One True Church?

[katherineofdixie]

There is only one Truth, not seperate truthes all teaching the same truth.

And what of other matters which we have discussed before, on which the biblical and early historical records are silent? You good folk would have me believe there was infant baptism. Did some Christians pray for the dead? Or even to the dead?

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but there is evidence from the Fathers and early historical records that both infant baptism and prayers for the dead were practices.

[Azul]

Such as?

[Azul]

I haven't been following this thread closely, so forgive me if this is a tangent, but it struck me like a load of bricks during my recent visit to Ukraine that it is absolutely acceptable over there to say "ChurcES" in plural. Even Orthodox clergy says, and writes, "ChurchES." My feeble attempt to object caused only laughter and gazes full of condolence, like, "this guy is coockoo."

Well, there are many "churches", but only one "Church".

Not according to the official language of Ukrainian religious people, not anymore. They all, universally, speak of several Churches. Another term is "Confessions." If you say that there is but one Church, you automatically become a non-person in Ukraine. Political correctness rules. Eastern Rite Catholics and Protestants must be respected.

The EP always talks about Churches (capitalized), too. I understand how people in America (including myself) feel pressured to avoind "One Church" language, but it is disappointing to hear that the same has become true in parts of the Old World. Before we know it, ecumenism will be the modern equivalent to the Arian and Monophysite heresies--a fashionable belief that threatens the foundations of the Church. But so long as the faithful have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Orthodoxy can never fall.

It's hard to find a good and reasonable explanation to "the One True Church" thing.

[Manalive]

...say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation;

This is a strange anathema, for our "heresy" is the very opposite, surely - namely, that we teach that baptism and the Lord's Supper do not effect salvation (regarding as a heresy the teaching that anyone's sacraments effect salvation), but rather that they are obedient expressions of a faith and salvation which already reside in the person's soul. I have never heard anyone say that "the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation" (for heretics read Baptists, Pentecostals etc etc - people like me).

The Anathema is indeed directed at Roman Catholics and other liturgically minded churches.

Not to take things too far off track but I am curious, what do Baptist make about Mark 1:4-1:4?

"John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

How can they not affect salvation? The wages of sin is death. We are all descendants of Adam, born into a fallen world. That is why baptism is for the remission of sins. Even Martin Luther placed a heavy important on baptism for the remission of sins. Where in history is there record of these sacraments only being expressions of salvation and not for the actual remission of sins outside of your take on Scripture?

[katherineofdixie]

Such as?

Right off the top of my head - the testimony of Roman tomb inscriptions and the practice of Christians gathering on the anniversary of someone's martyrdom to pray.
I can do more research if you want.

[Alpo]

At the 1983 Holy Synod of Bishops of ROCOR:

...and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema

I find this statement a little strange since I've understood that this is exactly what MP has historically taught. I don't agree with that notion but by declaring an anathema against it one declares an anathema to every singe church that has ever been in communion with MP.

[David Young]

Roman tomb inscriptions and the practice of Christians gathering on the anniversary of someone's martyrdom to pray.

I think you need to be more specific than that. If you can, give us the inscriptions in the original Latin and Greek, with translation, and tell us what they prayed. I have prayed at Dodoni, but I wasn't praying to Zeus.

[David Young]

every single church that has ever been in communion with MP.

What's MP?

[Alpo]

every single church that has ever been in communion with MP.

What's MP?

The Moscow Patriarchate.

[Manalive]

At the 1983 Holy Synod of Bishops of ROCOR:

...and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema

I find this statement a little strange since I've understood that this is exactly what MP has historically taught. I don't agree with that notion but by declaring an anathema against it one declares an anathema to every singe church that has ever been in communion with MP.

The anathema doesn't apply to Orthodox outside of ROCOR. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_anath.aspx

"This is an eloquent condemnation of ecumenism and a clear statement of our Synod s rejection of it. What s not so clear, however, is the fact that this anathema is legislative in nature, rather than judicial, i.e., it is a codification of a theological principle into law, but not a verdict—much less a sentence. In other words, it identifies a specific phenomenon (ecumenism) as a heresy, and prescribes the penalty (Anathema!) for those who embrace and defend it, or "knowingly have communion" with those who do*, but it excommunicates no one! It is legislation. It is not judgment. And this is borne out by Metropolitan Vitaly in an article he wrote for "Orthodox Life" (No. 4, 1984, p. 32) while he was still Archbishop of Montreal and Canada.

[ialmisry]

...say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation;

This is a strange anathema, for our "heresy" is the very opposite, surely - namely, that we teach that baptism and the Lord's Supper do not effect salvation (regarding as a heresy the teaching that anyone's sacraments effect salvation), but rather that they are obedient expressions of a faith and salvation which already reside in the person's soul. I have never heard anyone say that "the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation" (for heretics read Baptists, Pentecostals etc etc - people like me).

The Vatican officially teaches it, and not too careful Orthodox.  I just was in an argument with some followers of the Vatican on why the Orthodox will not commune them, when they believe in the real presence and we do too (or close enough).

[JamesR]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I seem to detect a mocking note in some recent posts. I guess it would not be difficult for us, on our side, to misunderstand Orthodox teaching and practice - deliberately or unintentionally - and to make fun of it. But that would not promote either mutual respect or understanding, nor would it be likely to win many converts.

Yeah I guess there was a trace of malice in that post. Sorry. It is just the attitude of Protestantism in America is much different than in Europe. I know because I used to be an American Protestant.

[David Young]

It is just the attitude of Protestantism in America is much different than in Europe.

I gather (from this forum) that that is so, and it grieves me. We, on our side, get the same from Orthodox in Greece, and have done also in Albania, though things seem to be improving in Albania - not towards co-operation of course, let alone to inter-communion, but at least towards courtesy. I have taken coffee and/or raki or similar with priests and a bishop in Albania, and I understand that the trainees in the seminary and Bible college visit each other's churches as part of their course, to foster some understanding of each other.

[PeterTheAleut]

The tangent on whether baptism should be granted to infants or reserved only for more mature believers has been split off and moved here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,43536.0.html

[primuspilus]

I gather (from this forum) that that is so, and it grieves me

It is way different. It also is very saddening. It also does nothing to lead folks to Christ.

I have taken coffee and/or raki or similar with priests and a bishop in Albania, and I understand that the trainees in the seminary and Bible college visit each other's churches as part of their course, to foster some understanding of each other

more proof you are a spy

In all seriousness, American Protestants can really take a few lessons from their European counterparts. Unfortunately this will never happen outside of divine intervention.

PP

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: One True Church?