannot answer a question about why the Orthodox Church sees herself as the True Church, without ruffling feathers, you know.

---

Sure one can. It's the same, really, for any of us whose church or theology is exclusive of other people's, including my own. "We in the X Church really do believe that we have the fullness of the Christian faith in a way which other churches don't; we know how this must look to outsiders, and some of our members don't help matters at times by their own approach, for which we apologize; arrogance isn't one of the things we believe in, and while we believe we have that fullness of doctrine and faith, we must practise mutual charity with others with whom we disagree, and find what common ground we can."

And if a group isn't willing to practise charity and humility -- and, when it comes up, apologise on behalf of (or deal with in some way) its over-zealous members for stepping over the line (I know of no group which doesn't have this problem; it's part of being human, but those of us whose theology is exclusive need to be very careful how we express things) -- then I'm not sure there's a whole lot to say to them.

David
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
David,

This isn't the first time you've done this to me.

You cannot argue against the message,therefore you resort to attacking the messeneger.

Your use of politeness, comes across to me as a way of promoting intellectual dishonesty.

To call someone arrogant, or an argument, arrogant, you are ipso facto in judgement. You have already judged the argument as false. If an argument is true, no matter how outlandish it sounds, it ain't arrogant.

I want to be like Jesus, He didn't mince His words. I'm not a middle-class epitome of English politeness. Sometimes, politeness, when frankness is needed, is a tool of the devil. Do you think Jesus was worried about losing disciples in JOhn 6, where he told them that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Ad Hominem! The tool of the rascal!

Angrily,
Christina
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
The groups who have been insulted:

Orthodox who are insulted that people are calling them arrogant

and the second group I mentioned before, those who are insulted by posts that seem to claim everybody as really only on a journey that will lead to Orthodoxy.

Anyways, this thread, illuminating as it is, seems to be winding down.

Ultimately, happy to hear there is life after Anabaptism Christina
This Anabaptist affirms you in your journey.


 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
David,

This isn't the first time you've done this to me.

You cannot argue against the message,therefore you resort to attacking the messeneger.
...

Ad Hominem! The tool of the rascal!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
David,

This isn't the first time you've done this to me.

You cannot argue against the message,therefore you resort to attacking the messeneger.

Your use of politeness, comes across to me as a way of promoting intellectual dishonesty.

To call someone arrogant, or an argument, arrogant, you are ipso facto in judgement. You have already judged the argument as false. If an argument is true, no matter how outlandish it sounds, it ain't arrogant.

I want to be like Jesus, He didn't mince His words. I'm not a middle-class epitome of English politeness. Sometimes, politeness, when frankness is needed, is a tool of the devil. Do you think Jesus was worried about losing disciples in JOhn 6, where he told them that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Ad Hominem! The tool of the rascal!

Angrily,
Christina

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Has it ever occurred to you Raspberry Rabbit, that it is quite understandable for Christians to react with anger, when Evangelical Missionaries come to your country and tell you that you're not really a Christian if you're Orthodox?

Christina

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0