Anastasis wrote:

And while we're on the subject, why is faith any less of a work than other deeds?

My thoughts exactly. Who can honestly believe in salvation by faith alone and make the argument that faith isn't a work?

eternalmystery wrote:

1. Go read your Bible.
2. Compare it to RCC theology (more specifically the CCC and the Council of Trent)

So, what about the Council of Nicea? That was all Catholics if I remember correctly.

eternalmystery wrote:

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

You're pushing it again, Broc. Please stop taking stabs and repeatedly posting about why you hate Catholics. Or covering that fact up by posting about why you're not a Catholic. It's seems your just taking every opportunity you can to speak out against the Catholic church.

Mikey, how about reading my posts? I DO NOT hate Catholics. YOU stop accusing me of holding positions that I don't really hold to (in this case, hatred of RCC/EO/etc)

My post was NOT a cover up. The next time you reply to any of my posts, read the entire things instead of just assuming stuff. Pls?

I don't say this to be mean or arrogant or rude. I'm saying this because you are not even taking into account why I have the mindset I do. Did you even read what I posted about how the local RCC even operates in my area, Mikey, or did you just post what you did just for the sake of doing so? The RCC here, as I have stated, has hurt my area so badly that it is almost beyond repair. It will take decades, if not centuries, to repair the damage they have caused here. I'm not talking about individual laypeople in the RCC. I'm talking about the system.

And by the way, you would do well to:

1. Go read your Bible.
2. Compare it to RCC theology (more specifically the CCC and the Council of Trent)

If you do these things and also take into account the evil they have committed here in my area, then you will get a better grasp of why I think the way I do in this matter.

And for the love of all that is holy, STOP accusing me of hating people. I don't hate anyone, and it makes me VERY upset for someone to accuse me of this. Read before you reply. Thanks.

You're stubborn. Extremely so. Why the hell would i post a reply if i hadn't read a post? I haven't done anything but tell you how I feel and politely told you to stand down. If you're trying to get me to battle it out, forget it. I'm not going to tell you what I think about your theology because I don't WANT to convince you that "I'm right". I'm very interested in orthodoxy and the ancient church traditions...it's what I love and for the most part what I believe. Please let me LEARN in this thread and not have to deal with petty arguments that are of little consequence. Don't try to convince me that Catholicism is wrong....I'M NOT EVEN A CATHOLIC.

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

eternalmystery wrote:

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

You're pushing it again, Broc. Please stop taking stabs and repeatedly posting about why you hate Catholics. Or covering that fact up by posting about why you're not a Catholic. It's seems your just taking every opportunity you can to speak out against the Catholic church.

Mikey, how about reading my posts? I DO NOT hate Catholics. YOU stop accusing me of holding positions that I don't really hold to (in this case, hatred of RCC/EO/etc)

My post was NOT a cover up. The next time you reply to any of my posts, read the entire things instead of just assuming stuff. Pls?

I don't say this to be mean or arrogant or rude. I'm saying this because you are not even taking into account why I have the mindset I do. Did you even read what I posted about how the local RCC even operates in my area, Mikey, or did you just post what you did just for the sake of doing so? The RCC here, as I have stated, has hurt my area so badly that it is almost beyond repair. It will take decades, if not centuries, to repair the damage they have caused here. I'm not talking about individual laypeople in the RCC. I'm talking about the system.

And by the way, you would do well to:

1. Go read your Bible.
2. Compare it to RCC theology (more specifically the CCC and the Council of Trent)

If you do these things and also take into account the evil they have committed here in my area, then you will get a better grasp of why I think the way I do in this matter.

And for the love of all that is holy, STOP accusing me of hating people. I don't hate anyone, and it makes me VERY upset for someone to accuse me of this. Read before you reply. Thanks.

You're stubborn. Extremely so. Why the hell would i post a reply if i hadn't read a post? I haven't done anything but tell you how I feel and politely told you to stand down. If you're trying to get me to battle it out, forget it. I'm not going to tell you what I think about your theology because I don't WANT to convince you that "I'm right". I'm very interested in orthodoxy and the ancient church traditions...it's what I love and for the most part what I believe. Please let me LEARN in this thread and not have to deal with petty arguments that are of little consequence. Don't try to convince me that Catholicism is wrong....I'M NOT EVEN A CATHOLIC.

Ok, first off, every time I post something, you completely miss the point of what I was trying to say. This is why I sometimes believe that you don't even read what I post because you misconstrue what I say into something completely the opposite of what I was trying to say, and you have been doing this quite often.

I'm not trying to get you to "battle it out" with me or anyone here. I merely posted why I have the views I do have. I fail to see how you even thought that I was trying to stir the pot or something. It's not a crime for me to express my views.

I understand that you like to study these things, and hey! That's totally cool with me!

And I've known for a long time that you aren't catholic. You are Anglican, which is sort of a "middle ground".

And did you not see what I posted in the exact post you quoted? My issues are not with anything that most people reject RCC/EO over. I do not bash people for holding to Real Presence, the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the other things. I personally don't believe them, but I'm not going to bash those who do. Why? Because those are not essential points of doctrine.

The only thing I take issue with is the "faith + works = justification" thing. And let me repeat myself, so you don't accuse me of saying something that I did not. My ONLY issue is their views on salvation. Why? Because why would we need to work towards gaining justification if Christ's sacrifice is completely in and of itself sufficient to save? There is no point in working to gain justification before God if Christ's sacrifice was sufficient and able to save. This is not some small point like the other stuff. This is, in fact, what Martin Luther himself called "the article on which the church stands or falls".

Again, I ask you to not accuse me of trying to incite hatred on RCC/EO. Even greybeard has said that he didn't even see me doing that.

It's fine to learn, and I'm cool with that. I'd like to learn more about Orthodoxy myself, but everything that Orthodox church members have shown me has in some way completely flown over my head for the most part, and to my knowledge the only Orthodox church member here is Anastasis.

[quote="eternalmystery"][quote="Mikey Erasmus"][quote="eternalmystery"]

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

You're pushing it again, Broc. Please stop taking stabs and repeatedly posting about why you hate Catholics. Or covering that fact up by posting about why you're not a Catholic. It's seems your just taking every opportunity you can to speak out against the Catholic church.

Quote :

Mikey, how about reading my posts? I DO NOT hate Catholics. YOU stop accusing me of holding positions that I don't really hold to (in this case, hatred of RCC/EO/etc)

My post was NOT a cover up. The next time you reply to any of my posts, read the entire things instead of just assuming stuff. Pls?


And did you not see what I posted in the exact post you quoted? My issues are not with anything that most people reject RCC/EO over. I do not bash people for holding to Real Presence, the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the other things. I personally don't believe them, but I'm not going to bash those who do. Why? Because those are not essential points of doctrine.

Okay, here's a point where I think the thread can proceed constructively. (BTW, Broc can be stubborn, BUT that's not just a bad thing--Paul was stubborn, every martyr who refused to give up the faith was stubborn, etc. Broc probably has a little unhelpful stubbornness, and a lot of good stubbornness, so like Christ said, we shouldn't be so focused on cutting out the weeds that we end up destroying the wheat (paraphrase)). In any case, reading what Broc says above leads me to think he's actually re-considered a good deal--some of these are major sticking points for those who can't accept Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I'm going to try to focus on topics that pertain to both, since after all, the thread was about Orthodoxy).

Okay, having said that, those who believe in real presence DO think it is esential and a big deal. For them, it is wrapped up in the very idea of salvation. As Christ says in the Bread of Life discourse, unless you eat His body and drink His blood, you have no life in you, etc. Now, in saying this, is one saying that it is impossible to be saved without this? No. God can extend mercy on whomever He chooses, and Paul makes clear that God judges people according to the light that they had. Furthermore, Christ holds up the good Samaritan as an exemplar of holy living, so my rule of thumb is, I'll never assume anything about anyone's salvation, ESPECIALLY anyone whose life resembles the good Samaritan more than mine, regardless of their theological views. Still, better to be a Samaritan with good theology than a Samaritan without good theology .

As with all the sacraments, they aren't magic. While Orthodox and Catholics do believe that they impart grace, grace is only efficacious if one uses these gifts to sincerely try to grow in holiness. Paul clearly tells us that one who partakes of the bread and cup without discerning the Body, or partkaes of it unworthily, brings danger of damnation upon himself or herself. (THis also stresses the importance of the doctrine--"discern" the body--does htis mean that one should recognize that this bread and wine IS Christ's body and blood, or that only that one should think about Christ's
sacrifice when partaking? This is an important question. Paul states that this is a participation in the blood and body of Christ--one has to start interpreting things more and more symbolically, IMO, to say that this emans a "spiritual participation" in a physical thing (technically, I would exactly say Christ's body and blood are physically present, as the elements are not bound by the laws of physics, but this presence is really bodily we might say--that physical substance is Christ--and not just a spiritual participation. ) See, I'm not even sure what a spiritual participation in a body would mean. Let me give you an example.

Christ has the Church as His Bride. Now, human marriage is meant to imitate Christ's marriage to the Church. We often reverse this in our minds, thinking of human marriage as "real" and Christ's marriage to the Church as "metaphorcial." But it's closer to the other wayt around--human marriage was given to us to help us understand Christ's relationship to us. Look in Genesis, in one of the acocunts of creation---it says "Let us make man (singular) in OUR (plural) image, man and woman (plural) He (singular) created them." Some Fathers saw this back and forth re: singular and plural language for both human creation and God to signify that human genderedness allowed us to model the Trinity (one, yet three). So, human marriage models God's relationship to us. This is magnified in the church where Christ is physically present to His bride.

Now, human marriage involves an actual physical consummation. We wouldn't want to say that we participate merely spiritually in this--we wouldn't tell our wives when we got married, "Honey, I'm going to participate in oyur body spiritually." This would not constitute a genuine consummation. In fact, some would say the marriage is only truly present (sealed) with consummation. Likewise, doesn't it seem that Christ, as an actual physical being, would join Himself to us as actual physical beings, through an act which physically unites us, in spirit and body, just as marital consummation binds man and woman in spirit and body?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem goes as far as to say that by partaking of communion, we become "Christs." This could be heretical unless it is very carefully understood, but it is actually an allusion to the Orhtodox idea of "deification,." sometimes referred to as "Christification." IMO< the Catholics also hold to this, but don't emphasize it as they should (though one does here of the "imitation of Christ," which I don't think is quite as profound). This may be a point of Orthodox theology to discuss more.
In any case, if we are possibly transformed into Christ's likeness by taking communion, then this is a pretty serious matter--it is a matter of salvation views.

Bear in mind, too, that in Orthodox and Cahtolic thought, the bread and wine are not transformed simply by what one believes about them. It has to be come through AS. So, on their view, a Protestant cannot merely choose to personally think of the bread and wine as the real presence--it has to be made the real presence, and their view is, this occurs through the consecrated priesthood, as ordained by a Bishop in AS. The reaosns for this are complex, and there is much one could address in terms of the historicity of such a view, etc., but suffice it to say that IF they are correct on this (and it is not clear that they are not, as such a view is hled explicitly from at least as early as about 110 AD in Ignatius of Antioch--though the preisthood and bishop were likely still joined as a single office in his time), then one can see that theology regarding the Eucharist is central indeed, and a question of salvation theology.

Quote :

The only thing I take issue with is the "faith + works = justification" thing. And let me repeat myself, so you don't accuse me of saying something that I did not. My ONLY issue is their views on salvation. Why? Because why would we need to work towards gaining justification if Christ's sacrifice is completely in and of itself sufficient to save? There is no point in working to gain justification before God if Christ's sacrifice was sufficient and able to save. This is not some small point like the other stuff. This is, in fact, what Martin Luther himself called "the article on which the church stands or falls".

I'll return to these--I need to take a break. These are good points to bring up, though, and i think the thread can move forward well with a discussion of these. These points apply to both Orthodox and Cahtolics. Indeed, though I cannot remember the details, the Lutherans in the time shortly after Luther actually sought out dialogue with the Greek church, and after reviewing their theology, the Orthodox concluded that they did not find it acceptable. So these questions about faith and works do apply to those outside of Catholicism as well, as you (Broc) have correctly stated.

Quote :

It's fine to learn, and I'm cool with that. I'd like to learn more about Orthodoxy myself, but everything that Orthodox church members have shown me has in some way completely flown over my head for the most part, and to my knowledge the only Orthodox church member here is Anastasis.

BTW, the first Orhtodox church (at least Greek) in the US is in New Orleans. Just thought I'd drop that. I wouldn't necessarily recommend attending a Greek church first, for various reasons (they tend to be more ethnically minded, IMO--other groups within the Orhtodox communion are more comfortable and familiar with interacting with "seekers"), but it would still be a cool place to visit sometime. I've only seen it from the outside.

Anyway, I'll follow up with more later.

peace, graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

BTW, the first Orhtodox church (at least Greek) in the US is in New Orleans. Just thought I'd drop that. I wouldn't necessarily recommend attending a Greek church first, for various reasons (they tend to be more ethnically minded, IMO--other groups within the Orhtodox communion are more comfortable and familiar with interacting with "seekers"), but it would still be a cool place to visit sometime. I've only seen it from the outside.

I'm Ecumenical Patriarchate/GOA, and Australia's Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is far more ethnically-minded than America's, and it's pretty easy to get along in. At least America's is actually more open to English liturgies!

From what I know, while the GOA in America may make its "core mission" more about reaching the Greeks rather than Americans at large like AOCANA and OCA often do, they are more than receptive to converts and inquirers.

Anastasis wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

BTW, the first Orhtodox church (at least Greek) in the US is in New Orleans. Just thought I'd drop that. I wouldn't necessarily recommend attending a Greek church first, for various reasons (they tend to be more ethnically minded, IMO--other groups within the Orhtodox communion are more comfortable and familiar with interacting with "seekers"), but it would still be a cool place to visit sometime. I've only seen it from the outside.

I'm Ecumenical Patriarchate/GOA, and Australia's Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is far more ethnically-minded than America's, and it's pretty easy to get along in. At least America's is actually more open to English liturgies!

From what I know, while the GOA in America may make its "core mission" more about reaching the Greeks rather than Americans at large like AOCANA and OCA often do, they are more than receptive to converts and inquirers.

Good point about Greek liturgies in America being in English, rather than Greek. However, in my experience, in the US, the place I would recommend a seeker to go (because they have many converts, etc.) is either the Antiochian Church, or the Orthodox Church of America (OCA). The ROCOOR (RUssian Church Outside of Russia, now reunited communally with the Moscow Patriarchate with whom they had been estranged the past 80 or so years) also attracts many converts, largely due to the legacy of the deovtional writer Fr. Serpahim Rose, BUT ROCOOR Orthodoxy is very conservative and in some ways more esoteric than Antiochian, etc. It is in certain respects more interesting and powerful as well; I'm just saying that it may not give one a sense of Orthodoxy in general as much because of some of its particularities. (Of course, they would say for the same reason that they give one MORE a sense of historical Orthodoxy! ) My sense is that Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc. parishes tend to be more ethnic in general as well.

Out of curiosity, Anastasis, are you a convert, or cradle Orthodox?

graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Good point about Greek liturgies in America being in English, rather than Greek. However, in my experience, in the US, the place I would recommend a seeker to go (because they have many converts, etc.) is either the Antiochian Church, or the Orthodox Church of America (OCA).

I would recommend the Antiochian Archdiocese as well for the fact that it does indeed have a great deal of converts, especially since it encompasses most of the parishes of the former Evangelical Orthodox Church. Antioch has her own set of problems though, but of course, if one keeps clear of the disputes concerning church politics in the American archdiocese, then it should not be too much of an issue, especially when certain things are worked out.

The OCA is another one that I point American inquirers to, especially since it is the autocephalous church that has rightful jurisdiction over the Americas, and I would wholeheartedly support Metropolitan Jonah becoming the Patriarch of the administratively-united American Orthodox Church. I've never been one for Russian-style though :p

This isn't me saying that I believe that people SHOULD necessarily choose the GOA. I do believe that Antioch and the OCA would provide a better home for a lot of people who convert to Orthodoxy. However, I do think that a lot of the charges of ethnic superiority do tend to be somewhat overexaggerated. I, a non-Greek, have only been questioned suspiciously on why I am an Orthodox non-Greek by the Greeks I know outside the Church who only show up for Pascha. The rest, even the older folk from the immigrant community, are happy to have me, even if they are sometimes pleasantly surprised.

Quote :

The ROCOOR (RUssian Church Outside of Russia, now reunited communally with the Moscow Patriarchate with whom they had been estranged the past 80 or so years) also attracts many converts, largely due to the legacy of the deovtional writer Fr. Serpahim Rose, BUT ROCOOR Orthodoxy is very conservative and in some ways more esoteric than Antiochian, etc. It is in certain respects more interesting and powerful as well; I'm just saying that it may not give one a sense of Orthodoxy in general as much because of some of its particularities. (Of course, they would say for the same reason that they give one MORE a sense of historical Orthodoxy! )

I, personally, am thinking of crossing over to ROCOR in the not-too-distant future. Nothing against the GOA parish I'm at, but I do think that there's stuff to be done that gels well with ROCOR's efforts in establishing English-speaking mission parishes.

Quote :

My sense is that Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc. parishes tend to be more ethnic in general as well.

That is sometimes the case for a lot of the Slavic churches. I do know, however, of a Romanian parish nearby that to my knowledge doesn't get any converts, but receives anybody in with open arms regardless of ethnicity

Quote :

Out of curiosity, Anastasis, are you a convert, or cradle Orthodox?

We are ALL converts, we have to convert every single day, regardless of how long we have been Orthodox for!

But to answer your question, my parents did not have me baptized Orthodox as a child.

Forgive,
Anastasis.

[quote="graybeardheadbanger"][quote="eternalmystery"][quote="Mikey Erasmus"]

eternalmystery wrote:

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

You're pushing it again, Broc. Please stop taking stabs and repeatedly posting about why you hate Catholics. Or covering that fact up by posting about why you're not a Catholic. It's seems your just taking every opportunity you can to speak out against the Catholic church.

Quote :

Mikey, how about reading my posts? I DO NOT hate Catholics. YOU stop accusing me of holding positions that I don't really hold to (in this case, hatred of RCC/EO/etc)

My post was NOT a cover up. The next time you reply to any of my posts, read the entire things instead of just assuming stuff. Pls?


And did you not see what I posted in the exact post you quoted? My issues are not with anything that most people reject RCC/EO over. I do not bash people for holding to Real Presence, the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the other things. I personally don't believe them, but I'm not going to bash those who do. Why? Because those are not essential points of doctrine.

Okay, here's a point where I think the thread can proceed constructively. (BTW, Broc can be stubborn, BUT that's not just a bad thing--Paul was stubborn, every martyr who refused to give up the faith was stubborn, etc. Broc probably has a little unhelpful stubbornness, and a lot of good stubbornness, so like Christ said, we shouldn't be so focused on cutting out the weeds that we end up destroying the wheat (paraphrase)). In any case, reading what Broc says above leads me to think he's actually re-considered a good deal--some of these are major sticking points for those who can't accept Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I'm going to try to focus on topics that pertain to both, since after all, the thread was about Orthodoxy).

Okay, having said that, those who believe in real presence DO think it is esential and a big deal. For them, it is wrapped up in the very idea of salvation. As Christ says in the Bread of Life discourse, unless you eat His body and drink His blood, you have no life in you, etc. Now, in saying this, is one saying that it is impossible to be saved without this? No. God can extend mercy on whomever He chooses, and Paul makes clear that God judges people according to the light that they had. Furthermore, Christ holds up the good Samaritan as an exemplar of holy living, so my rule of thumb is, I'll never assume anything about anyone's salvation, ESPECIALLY anyone whose life resembles the good Samaritan more than mine, regardless of their theological views. Still, better to be a Samaritan with good theology than a Samaritan without good theology .

As with all the sacraments, they aren't magic. While Orthodox and Catholics do believe that they impart grace, grace is only efficacious if one uses these gifts to sincerely try to grow in holiness. Paul clearly tells us that one who partakes of the bread and cup without discerning the Body, or partkaes of it unworthily, brings danger of damnation upon himself or herself. (THis also stresses the importance of the doctrine--"discern" the body--does htis mean that one should recognize that this bread and wine IS Christ's body and blood, or that only that one should think about Christ's
sacrifice when partaking? This is an important question. Paul states that this is a participation in the blood and body of Christ--one has to start interpreting things more and more symbolically, IMO, to say that this emans a "spiritual participation" in a physical thing (technically, I would exactly say Christ's body and blood are physically present, as the elements are not bound by the laws of physics, but this presence is really bodily we might say--that physical substance is Christ--and not just a spiritual participation. ) See, I'm not even sure what a spiritual participation in a body would mean. Let me give you an example.

Christ has the Church as His Bride. Now, human marriage is meant to imitate Christ's marriage to the Church. We often reverse this in our minds, thinking of human marriage as "real" and Christ's marriage to the Church as "metaphorcial." But it's closer to the other wayt around--human marriage was given to us to help us understand Christ's relationship to us. Look in Genesis, in one of the acocunts of creation---it says "Let us make man (singular) in OUR (plural) image, man and woman (plural) He (singular) created them." Some Fathers saw this back and forth re: singular and plural language for both human creation and God to signify that human genderedness allowed us to model the Trinity (one, yet three). So, human marriage models God's relationship to us. This is magnified in the church where Christ is physically present to His bride.

Now, human marriage involves an actual physical consummation. We wouldn't want to say that we participate merely spiritually in this--we wouldn't tell our wives when we got married, "Honey, I'm going to participate in oyur body spiritually." This would not constitute a genuine consummation. In fact, some would say the marriage is only truly present (sealed) with consummation. Likewise, doesn't it seem that Christ, as an actual physical being, would join Himself to us as actual physical beings, through an act which physically unites us, in spirit and body, just as marital consummation binds man and woman in spirit and body?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem goes as far as to say that by partaking of communion, we become "Christs." This could be heretical unless it is very carefully understood, but it is actually an allusion to the Orhtodox idea of "deification,." sometimes referred to as "Christification." IMO< the Catholics also hold to this, but don't emphasize it as they should (though one does here of the "imitation of Christ," which I don't think is quite as profound). This may be a point of Orthodox theology to discuss more.
In any case, if we are possibly transformed into Christ's likeness by taking communion, then this is a pretty serious matter--it is a matter of salvation views.

Bear in mind, too, that in Orthodox and Cahtolic thought, the bread and wine are not transformed simply by what one believes about them. It has to be come through AS. So, on their view, a Protestant cannot merely choose to personally think of the bread and wine as the real presence--it has to be made the real presence, and their view is, this occurs through the consecrated priesthood, as ordained by a Bishop in AS. The reaosns for this are complex, and there is much one could address in terms of the historicity of such a view, etc., but suffice it to say that IF they are correct on this (and it is not clear that they are not, as such a view is hled explicitly from at least as early as about 110 AD in Ignatius of Antioch--though the preisthood and bishop were likely still joined as a single office in his time), then one can see that theology regarding the Eucharist is central indeed, and a question of salvation theology.

Quote :

The only thing I take issue with is the "faith + works = justification" thing. And let me repeat myself, so you don't accuse me of saying something that I did not. My ONLY issue is their views on salvation. Why? Because why would we need to work towards gaining justification if Christ's sacrifice is completely in and of itself sufficient to save? There is no point in working to gain justification before God if Christ's sacrifice was sufficient and able to save. This is not some small point like the other stuff. This is, in fact, what Martin Luther himself called "the article on which the church stands or falls".

I'll return to these--I need to take a break. These are good points to bring up, though, and i think the thread can move forward well with a discussion of these. These points apply to both Orthodox and Cahtolics. Indeed, though I cannot remember the details, the Lutherans in the time shortly after Luther actually sought out dialogue with the Greek church, and after reviewing their theology, the Orthodox concluded that they did not find it acceptable. So these questions about faith and works do apply to those outside of Catholicism as well, as you (Broc) have correctly stated.

Quote :

It's fine to learn, and I'm cool with that. I'd like to learn more about Orthodoxy myself, but everything that Orthodox church members have shown me has in some way completely flown over my head for the most part, and to my knowledge the only Orthodox church member here is Anastasis.

BTW, the first Orhtodox church (at least Greek) in the US is in New Orleans. Just thought I'd drop that. I wouldn't necessarily recommend attending a Greek church first, for various reasons (they tend to be more ethnically minded, IMO--other groups within the Orhtodox communion are more comfortable and familiar with interacting with "seekers"), but it would still be a cool place to visit sometime. I've only seen it from the outside.

Anyway, I'll follow up with more later.

peace, graybeardheadbanger

You're exactly right about the Eucharist. This issue is what got me away from true protestant churches. I never had as much of an intimate experience with Christ as I did when I would take communion. It means a lot to me. A whole lot. The Eucharist was too important to me to continue attending churches where it was taken lightly.

I just recently found an Orthodox Study Bible at Half Price Books... Has anyone else found it to be helpful to them as they seek to understand an Orthodox point of view???

Burnaldo wrote:

I just recently found an Orthodox Study Bible at Half Price Books... Has anyone else found it to be helpful to them as they seek to understand an Orthodox point of view???

Here are some reviews which may be of help to you:

http://brb.thomasnelson.com/reviews/bybook/9780718003593


You will see that the text gets "so so" reviews. I wouldn't discourage, and must confess that I don't own it myself. I did read a review on the website for the Greek Orhtodox church of America that was slightly critical of its tendency to use the name "Jesus" in footnotes, rather than "our Lord," as is the Orthodox custom, etc. It took this to convey a carry over from the evangelicalism of the editors. For those who do not know, Fr. Peter Gilquist was the drivining force of this work. Fr. was an evangelical conservative Lutheran who became Orthodox around 1980. He actually was the head of all the Campus Crusade for Christs in the Big 10 conference, so he was very evangelical in his views. He has written some works concerning his jounrey to Orthodoxy; while helpful, I don't find them quite as informative as similar works by Catholic converts.

Anyway, hope the links help.

graybeardheadbanger

eternalmystery wrote:

HUGE difference people. I myself would rather listen to what the early church actually taught and wrote in the NT than give my brain over to a religious institution that claims to be descended from the early church yet at the same time teaches stuff that is the polar opposite of what they taught and still have the arrogance to claim apostolic succession.

Have you even read the early church fathers?

They were orthodox as it gets.

here:
Dealing with Sola Fide, as you say is what is the only way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A73ShQ68WW8&feature=channel_page

I would have a hard time considered Eastern Orthodoxy the fullness of truth due to the fragmentation of the churches, compared to the oneness of the Roman Catholic Church.

The EO Church IS part of the true church, but does not have fullness of truth.

Mark wrote:

I would have a hard time considered Eastern Orthodoxy the fullness of truth due to the fragmentation of the churches, compared to the oneness of the Roman Catholic Church.

The EO Church IS part of the true church, but does not have fullness of truth.

What fragmentation? Orthodox is Orthodox no matter where you are. RC splintered into Protestantism, and then we all know how that went...

Orthodox has the Russian Orthodox Church, run by one patriarch, the Greek Orthodox Church, run by another patriarch, etc.

With Catholics, one bishop has control over all 23 Catholic Churches.

hey mark. Are you roman Catholic? Just curious, that why I don't feel left out.

Mark wrote:

I would have a hard time considered Eastern Orthodoxy the fullness of truth due to the fragmentation of the churches, compared to the oneness of the Roman Catholic Church.

The EO Church IS part of the true church, but does not have fullness of truth.

Here is where I will actually defend the Eastern Orthodox church.

They are not "fragmented" like you say. A lot of people misunderstand this, and I'll give them, and you, the benefit of the doubt. Those different groups within Eastern Orthodoxy (Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Antiochian, etc.) are different jurisdictions of the EO church. They all teach the exact same thing, so it really doesn't matter which one you attend. They are in unity, so this accusation of them being "fragmented" is a strawman argument on your part. They do have what they call an "ecumenical patriarch", which is sort of like a pope.

And the RCC is far from being "one". I've seen even priests disagree on TONS of stuff, along with positions that priests and bishops held that has caused a little outrage and sometimes caused them to be excommunicated (does the excommunication of a priest who denied the Holocaust by Benedict XVI ring a bell?), not to mention the several semi-schismatic groups that are still within the RCC, such as sedavacantists, who hold that every pope that came after John XXIII was and is a heretic, and that the papal chair is still "open".

There are always going to be disagreements. We are humans, each unique in his or her own way, and that's not going to change, no matter how much a certain religious or political group dislikes that. There were a vast amount of disagreements on things in the 1st Century church, so if you are crying for unity in mind, thought, deed, word, action, ideology, etc., etc., then history should remind everyone that it is unrealistic.

All that is beside the point in light of the core of Orthodox doctrine. Our disagreements are significantly smaller that of the protestant sects. But it has nothing to do with agreeing with everything, but rather simply beating as one heart in reverence to our lord.

What sort of "stuff" do you say they disagree with, just out of curiousity?

As for those churchs that have broken away, they aren't semi-schismatic. They are full schismatic. Some of them are alright, but then a lot of times, they can no longer really be considered orthodox in tradition (i.e. women priests)


Oh and that priest that was excommunicated was allowed back into the church.

Mark wrote:

Orthodox has the Russian Orthodox Church, run by one patriarch, the Greek Orthodox Church, run by another patriarch, etc.

With Catholics, one bishop has control over all 23 Catholic Churches.

I must disagree with both my fellow Catholics and Theonymic here (BTW, THeo, I will forward you links showing the disparity of view in Orhtodoxy regarding contraception, as well asd the admission that permission for this buy certain jurisduction violates traditional Orthodox principles).

To Mark, it would be at best misleading and at worst wrong to say that "one bishop controls 23 churches" (rites). In Eastern Catholicism, they have their own hierarchs, many of which are considered patriarchs. This leads to complications with the Orhtodox, who also have patriarchs in many of these same jursidictions--a very tricky point. There are at least 5 patriarchs of Antioch, for example---one Byanztine (Antiochian Orthodox), one non-Chalcedonian (that of the Syrian Jacobite church), and three Catholic (one for the Maronite rite, one for the Melkite Catholics-e.g. the Byanztine rite Antiochian in union with Rome, and one for the Catholic Maronites).

In any case, the ECs strongly prefer to be thought of as independent churches in union with Rome. The wording of Vatican I is tricky here, but is capable of various interpretations. It refers to the Pope as the "head" of the Church, while also sayin g that this is not to im[ply an incroachment on the normal perogatives of the other bishops. However, it is also suggests the Pope exercise "immediate and direct" authority over these other jurisdicitons. But what does this mean?

IMO, it is simplistic to think of this as a pyramid, with the Pope on top. I think of it more akin to a machine that is structured as to have several key jointds which funciton in unison, each in part of a certain section of a machine, BUT which is set up in such a way that one joint can assume control over the whole operaiton if another joint breaks down. This more accurately describes, IMO, the way the popes have actually funcitoned historically when relations between the churches were essentially intact.

What makes the language of "head" tricky in Vatican I is htat it possibly raises some questions as to whether this was describing the Pope's role relative to other Latin bishops, or to bishops of others jurisdictions. Councils can be both ecumenical and local at the same time--if the language of head is used in reference to other Latin bishops, I would have no difficulty with htis,
as the Pope is Patrriarch of the West. If, however, it is used to convey a pyramid to other rites, this is a big problem, IMO. However, the Cahtolic church has always funcitoned where later councils can provide helpfully new understandings to previous councils as historical situations arise (NOT the same as change), and I think this is essentially the case with Vatican I in relation to Eastern non-Catholic churches, in the view of hte last several Popes. Certainly, the bishop of Rome is NOT bishop over the whole church--each church has its own bishops and patrairchs. Rather, he in a certain sense is the shepherd of bishops. He is held to have authority to intervene, when needed (at his judgment), BUT one finds relatively few times in history when this has happened, and it has happened in cases most would find relatively indisputable today (such as in mandating that repentants who abandoned the faith in times of persecution be allowed back in, that schismatic baptisms be counted as valid, etc.)


As to the question f unity among the Orthodox, this is not entirely the case, though it is by and large close (but not exactly) to how Theonymic and Broc describe it. But I'l follow up with a spearate message.

graybeardheadbanger

wow graybeard. Your insight has yet to not amaze me. You know a lot .

eternalmystery wrote:

Mark wrote:

I would have a hard time considered Eastern Orthodoxy the fullness of truth due to the fragmentation of the churches, compared to the oneness of the Roman Catholic Church.

The EO Church IS part of the true church, but does not have fullness of truth.

Here is where I will actually defend the Eastern Orthodox church.

They are not "fragmented" like you say. A lot of people misunderstand this, and I'll give them, and you, the benefit of the doubt. Those different groups within Eastern Orthodoxy (Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Antiochian, etc.) are different jurisdictions of the EO church. They all teach the exact same thing, so it really doesn't matter which one you attend. They are in unity, so this accusation of them being "fragmented" is a strawman argument on your part. They do have what they call an "ecumenical patriarch", which is sort of like a pope.

And the RCC is far from being "one". I've seen even priests disagree on TONS of stuff, along with positions that priests and bishops held that has caused a little outrage and sometimes caused them to be excommunicated (does the excommunication of a priest who denied the Holocaust by Benedict XVI ring a bell?), not to mention the several semi-schismatic groups that are still within the RCC, such as sedavacantists, who hold that every pope that came after John XXIII was and is a heretic, and that the papal chair is still "open".

There are always going to be disagreements. We are humans, each unique in his or her own way, and that's not going to change, no matter how much a certain religious or political group dislikes that. There were a vast amount of disagreements on things in the 1st Century church, so if you are crying for unity in mind, thought, deed, word, action, ideology, etc., etc., then history should remind everyone that it is unrealistic.

Broc, this message conveys to me what has been apparent for some time, which is that you have been doing additional reading, acquiring much information ,etc. This is definitely commendable and not always the case among those who express disagreement wiht Cahtolicism and Orhtodoxy,. However, there is still room for some more nuanced understansing, but that's okay--my own views are constantly becoming refined and better informed, etc. Most of my leanring on these subjects came a few years after where you are now.

To Broc and Theonymic's points--it is true, basically, that the 20-some Orhtodox churches are more or less in union. HOWEVER, there are divisions which occur. In fact, hte largest body of Orhtodoxy in the world (the Russian church) only recently semi-healed a major faction which occurred during the communist revolution--some supported the communist government, others did not and underwent severe perseuction, known as the Russian Church outside of Russia. The official Moscow Patriarchate accepted the restriction s of the Soviets (albeit only after their patriarch Sergius, in the 1920s, succumbed after torture). In any case, a divide one continues to witness regards the "old calendar" (JUlian) Orhtodox vs. the "new" Calendar (Gregorian). This may seem incredibly minor/petty to our thinking, but I actually htink understandably significant isseus are at stake. However, it is precisely the lack of a papacy which makes these matters so trickier--there is ultimaterly no final court of appeal to determine whether or not such matters should be gorunds for breaking communion. What's at stake, for example, are the particular days Holy Days are celebrated, such as Christmas, etc. The change was originally promoted by the Bisho pf Rome, AFTER the East-West schism, so those Orhtodox who wnet to the new calendar, were suspected of being "soft" toward Rome, and "modernistic" (the new calendar was considered less accurate, astronomically speaking). Beyond this, there have been various borken communions for other reasons. Sometimnes the canonically problemartic situation arises where group A is in communion with B but not with C, and B is in communion with A and C--whuch creates a logical difficulty. If one is in communion., logically one should be in communion with everyone with whom the other is in communion. This is acknowledged by the Orhtodox, but it occurs nonetheless. There are also cases where bishops or priests will be disciplined within one jusridiction and gain standing within another, if I am not mistaken.

There is also a wide range of opinion among the Orthodox as to vthe significance of various doctrinal dispuites. In a way, this is a strenght--every disagreement need not result in shcims (nor does it in Catholicism ,BTW). But, such issues often demand resolution. For example, some Orhtodox permit Catholics to receive sacraments if they do not have access to a Catholic parish (see the Barlamaand agreement, which can be found online), other Orthodox do not recognize this. The filioque is another such example--some say the view itself is absolutely heretical, others say it may or may not be but it violated proper canonical procedure, still others say it is not in itself necessarily communion breaking.

Beyond all this, there is of course the question of broken communion between those churches who "schismed" prior to Byanztium and Rome--the Assyrian church of the East first, and a bit later, the Copts et al. (i.e. those who rejected Ephesus, and those who rejected Chalcedon). So, Theonymic, if these are taken to be Eastern churches (albeit it of distin ct rite and tradition), there have been divisions in hte East. And, of course, there were divisions in hte East over the very question of whether to re-united with Rome! (Hence, the "uniates", or Eastern Catholics). The Melkites, for example, to whom I officially belong, re-united through their patriarch--so those who stayed out of union basically did so in defiance to hteir canonical leader. BUT, they could claim this was okay because he was not acting in unity with all other Orthodox leaders. On the opther hamd, I'm pretty sure the oldest historical line for the Antiochian church (apostolic succession0 is actually with the Antiochian Jacobite (non-Chalcedonian) church ,who I believe ar in union with the Copts, Armenians, etc. So, as one can see, it can get quite sticky even in Orhtodox ecclesiology.
The claim of united doctrine and practice against the fragmentation of the West, then, IMO, is a bit of a rouse (THOUGH, there is SOME jsutification for this view, in that these groups, even in their division, have managed to retain their uniformity of their litrugies with less diffilcuties than the Catholics, not to mention as incredible distortions occurred within Protestantism--i.,e. hte loss of belief in real presence in communion, apostolic succession, sola fide, the willingness to unilterally detemrine biblical canon, loss of priestly confession, etc. etc. In this respect, I agree with Olias that the divide between Protestantism and Catholicism is far more severe than between Orthodox and Catholics, and arguably between these and the other ancient churches, at least from a catholic point of view (one gets a more mixed opinion about this from the Orthodox--however, their tendency to explain Protestantism in terms of a "natural" consequence of "modernism" and "raitonalism' in the West, while worth considering, can also become an overly simplistic and
reductionistic explanation, IMO. The same things that make the West prone to fragmentation--problematically--also enable it to retain a more vital role within society, which is partly evidenced by the lack of Orthodox schools and social agencies, not to mention offical moral teachigns of prime modern moral issues, to a surprising degree, even within free societies. Even though there are reasonable numbers of Orhtodox in US, for example, one does not find Orthodox hosdpitals, colleges, high schools, etc., perhaps with a vewry, very, very few exceptions. This does not provbe them to be theologically wrong, of coruse, BUT I do think it shows a conceptual and social shortcoming on par with the charges of "rationalism" some Orthodox too readily level at the Catholic church.

Good to see this thread up and running again, LOL graybeardheadbanger

Do the eastern Catholics take the traditional Orthodox view of filioque, graybeard?

[quote="eternalmystery"]

Mark wrote:

I would have a hard time considered Eastern Orthodoxy the fullness of truth due to the fragmentation of the churches, compared to the oneness of the Roman Catholic Church.

The EO Church IS part of the true church, but does not have fullness of truth.

Quote :

There are always going to be disagreements. We are humans, each unique in his or her own way, and that's not going to change, no matter how much a certain religious or political group dislikes that. There were a vast amount of disagreements on things in the 1st Century church, so if you are crying for unity in mind, thought, deed, word, action, ideology, etc., etc., then history should remind everyone that it is unrealistic.

Certainly there will be differences of deed, etc. because individuals are involved. But I owuld think that disunity in doctrine and teaching is a HUGE problem, Broc. This is the importance of Apostolic succession and, to some extent, papal primacy. If the church is defined by a set of beliefs which ultimatley give testimony to the Person of Christ, whose Body it is, doesn't there have to be some way to define what is proper and "orthodox?" Sola Scriptura per se cannot work because early centuries show there were diagreements about which books to include and not, at least for some.
These disagreements may not be drastic for non-SS Christians, but they are for SS folks (Protestants). Not to mention, even where there is agreement about canon, there are many interpretations. Within AS chruches, there are formal procedures in place for establishing the limits of disagreement--within Protestantism, each denominaiton does this, BUT the divisions are MUCH more manifold, and new churches constantly form. If you think about it, the overwhelming phenomen in this country of the "non denominaitonal" mega church is very troublesome. Such congregations are baiscally cut off from any formal doctrinal heritage, and guided by the charismatic personality of a few leaders (or one)_, which generally deteriorates after two or three generations. People see this as "freer" in the short term, but the fruit shows it is not a sustainable model ,and this is the case for various reasons.

Of course, what I say is somewhat question begging. One could ask who decides that AS is the way to achieve unity? Isn't this just another indivudal judgment? I owuld answer this: it is that which best retains the model given in Scripture, it fits what the earliest church who recognzied the human and divine nature of Christ hled to (in the earliest centuires, those groups who rejected
AS were generally gnostics, with the possible exception of the Montanists, who actually are an interesting parallel to contemporary Protestantism). What's hilarious is the skeptics today often laud the gnostics as standing for libery against the opressive "power hungry" regime of epsicopal forms of govenrment, but actually it was the latter who championed the beliefs of the common people, and the former who were elitists and exclusivists--only those judged to show signs of "gnosis" were admitted, etc., and this seems to be at the discretion and whim of those already in the group. In AS Christianity, anyone who embraces the Creed and asks for baptism is assured the right to become part of the Church--it is entirely inclusive, as anyone is free to accept these terms.

graybeardheadbanger

olias wrote:

Do the eastern Catholics take the traditional Orthodox view of filioque, graybeard?

IF you are talking about those from the Byzantine tradition (as opposed to the Maronites, those of thre Cpptic rite, etc.) the answer is this: as a condition of reunion, these churches agreed to not regard the Latin usage of the filioque as heretical, but also Rome agreed to allow each Eastern churhc to determine whether or not they would adopt it for themselves. Some did, but there has been a recent decision among some of these (e.g. the Ukrainians and Ruthenians) to go bakc to not using it--I've seen hymnals where it has literally been "whited" out in the Creed. Other chuches, I believe, never accepted it for their own usage (I THINK this may be the case with Melkites, though I am not certain). BY contrast, I believe the Maronites have always accepted it, though I'm not sure--the Maronites are a special group, as they are the only Eastern group which has no non-Catholic correlate. I have even heard that when they were stubled upon by Catholic missionaries centuries after the Greek-Latin schuism, they had extremely fragmentary knwoledge, if ANY knowledge, that a schism had even occurred between these groups, as they were fairly geographically remote, etc.

What one commonly finds among BYzantine ECs (Melkite, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Bulgarian, etc.) now is this: the words used for "procession" in Greek and Latin are sufficiently differen to where the double procession may well not be problematic in Latin theology, but it could be in Greek. To be honest, I only have a bit of a handle on the theological implicaitons of the dispute myself--I am averse to both those who brush it off as a mere "semantic" dspute, but also to htose who perhaps see it as absolutely communion breaking.
Serious dialogue is needed to determine how serious the difference is, IMO. In Orthodox circlers, St. Photius's work on the Mystagogy, agaihnst Anselm's defense of the filioque, probably spells out the most systematic theology oif the subject in the East (PHotius was out of communion with rome at one point, but rejoined right before his death--however, the first stage of the Greek-Latin schsim in 1054 came within a few decades of his death), but I must tell you that it is EXTREMELY heady reading. I only have the gist of a handful of the arguments.

Maybe I'll follow up with an overview of the issues of filioque, as I see it.

graybeardheadbanger

Yeah. I obviously take the Roman view, but I myself I quite perplexed. Still even if I was proven wrong, it wouldn't shake my faith terribly.

What is filioque? I am extremely new to EC myself, and have never had to learn about these things before. I didn't even know what EC was until last year, when a few members of Firestream were discussing it.