OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 02:38:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Protestant innovations  (Read 11940 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« on: January 22, 2010, 01:49:03 PM »

I am slightly puzzled by the frequent Orthodox references in people’s posts to our Protestant or Evangelical “innovations”, for I am not aware of any. If you were saying that we have pared down the true Faith and removed vital aspects, I’d know what you mean: things like prayer for the dead, prayer to the saints, the effect of the epiclesis, baptismal regeneration, chrismation as the way to receive the Holy Spirit, sacraments additional to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the perpetual virginity of Mary – and doubtless others. But I cannot see what you mean when you say we have added new beliefs, that is, innovations. (I do not of course refer to such recent and regrettable practices as the ordination in some churches of women; nor to what many of us view (as you do) as irreverent entertainment-based ‘megachurches’; nor to various practices brought in by groups who might assume the name 'Protestant' but hardly retain its beliefs and practices – such as those who praise homosexuality). Leaving aside such recent innovations, and looking only at real, classic Evangelicalism or Protestantism, let me ask you: what do you mean by our “innovations”?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 01:49:40 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2010, 01:51:18 PM »

I am slightly puzzled by the frequent Orthodox references in people’s posts to our Protestant or Evangelical “innovations”, for I am not aware of any. If you were saying that we have pared down the true Faith and removed vital aspects, I’d know what you mean: things like prayer for the dead, prayer to the saints, the effect of the epiclesis, baptismal regeneration, chrismation as the way to receive the Holy Spirit, sacraments additional to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the perpetual virginity of Mary – and doubtless others. But I cannot see what you mean when you say we have added new beliefs, that is, innovations. (I do not of course refer to such recent and regrettable practices as the ordination in some churches of women; nor to what many of us view (as you do) as irreverent entertainment-based ‘megachurches’; nor to various practices brought in by groups who might assume the name 'Protestant' but hardly retain its beliefs and practices – such as those who praise homosexuality). Leaving aside such recent innovations, and looking only at real, classic Evangelicalism or Protestantism, let me ask you: what do you mean by our “innovations”?
Would EO's consider doctrines like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide innovations, because they never existed in the Early Church?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2010, 01:54:08 PM »

Protestantism is an innovation in itself. No need to go into the particulars.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2010, 02:12:12 PM »

Would EO's consider doctrines like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide innovations, because they never existed in the Early Church?

I would call them New Dogmas which are not of apostolic origin.  And yes, those ideas are innovative.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 02:12:28 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,903


« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2010, 02:23:52 PM »

I think much of this is exemplified in the fallout from the defect of cheap grace (living life devoid of true discipleship & church discipline) that was defined by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. On an individual basis this can happen to any Christian but on communal basis the problem is probably more serious within Protestantism because of doctrinal fragmentation.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 02:26:05 PM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2010, 05:02:44 PM »

I’d know what you mean: things like prayer for the dead, prayer to the saints, the effect of the epiclesis, baptismal regeneration, chrismation as the way to receive the Holy Spirit, sacraments additional to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the perpetual virginity of Mary – and doubtless others.

These were accepted by the early Church. Nobody has contested them since the Protestants. Innovations by the Protestants I think would include sola scriptura, sola fide, once saved always saved (though not taught by all Protestants), predestination (in Calvinist circles), the rapture, and others I can't think of. I would just like to mention that I believe even Luther and possibly Calvin actually taught the Mother of God's perpetual virginity like the Orthodox do. It was a later innovation after Luther and Calvin that taught that she was not.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2010, 05:27:25 PM »

sola fide, once saved always saved ... predestination ... the rapture

I'd like to make sure I understand you. Working backwards, I assume that by "the rapture" you are referring to the idea that Christians will be snatched away from the earth prior to, or at some point during, the final Great Tribulation and thus separate from the Second Coming. If so, I agree - I think that idea is fairly new and that it is being popularised now by certain films and novels. Secondly, I assume that you would trace eternal security and predestination back to Augustine and thence through a western line including Calvin and Beza, down to today's "Reformed" Evangelicals. By sola fide I guess you mean a profession of Christian faith which is not evidenced by ensuing good works (which a previous post calls 'cheap grace'). Without at this point discussing such issues, am I understanding you correctly?
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2010, 05:40:34 PM »

The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology and the like immediately come to mind as an "innovation."

Martin Luther's version of the Bible.

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbiling done at Charismatic services that is labeled as "Biblical" but is, in fact, NOT.

Being "slain in the Spirit." I've seen this done at Charismatic services as well, and I have no idea what it's supposed to be. A person will walk up to the front of the Church while everyone is praying and "speaking in tongues," the Pastor will pray over the individual, bop them on the head, and next thing you know their down on the ground twitching and moaning. This is supposed to be the work of the Holy Spirit?

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away and you are no longer guilty of any sin. Ever. You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins. Um, no thank you.

Televangelists.

That's all I've got for now.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2010, 09:20:53 PM »

I know this is the Orthodox-Protestant thread so please forgive the intrusion. I just thought about two things that came to mind; the doctrine of Holy Communion and the Baptism. I think most would agree that the doctrine concerning these two Sacraments within most Protestant Churches can be viewed as innovations. Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal", and Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration (John 3:5).

« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 09:21:45 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2010, 09:54:07 PM »

sola fide, once saved always saved ... predestination ... the rapture

I'd like to make sure I understand you. Working backwards, I assume that by "the rapture" you are referring to the idea that Christians will be snatched away from the earth prior to, or at some point during, the final Great Tribulation and thus separate from the Second Coming. If so, I agree - I think that idea is fairly new and that it is being popularised now by certain films and novels. Secondly, I assume that you would trace eternal security and predestination back to Augustine and thence through a western line including Calvin and Beza, down to today's "Reformed" Evangelicals. By sola fide I guess you mean a profession of Christian faith which is not evidenced by ensuing good works (which a previous post calls 'cheap grace'). Without at this point discussing such issues, am I understanding you correctly?

A couple of quotes from John Calvin.

Quote
Moreover although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings. It is needless, therefore, to be more particular in enumerating every separate opinion. It will be sufficient to extract from each as much as the exposition of the subject seems to require. Succeeding writers (every one courting applause for his acuteness in the defence of human nature) have uniformly, one after the other, gone more widely astray...

Quote
It may, perhaps, seem that I have greatly prejudiced my own view by confessing that all the ecclesiastical writers, with the exception of Augustine, have spoken so ambiguously or inconsistently on this subject, that no certainty is attainable from their writings.

Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2010, 11:43:38 PM »

How about Christian rock bands (mostly heavy metal) performing as part of services?   Huh
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2010, 11:48:04 PM »

How about Christian rock bands (mostly heavy metal) performing as part of services?   Huh
This is one innovation that I personally would not have a use for.
And I am sorry to say that this is occurring in Roman Catholic Churches as a part of the Mass service. 
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,880


« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2010, 12:05:18 AM »

How about Christian rock bands (mostly heavy metal) performing as part of services?   Huh

That'd be awesome to see. Profane, yes, and not worship, but awesome nonetheless. I can just see the little old ladies singing along to Mortification or something. But seriously, what Church do you know of that has heavy metal performed at their service?


Regarding the OP... well... um... that threw me for a loop, David. I guess, even though I was once a Protestant, I don't have much experience thinking from that perspective. Even when I was a Protestant, living on campus at a Protestant College, going to school as a Protestant Bible Studies major (briefly), I still came to realise that there were a number of ideas in Protestantism that were innovations, many of which have been mentioned (faith alone, scripture alone, etc.)  angel
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 12:09:53 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2010, 12:19:03 AM »

How about Christian rock bands (mostly heavy metal) performing as part of services?   Huh

That'd be awesome to see. Profane, yes, and not worship, but awesome nonetheless. I can just see the little old ladies singing along to Mortification or something. But seriously, what Church do you know of that has heavy metal performed at their service?

On a drive one rainy Sunday afternoon in 2005, I stopped at an Assemblies of God congregation outside of Hanover, PA.  After 30 minutes or so, the youth ministry was warming up which could be heard during the main service on the Powerpoint screens.
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2010, 02:12:00 AM »

Quote
I'd like to make sure I understand you. Working backwards, I assume that by "the rapture" you are referring to the idea that Christians will be snatched away from the earth prior to, or at some point during, the final Great Tribulation and thus separate from the Second Coming. If so, I agree - I think that idea is fairly new and that it is being popularised now by certain films and novels. Secondly, I assume that you would trace eternal security and predestination back to Augustine and thence through a western line including Calvin and Beza, down to today's "Reformed" Evangelicals. By sola fide I guess you mean a profession of Christian faith which is not evidenced by ensuing good works (which a previous post calls 'cheap grace'). Without at this point discussing such issues, am I understanding you correctly?

Yes, I think you understand me correctly. My biggest problem is the faith alone belief. St. James says that faith without works is dead. I think the “faith alone” leaves open for many to simply be baptized and then confess that they believe in Christ and that is it and they can pretty much do whatever. We have to work toward Christ and struggle for His sake, not just simply confess Him and not follow the commandments. I’ve never really understood the mentality. Christ commanded us to take up His Cross and we have to take it up and struggle to keep His commandments.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 02:28:10 AM by Andrew21091 » Logged
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2010, 02:53:28 AM »

You lack apostolic succession, you have no Holy Mysteries, you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints, you have stripped the Old Testament, and have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers. Protestants are innovators. That's why I'm not one anymore.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2010, 02:58:00 AM »

Protestantism is an innovation in itself. No need to go into the particulars.

Great point.  But although there are sooo many disturbing aspects about all Protestant sects, I always thought it important to see that Martin Luther was simply trying to carve away all the Roman Catholic innovations (Papal infallibility, indulgences, Mary as Co-Redemptrix, ...). 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2010, 03:03:17 AM »

You lack apostolic succession, you have no Holy Mysteries, you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints, you have stripped the Old Testament, and have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers. Protestants are innovators. That's why I'm not one anymore.

Did you even read the original post?
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2010, 03:04:24 AM »

You lack apostolic succession, you have no Holy Mysteries, you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints, you have stripped the Old Testament, and have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers. Protestants are innovators. That's why I'm not one anymore.

Exactly.  With over 24,000 (and growing) Protestant sects, this should tell us quite a lot about 'innovations'.  In fact, St. Theophan the Recluse wrote a small booklet entitled Preaching Another Christ- An Orthodox View of Evangelicalism.  So we can see that not only is Protestantism guilty of Innovation, it often teeters on the edge of blasphemy.
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2010, 07:28:18 AM »

It is hugely helpful to have this opportunity to see myself and my colleagues through your eyes, so to speak - to find out what impressions we are giving of ourselves. It will take a while to re-read and digest even the posts offered so far, and I hope more will come. I hope to make some replies in due time; maybe other Evangelicals on the forum will do so too.

I must say though, that if Evangelicalism really is as some of you depict it, then I can hardly blame you for having nothing to do with it; yet it is true that all of these things do find a place somewhere in groups which would probably define themselves as either Protestant or Evangelical.

One of you asked where heavy music might be experienced as part of the "worship". My son (who has not openly professed faith, or been baptised, and is in his 30s) went some time ago to a church in York with a girlfriend, and his comment was that it was like a bad rock concert. He is into heavy music. The church is actually called "The Rock", and has been purchased by a Pentecostal group. It is the building where W. E. Sangster was ordained between the two Word Wars, when it was Methodist. What changes it has seen!
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,495



« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2010, 08:57:00 AM »

I must say though, that if Evangelicalism really is as some of you depict it, then I can hardly blame you for having nothing to do with it; yet it is true that all of these things do find a place somewhere in groups which would probably define themselves as either Protestant or Evangelical.

One of you asked where heavy music might be experienced as part of the "worship". My son (who has not openly professed faith, or been baptised, and is in his 30s) went some time ago to a church in York with a girlfriend, and his comment was that it was like a bad rock concert. He is into heavy music. The church is actually called "The Rock", and has been purchased by a Pentecostal group. It is the building where W. E. Sangster was ordained between the two Word Wars, when it was Methodist. What changes it has seen!

David, Yes, many of us have not only seen, but been repelled by the sort of Evangelicalism we report, and that has often been the reason we rejoiced when we found the Orthodox Church! This board may have an overabundance of people with this experience and so it may be that the picture is somewhat skewed in that direction, but it is very real and does exist.

I saw it coming in my former church. It's not what caused me to become Orthodox, but it was something that made it easy to let go of my former connection. My wife still worships there. She is on the "worship team" and is thrilled about how they are using some current rock music (they haven't hit the heavy metal stuff yet) within their services to make a point. She has changed more than I have in many regards in the last ten years.
Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2010, 10:09:36 AM »

It is hugely helpful to have this opportunity to see myself and my colleagues through your eyes, so to speak - to find out what impressions we are giving of ourselves. It will take a while to re-read and digest even the posts offered so far, and I hope more will come. I hope to make some replies in due time; maybe other Evangelicals on the forum will do so too.

I must say though, that if Evangelicalism really is as some of you depict it, then I can hardly blame you for having nothing to do with it; yet it is true that all of these things do find a place somewhere in groups which would probably define themselves as either Protestant or Evangelical.

One of you asked where heavy music might be experienced as part of the "worship". My son (who has not openly professed faith, or been baptised, and is in his 30s) went some time ago to a church in York with a girlfriend, and his comment was that it was like a bad rock concert. He is into heavy music. The church is actually called "The Rock", and has been purchased by a Pentecostal group. It is the building where W. E. Sangster was ordained between the two Word Wars, when it was Methodist. What changes it has seen!


Hi David,  Like so many on this board, I to came from a Protestant background, Baptist.  I recently read a paper that I believe speaks directly to the problem within protestantism and speaks directly concerning the rampant innovations.

http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/paradosis2.doc

Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2010, 10:31:08 AM »

I am slightly puzzled by the frequent Orthodox references in people’s posts to our Protestant or Evangelical “innovations”, for I am not aware of any. If you were saying that we have pared down the true Faith and removed vital aspects, I’d know what you mean: things like prayer for the dead, prayer to the saints, the effect of the epiclesis, baptismal regeneration, chrismation as the way to receive the Holy Spirit, sacraments additional to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the perpetual virginity of Mary – and doubtless others. But I cannot see what you mean when you say we have added new beliefs, that is, innovations. (I do not of course refer to such recent and regrettable practices as the ordination in some churches of women; nor to what many of us view (as you do) as irreverent entertainment-based ‘megachurches’; nor to various practices brought in by groups who might assume the name 'Protestant' but hardly retain its beliefs and practices – such as those who praise homosexuality). Leaving aside such recent innovations, and looking only at real, classic Evangelicalism or Protestantism, let me ask you: what do you mean by our “innovations”?

I was thinking about this post as I drove home from my mother's last night, in particular the part I have bolded.

The problem is that it is not "fringe" groups of Protestantism that have adopted the practices of ordaining women and homosexuals; it is the so-called "mainstream" ones as well.

Case-in-point: My mother lives in one of the oldest towns in the state. (It was established in 1666.) The main road in town is lined with very traditional, mainstream Protestant churches; Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Epsicopalian. All children/direct descendents of the Reformation.

Of the four listed, the only church that does not promote the ordination of women or homosexuals is the Lutheran church, and that is because it belongs to the Missouri Synod, a very "orthodox" group within the Lutheran faith in America. (You can read more about the LCMS synod here: http://www.lcms.org/default.asp)

By reading your posts, I get the impression that in your view, those who hold fast and true to the beliefs of the Fathers of the Reformation are true "Protestants." The problem is that the "children" of the Reformation, those who bear the names of the Reformation, have shed those beliefs just as easily as they shed the beliefs of the faith they protested against.

So the slippery slope theory has proven true. 

What started with the schism in 1054, was exacerbated in the 1500's has led us to the "anything goes" Protestant Christianity of today.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2010, 11:26:50 AM »

You lack apostolic succession, you have no Holy Mysteries, you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints, you have stripped the Old Testament, and have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers. Protestants are innovators. That's why I'm not one anymore.

Did you even read the original post?

Yes, he discounts these as additions. He sees them as subtractions. I agree and disagree.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2010, 02:01:40 PM »

those who hold fast and true to the beliefs of the Fathers of the Reformation are true "Protestants." The problem is that the "children" of the Reformation, those who bear the names of the Reformation, have shed those beliefs

Well said! It gives rise to another example of some of us on the forum talking about different things whilst using the same words. I, and many with me, are as horrified as you Orthodox about some of the practices instanced on this thread. So in fact we agree: these things are not of God. But I reject them because (as I and others see it) they are not Evangelical, whilst you reject Evangelicalism at least partly because (as you see it) they are Evangelical! We both agree they are not of God, and tomorrow neither you nor I will be in a church which believes or allows them.

I realise this does not address all the matters raised, and I hope to get round to replying further - perhaps next week.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 02:02:29 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2010, 02:09:54 PM »

You lack apostolic succession, ... Holy Mysteries, you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints, you have stripped the Old Testament, and have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

In these and similar matters it seems to me that your view and ours are mirror images of each other. Each of us sees the other as having introduced innovations into the Faith - I called them 'accretions' on one thread some months back. We see apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, the change in the bread and wine of Communion, prayer to the saints, the deutero-canonical books (Apocrypha), and Holy Tradition as innovations added to the Faith: you see the exact opposite - us innovating by their removal from the Faith.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2010, 03:04:23 PM »

You lack apostolic succession, ... Holy Mysteries, you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints, you have stripped the Old Testament, and have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

In these and similar matters it seems to me that your view and ours are mirror images of each other. Each of us sees the other as having introduced innovations into the Faith - I called them 'accretions' on one thread some months back. We see apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, the change in the bread and wine of Communion, prayer to the saints, the deutero-canonical books (Apocrypha), and Holy Tradition as innovations added to the Faith: you see the exact opposite - us innovating by their removal from the Faith.

Seriously, how many times are we going to go around about this?  You see them as additions, yet have no proof to offer of such!  Why should we place ANY value whatsoever in your opinion that these things were added?  Further, why should YOU place any value in your opinion that they were added when, again, you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that they were, indeed, additions?

Until you grasp this concept- that your faith is based SOLELY in your OPINION, not in FACT, not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced, and that you hold your own opinion above all others (including the great Christians who have gone before you from the dawn of Christianity until now), we aren't going to get anywhere.

I say this with love, but we've been going around and around in circles over this for over a year, and, my friend, you still have learned nothing, it seems.
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2010, 06:45:59 PM »

how many times are we going to go around about this?

Every time the matter comes up probably. It had occurred to me also (great minds thinking alike, perhaps) that this is a circle we have gone round several times before. But the idea of Protestant innovations has not been discussed whilst I've been participating, and I was quite genuine in writing that I did not know what y'all had in mind.

Quote
Why should we place ANY value whatsoever in your opinion ... why should YOU place any value in your opinion ...?

No reason at all. But it was of course not I who dreamed up these ideas. Rightly or wrongly they have been held by thousands and probably millions for some centuries. I think that this at least means they deserve serious and respectful consideration.

Quote
your faith is based ... not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

Ah, but at least grant that that is what we are all desiring.

However, you are right: the thread is not about what Orthodox have added to the Faith (if anything) but about what Protestants have added (if anything). I shall humbly attempt to keep within the theme.

O filos sas,
DMY
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 06:50:09 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,769


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2010, 09:14:24 PM »

GreekChef wrote:
Quote
not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

to which I would add:
the faith which is, to this day, without interruption, practiced and proclaimed. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church.

David, I share GreekChef's frustration with your statements such as "Ah, but at least grant that that is what we are all desiring". Poster after poster to this forum has explained and pointed out to you, over so many threads, and over a great period of time, so much of the true, unadulterated, Apostolic faith, which is proclaimed and espoused by the Orthodox Church, and which can only be found in its fullness within her. We have given you copious scriptural, patristic, liturgical, historical, and practical examples of why this is so. Nothing added, nothing subtracted. Is it at all possible to make this any clearer to you?  Huh
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 09:15:06 PM by LBK » Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2010, 10:26:37 PM »

What has been added by the Protestants you ask?

Well, its the mentality and the philosophy that we have to think for ourselves fully, that it is our personal belief that is important. That it does not matter what others may say. "What matters is my faith!" -- And that, I believe, is the greatest downfall of Protestant Christianity.

It is true that the Catholic Church (Roman) had some downfalls. And, yes, the Orthodox Church as well. But we must always remember that it is God whom we should trust: that it is through whom He has granted the message that we should trust. That it is His Apostles whom we should give high regard-- I believe (and I guess all of Orthodoxy and even of Catholicism) that we are unable to see for ourselves what is right-- that we need the help of both God and His Servants-- we donot follow by just getting a book and saying for ourselves what is right. NO!

If every man were to think of Christianity by himself every man would have his own church and not Christ's Church.-- But we are called to be one as the Father and Jesus is one -- one with each other.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2Pet. 1:20-21)
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2010, 11:02:16 PM »

GreekChef wrote:
Quote
not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

to which I would add:
the faith which is, to this day, without interruption, practiced and proclaimed. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church.

David, I share GreekChef's frustration with your statements such as "Ah, but at least grant that that is what we are all desiring". Poster after poster to this forum has explained and pointed out to you, over so many threads, and over a great period of time, so much of the true, unadulterated, Apostolic faith, which is proclaimed and espoused by the Orthodox Church, and which can only be found in its fullness within her. We have given you copious scriptural, patristic, liturgical, historical, and practical examples of why this is so. Nothing added, nothing subtracted. Is it at all possible to make this any clearer to you?  Huh
Yes, I would agree that there are few innovations in the Orthodox Church. But, I think that there may possibly be a few innovations from Apostolic times. For example, in Corinthians, it appears that women were to wear headcovering in Church. And the innovation of today in the modern era, is that women go to Church and attend the Divine Liturgy with their heads uncovered. 
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,011


"My god is greater."


« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2010, 11:08:35 PM »

GreekChef wrote:
Quote
not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

to which I would add:
the faith which is, to this day, without interruption, practiced and proclaimed. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church.

David, I share GreekChef's frustration with your statements such as "Ah, but at least grant that that is what we are all desiring". Poster after poster to this forum has explained and pointed out to you, over so many threads, and over a great period of time, so much of the true, unadulterated, Apostolic faith, which is proclaimed and espoused by the Orthodox Church, and which can only be found in its fullness within her. We have given you copious scriptural, patristic, liturgical, historical, and practical examples of why this is so. Nothing added, nothing subtracted. Is it at all possible to make this any clearer to you?  Huh
Yes, I would agree that there are few innovations in the Orthodox Church. But, I think that there may possibly be a few innovations from Apostolic times. For example, in Corinthians, it appears that women were to wear headcovering in Church. And the innovation of today in the modern era, is that women go to Church and attend the Divine Liturgy with their heads uncovered. 

You'll find that women still do this in many Orthodox churches. It is especially expected at monasteries.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2010, 11:14:01 PM »

GreekChef wrote:
Quote
not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

to which I would add:
the faith which is, to this day, without interruption, practiced and proclaimed. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church.

David, I share GreekChef's frustration with your statements such as "Ah, but at least grant that that is what we are all desiring". Poster after poster to this forum has explained and pointed out to you, over so many threads, and over a great period of time, so much of the true, unadulterated, Apostolic faith, which is proclaimed and espoused by the Orthodox Church, and which can only be found in its fullness within her. We have given you copious scriptural, patristic, liturgical, historical, and practical examples of why this is so. Nothing added, nothing subtracted. Is it at all possible to make this any clearer to you?  Huh
Yes, I would agree that there are few innovations in the Orthodox Church. But, I think that there may possibly be a few innovations from Apostolic times. For example, in Corinthians, it appears that women were to wear headcovering in Church. And the innovation of today in the modern era, is that women go to Church and attend the Divine Liturgy with their heads uncovered. 

You'll find that women still do this in many Orthodox churches. It is especially expected at monasteries.
I don;t think that it is universally observed in the USA.  Not at all.
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2010, 11:18:42 PM »

How about Christian rock bands (mostly heavy metal) performing as part of services?   Huh

That'd be awesome to see. Profane, yes, and not worship, but awesome nonetheless. I can just see the little old ladies singing along to Mortification or something. But seriously, what Church do you know of that has heavy metal performed at their service?


Regarding the OP... well... um... that threw me for a loop, David. I guess, even though I was once a Protestant, I don't have much experience thinking from that perspective. Even when I was a Protestant, living on campus at a Protestant College, going to school as a Protestant Bible Studies major (briefly), I still came to realise that there were a number of ideas in Protestantism that were innovations, many of which have been mentioned (faith alone, scripture alone, etc.)  angel

Listened to the video and I have to say: Brother, you owe me 4 minutes of my life back :-) Although, the mischievous side would like to see the old ladies singing along....
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,011


"My god is greater."


« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2010, 11:51:22 PM »

GreekChef wrote:
Quote
not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

to which I would add:
the faith which is, to this day, without interruption, practiced and proclaimed. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church.

David, I share GreekChef's frustration with your statements such as "Ah, but at least grant that that is what we are all desiring". Poster after poster to this forum has explained and pointed out to you, over so many threads, and over a great period of time, so much of the true, unadulterated, Apostolic faith, which is proclaimed and espoused by the Orthodox Church, and which can only be found in its fullness within her. We have given you copious scriptural, patristic, liturgical, historical, and practical examples of why this is so. Nothing added, nothing subtracted. Is it at all possible to make this any clearer to you?  Huh
Yes, I would agree that there are few innovations in the Orthodox Church. But, I think that there may possibly be a few innovations from Apostolic times. For example, in Corinthians, it appears that women were to wear headcovering in Church. And the innovation of today in the modern era, is that women go to Church and attend the Divine Liturgy with their heads uncovered. 

You'll find that women still do this in many Orthodox churches. It is especially expected at monasteries.
I don;t think that it is universally observed in the USA.  Not at all.

You're right, it's not universally observed. It differs according to jurisdiction too; I was at a ROCOR parish this week, and almost all of the women wore head coverings.

I wouldn't call this an Orthodox innovation, however- more like a contemporary lapse from traditional Orthodox practice.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2010, 12:58:48 AM »

GreekChef wrote:
Quote
not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

to which I would add:
the faith which is, to this day, without interruption, practiced and proclaimed. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church.

David, I share GreekChef's frustration with your statements such as "Ah, but at least grant that that is what we are all desiring". Poster after poster to this forum has explained and pointed out to you, over so many threads, and over a great period of time, so much of the true, unadulterated, Apostolic faith, which is proclaimed and espoused by the Orthodox Church, and which can only be found in its fullness within her. We have given you copious scriptural, patristic, liturgical, historical, and practical examples of why this is so. Nothing added, nothing subtracted. Is it at all possible to make this any clearer to you?  Huh
Yes, I would agree that there are few innovations in the Orthodox Church. But, I think that there may possibly be a few innovations from Apostolic times. For example, in Corinthians, it appears that women were to wear headcovering in Church. And the innovation of today in the modern era, is that women go to Church and attend the Divine Liturgy with their heads uncovered. 

You'll find that women still do this in many Orthodox churches. It is especially expected at monasteries.
I don;t think that it is universally observed in the USA.  Not at all.

You're right, it's not universally observed. It differs according to jurisdiction too; I was at a ROCOR parish this week, and almost all of the women wore head coverings.

I wouldn't call this an Orthodox innovation, however- more like a contemporary lapse from traditional Orthodox practice.
But wait. Is it not an Orthodox innovation in the sense that some Orthodox Churches allow the practice today, whereas in the past it was not allowed according to Corinthians?
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,769


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2010, 01:17:14 AM »

Folks, headcoverings for women is not a matter of Orthodox doctrine and faith with the same importance as, say, the contents of the chalice being truly the body and blood of Christ vs the merely symbolic, or the act of Holy Communion being merely a "meal of remembrance".
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2010, 01:43:50 AM »

Folks, headcoverings for women is not a matter of Orthodox doctrine and faith with the same importance as, say, the contents of the chalice being truly the body and blood of Christ vs the merely symbolic, or the act of Holy Communion being merely a "meal of remembrance".
Yes, of course you are right here. However, is it an innovation of some sort from what was allowed in the early Church according to the New Testament?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2010, 08:47:08 AM »

Folks, headcoverings for women is not a matter of Orthodox doctrine and faith with the same importance as, say, the contents of the chalice being truly the body and blood of Christ vs the merely symbolic, or the act of Holy Communion being merely a "meal of remembrance".
Yes, of course you are right here. However, is it an innovation of some sort from what was allowed in the early Church according to the New Testament?

Well, that quote is directed only to women that preach in the Church, not to all women.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2010, 10:09:30 AM »

Poster after poster to this forum has explained ... over so many threads, and over a great period of time

Is it at all possible to make this any clearer to you?

Part one of my quote from you is true, but is only part of the truth. Sadly, there are very few Protestants on the forum, even though the title (Orthodox-Protestant Discussion) might lead us all to hope for an approximately equal balance. I have tried to get people interested in participating, both in Britain and in Albania, but people are not interested in theological discussion forums, or are too busy with other activities, or have hardly heard of Orthodoxy and cannot imagine the relevance of such discussion.  Sad If there were an even balance between participants, the number of posts saying what I say and the number saying what you might would presumably more nearly balance each other out.

In re part 2 of my quote from you - the answer must be "No". You have made your views far clearer to me than they ever were before I was drawn into the forum, and I hope I have a much better informed and more positive appreciation of eastern Christianity than I ever had or suspected before.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2010, 10:27:01 AM »

its the mentality and the philosophy

...that it is our personal belief that is important. That it does not matter what others may say. "What matters is my faith!" ... by just getting a book and saying for ourselves what is right.

There are here two widely different matters. First, philosophy and mentality. You are right in saying that a wide difference exists between the mentality of eastern Christianity and western, and perhaps even wider between eastern Christianity and Evangelicalism. However, if we assume that the western approach to Christianity was largely established by Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas (easy to remember - three As), then you see why eastern and western are so different, even without moving as far forward in time as the Reformation. But I am not persuaded that Orthodox philosophy/mentality is right and western is wrong (or Evangelical is wrong, which perhaps arose in the 18th century - the Awakening, another A). They are different; I do not think that means that one is right and the other wrong.

The second part of my quote to you risks reproach for going round and round the same circle, and to risk that reproach would be rather temeritous. However, facing up to that risk, let me say again that this picture of Evangelicalism is not one I recognise as obtaining in the circles I have moved in over the last 40+ years - though of course it is true that one sometimes comes across odd or eccentric people who do think and act like that. Maybe it is (regrettably) more widespread in America?
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 10:29:17 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2010, 11:43:35 AM »

its the mentality and the philosophy

...that it is our personal belief that is important. That it does not matter what others may say. "What matters is my faith!" ... by just getting a book and saying for ourselves what is right.

There are here two widely different matters. First, philosophy and mentality. You are right in saying that a wide difference exists between the mentality of eastern Christianity and western, and perhaps even wider between eastern Christianity and Evangelicalism. However, if we assume that the western approach to Christianity was largely established by Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas (easy to remember - three As), then you see why eastern and western are so different, even without moving as far forward in time as the Reformation. But I am not persuaded that Orthodox philosophy/mentality is right and western is wrong (or Evangelical is wrong, which perhaps arose in the 18th century - the Awakening, another A). They are different; I do not think that means that one is right and the other wrong.

Key words: "I am not persuaded."  This is exactly the mentality we've been talking about.  You are the arbiter and judge of your faith.  You choose what to believe-- shape your faith according to what is most comfortable for your worldview.  You take a little from this writer-- "oh that sounds wonderful!  He's right, I believe that too!"  You take a little from another writer-- "oh he's brilliant!  But I don't like this other little bit, so I won't accept that.  I don't believe that."  Soon you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young, comfortable for David Young, and ultimately, you recognize no authority outside of yourself to tell you that you are wrong.  The only authority you recognize is that of God, and His message to you is obscured by your own mind!


Quote
The second part of my quote to you risks reproach for going round and round the same circle, and to risk that reproach would be rather temeritous. However, facing up to that risk, let me say again that this picture of Evangelicalism is not one I recognise as obtaining in the circles I have moved in over the last 40+ years - though of course it is true that one sometimes comes across odd or eccentric people who do think and act like that. Maybe it is (regrettably) more widespread in America?
It is not one you recognize because you don't want to recognize it.  You don't want to see it.  And yet it is quite apparent in your own writings.  I'm sure you will jump to the defensive and say, "you misunderstand me."  But the fact of the matter is that in post after post, over the course of the last year, it has been apparent that this is the mentality you hold (though you may not yourself see it), and is, indeed, the mentality that Protestantism professes.

Further, it is difficult to accept such sentiments as "that is what we are all desiring" (with reference to the faith of the Apostles) when you have quite clearly placed your own interpretations of the faith and opinions above those of the early church fathers-- who were not only chronologically closer to Christ and the apostles, but whose teachings the ENTIRE body of the Church deemed good and true.  Your response thus far has been, "oh but I like some of what they say, but not everything."  Again, the same mentality-- your opinion is more important than that not only of the writer, but more importantly, than that of the Church who deemed the writing good!  And I'm sorry, but it does NO good to accept little bits and pieces here and there that fit comfortably into your own worldview yet leave aside such incredibly essential teachings as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (among others)! 

I would have to agree with Yochanan- the biggest innovation of Protestantism, and most dangerous one of all, is that mentality which says that there is no authority higher than my conscience, save God(whose words, message, and authority I alone can interpret).  The idea that no one can instruct me in my faith, save those who I have already deemed worthy because they profess the same world view that I do.  The idea that my personal faith is the only thing that matters... It is a big vicious circle that always leads back to oneself and one's own interpretation of the faith. 
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2010, 12:09:39 PM »

Part one of my quote from you is true, but is only part of the truth. Sadly, there are very few Protestants on the forum, even though the title (Orthodox-Protestant Discussion) might lead us all to hope for an approximately equal balance. I have tried to get people interested in participating, both in Britain and in Albania, but people are not interested in theological discussion forums, or are too busy with other activities, or have hardly heard of Orthodoxy and cannot imagine the relevance of such discussion.  Sad If there were an even balance between participants, the number of posts saying what I say and the number saying what you might would presumably more nearly balance each other out.

You know, I was just struck by this all of a sudden.  You say this kind of thing all the time, as though it is our fault.  Admittedly, we should be evangelizing more, of course.  But, how do you explain the fact that Catholics are WIDELY aware of our presence?  From my understanding and experience (my mother was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, etc), Church history and the existence and beliefs of Orthodoxy are widely taught in Catholic seminaries and in Catholic Sunday Schools and Catechism classes.  Of course, it's not true of EVERY Catholic Sunday School, but they are much more broadly aware of us.  This is evidenced also by the strong Catholic presence on this forum.  It is also evidenced by the strong Ecumenical movement (which is a topic for another thread, should anyone feel the need to attack this statement) between the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Could it be, instead, that the responsibility lies with the Protestant churches?  The Catholics are, generally, fairly well educated in Orthodoxy.  Orthodox are, generally, aware of and educated on at least a very basic level in the faith of Catholics and Protestants.  Maybe the Protestant churches should start teaching church history.  My experience has been that Protestants skip everything between Acts and the Reformation.  Why?  Why haven't they thought, "hmmmm... I wonder what happened in those 1500 years?"  Why haven't they gone to a bookstore and bought a book on church history?  It's not as though they're not available.  If books are really that hard to come by, we have these wonderful things called computers now, too.

And when the DO mention Orthodoxy or Catholicism, it's only to teach that we're not Christian, pagans, Canibals, etc.  Take your pick.  Obviously, this is not only wrong, but disingenuous and academically dishonest.  This comes from one, who, by the way, spent years of my youth in the Episcopal church, half of my family is Southern Baptist, and of course, I live in the Bible belt, with Protestant friends who have dragged me to their Church functions for years in order to convert their heathen friend.

Sorry, I couldn't let this one slide anymore.  It just really irks me.  Smiley
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2010, 12:54:11 PM »

You say this kind of thing all the time, as though it is our fault. 

No I don't. I never suggested it was your fault, nor anyone else's, other than confessing my own failure at attracting people to it.

Quote
I couldn't let this one slide anymore.  It just really irks me. 

So I gather. Such was not my intention. I am abashed. Imagine me in spirit with you in church on 14th February.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2010, 01:27:59 PM »

You say this kind of thing all the time, as though it is our fault.  

No I don't. I never suggested it was your fault, nor anyone else's, other than confessing my own failure at attracting people to it.

Quote
I couldn't let this one slide anymore.  It just really irks me.

So I gather. Such was not my intention. I am abashed. Imagine me in spirit with you in church on 14th February.

David, I know you have a large circle of influence and travel to many different denominations to teach.  I read your input and see myself, but without the vast travels and credentials being just a leader/teacher at my former baptist church.  Lord have mercy.  My heart aches and cries out to the Lord, that you and all of us who call themselves Christian would be One.  

Love you and praying for you.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 01:29:40 PM by Mivac » Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2010, 01:28:40 PM »

I would just like to add.  There is a song that my old baptist church would sing often called, open the eyes of my heart.  I would spend hours seeking truth, asking God to open the eyes of my heart, much like we do with the Prayer of the heart.  I wanted unity so bad, but it turned out it was on my own term.  Well, he did open the eyes of my heart, to my astonishment, even though now, I know I already knew the truth, but it wasn't until I was leading focus on the family, "truth project" and found myself also crying out to St. Paul that my heart and mind both were opened up.  I believe the Lord honored St. Pauls prayer and allowed me to find a great treasure.

Needless to say, this was very upsetting developement for my wife and still is to this day.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 01:51:59 PM by Mivac » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2010, 01:46:58 PM »

you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young,

This is probably true. But each component of that belief system lies within what, if one wished, one might call "Evangelical Tradition". I expect the same unique combination of elements drawn from within "The Tradition" in anyone I have fellowship with in the churches, and in any preacher whom I hear. It is indeed quite surprising when a thinking person comes across someone whose beliefs coincide entirely with his own.

This is not felt to be a bad thing; it is normal. As an imperfect explanation, think of the early Fathers: they did not agree on all matters, and (y'all say) occasionally were in error on some point. But there was a consensus within which they all belonged. It is perhaps something like that.

Frankly, I think this part of our exchange is on the wrong thread: it belongs more readily on the "I don't understand the Evangelical mindset" thread, and I do respectfully wonder whether you have understood that what you rail against in me is quite normal for us, and is an integral part of that "Evangelical mindset". We could of course continue to discuss whether it is good or bad, but I do suspect it verifies the title of that "I don't understand" thread, for the mindset does not involve anything like the individuality of thought, judgement and belief which you ascribe to us, but rather only variation (probably, as you say, unique to each believer) within a well-defined Tradition - though not usually called by that term.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 01:47:38 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2010, 06:24:03 PM »

My heart aches ... that  ... all of us who call themselves Christian would be One.

Amen.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2010, 07:41:11 PM »

My heart aches ... that  ... all of us who call themselves Christian would be One.

Amen.
by their fruits you shall know them.. Jn 7:16 (myself included)
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2010, 10:25:46 PM »

you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young,

This is probably true. But each component of that belief system lies within what, if one wished, one might call "Evangelical Tradition". I expect the same unique combination of elements drawn from within "The Tradition" in anyone I have fellowship with in the churches, and in any preacher whom I hear. It is indeed quite surprising when a thinking person comes across someone whose beliefs coincide entirely with his own.

This is not felt to be a bad thing; it is normal. As an imperfect explanation, think of the early Fathers: they did not agree on all matters, and (y'all say) occasionally were in error on some point. But there was a consensus within which they all belonged. It is perhaps something like that.

Frankly, I think this part of our exchange is on the wrong thread: it belongs more readily on the "I don't understand the Evangelical mindset" thread, and I do respectfully wonder whether you have understood that what you rail against in me is quite normal for us, and is an integral part of that "Evangelical mindset". We could of course continue to discuss whether it is good or bad, but I do suspect it verifies the title of that "I don't understand" thread, for the mindset does not involve anything like the individuality of thought, judgement and belief which you ascribe to us, but rather only variation (probably, as you say, unique to each believer) within a well-defined Tradition - though not usually called by that term.


You are correct, the discussion of such as being good or bad probably belongs on the "Evangelical Mindset" thread.  But what matters for this thread is that such a mindset is an innovation unique to Protestantism

The fathers may have had slight disagreements over minute details, and may have erred in one belief or another at some given point, but they never erred so much that they were outside the body of the Church's belief, otherwise they were deemed heretical and not accepted by the Church.  They never went outside of the faith and Tradition of the Church, though, and whatever they wrote, they recognized the authority of the Church to tell them if they were correct.  That's a huge, huge difference from what you describe. 
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2010, 11:42:28 PM »

you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young,

This is probably true. But each component of that belief system lies within what, if one wished, one might call "Evangelical Tradition". I expect the same unique combination of elements drawn from within "The Tradition" in anyone I have fellowship with in the churches, and in any preacher whom I hear. It is indeed quite surprising when a thinking person comes across someone whose beliefs coincide entirely with his own.

This is not felt to be a bad thing; it is normal. As an imperfect explanation, think of the early Fathers: they did not agree on all matters, and (y'all say) occasionally were in error on some point. But there was a consensus within which they all belonged. It is perhaps something like that.

Frankly, I think this part of our exchange is on the wrong thread: it belongs more readily on the "I don't understand the Evangelical mindset" thread, and I do respectfully wonder whether you have understood that what you rail against in me is quite normal for us, and is an integral part of that "Evangelical mindset". We could of course continue to discuss whether it is good or bad, but I do suspect it verifies the title of that "I don't understand" thread, for the mindset does not involve anything like the individuality of thought, judgement and belief which you ascribe to us, but rather only variation (probably, as you say, unique to each believer) within a well-defined Tradition - though not usually called by that term.


You are correct, the discussion of such as being good or bad probably belongs on the "Evangelical Mindset" thread.  But what matters for this thread is that such a mindset is an innovation unique to Protestantism

The fathers may have had slight disagreements over minute details, and may have erred in one belief or another at some given point, but they never erred so much that they were outside the body of the Church's belief, otherwise they were deemed heretical and not accepted by the Church.  They never went outside of the faith and Tradition of the Church, though, and whatever they wrote, they recognized the authority of the Church to tell them if they were correct.  That's a huge, huge difference from what you describe. 
that indeed is the issue: the Fathers would be able to commune in our Church.  Indeed, they do.  The idea that the Church was only an ad hoc association of the like minded was unknown until the 16th century, if not later.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2010, 11:46:53 PM »

Part one of my quote from you is true, but is only part of the truth. Sadly, there are very few Protestants on the forum, even though the title (Orthodox-Protestant Discussion) might lead us all to hope for an approximately equal balance. I have tried to get people interested in participating, both in Britain and in Albania, but people are not interested in theological discussion forums, or are too busy with other activities, or have hardly heard of Orthodoxy and cannot imagine the relevance of such discussion.  Sad If there were an even balance between participants, the number of posts saying what I say and the number saying what you might would presumably more nearly balance each other out.

You know, I was just struck by this all of a sudden.  You say this kind of thing all the time, as though it is our fault.  Admittedly, we should be evangelizing more, of course.  But, how do you explain the fact that Catholics are WIDELY aware of our presence?  From my understanding and experience (my mother was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, etc), Church history and the existence and beliefs of Orthodoxy are widely taught in Catholic seminaries and in Catholic Sunday Schools and Catechism classes.  Of course, it's not true of EVERY Catholic Sunday School, but they are much more broadly aware of us.  This is evidenced also by the strong Catholic presence on this forum.  It is also evidenced by the strong Ecumenical movement (which is a topic for another thread, should anyone feel the need to attack this statement) between the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Could it be, instead, that the responsibility lies with the Protestant churches?  The Catholics are, generally, fairly well educated in Orthodoxy.  Orthodox are, generally, aware of and educated on at least a very basic level in the faith of Catholics and Protestants.  Maybe the Protestant churches should start teaching church history.  My experience has been that Protestants skip everything between Acts and the Reformation.  Why?  Why haven't they thought, "hmmmm... I wonder what happened in those 1500 years?"  Why haven't they gone to a bookstore and bought a book on church history?  It's not as though they're not available.  If books are really that hard to come by, we have these wonderful things called computers now, too.

There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 25, 2010, 12:34:39 AM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
[/quote]

Love it! Reminds me of Archbishop Sheen's quip: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."
Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2010, 09:16:33 AM »

you have a belief system and faith that is unique to David Young,

This is probably true. But each component of that belief system lies within what, if one wished, one might call "Evangelical Tradition". I expect the same unique combination of elements drawn from within "The Tradition" in anyone I have fellowship with in the churches, and in any preacher whom I hear. It is indeed quite surprising when a thinking person comes across someone whose beliefs coincide entirely with his own.

This is not felt to be a bad thing; it is normal. As an imperfect explanation, think of the early Fathers: they did not agree on all matters, and (y'all say) occasionally were in error on some point. But there was a consensus within which they all belonged. It is perhaps something like that.

Frankly, I think this part of our exchange is on the wrong thread: it belongs more readily on the "I don't understand the Evangelical mindset" thread, and I do respectfully wonder whether you have understood that what you rail against in me is quite normal for us, and is an integral part of that "Evangelical mindset". We could of course continue to discuss whether it is good or bad, but I do suspect it verifies the title of that "I don't understand" thread, for the mindset does not involve anything like the individuality of thought, judgement and belief which you ascribe to us, but rather only variation (probably, as you say, unique to each believer) within a well-defined Tradition - though not usually called by that term.


You are correct, the discussion of such as being good or bad probably belongs on the "Evangelical Mindset" thread.  But what matters for this thread is that such a mindset is an innovation unique to Protestantism

The fathers may have had slight disagreements over minute details, and may have erred in one belief or another at some given point, but they never erred so much that they were outside the body of the Church's belief, otherwise they were deemed heretical and not accepted by the Church.  They never went outside of the faith and Tradition of the Church, though, and whatever they wrote, they recognized the authority of the Church to tell them if they were correct.  That's a huge, huge difference from what you describe. 

The hardest part for me was getting myself out of the way.  Until one realizes that they put themselves as the final authority and the constant my, my, I, I, mentality then there really isn't much a person can do for the "Evangelical Mindset."

Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #54 on: January 25, 2010, 10:26:27 AM »

I am slightly puzzled by the frequent Orthodox references in people’s posts to our Protestant or Evangelical “innovations”, for I am not aware of any. If you were saying that we have pared down the true Faith and removed vital aspects, I’d know what you mean: things like prayer for the dead, prayer to the saints, the effect of the epiclesis, baptismal regeneration, chrismation as the way to receive the Holy Spirit, sacraments additional to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the perpetual virginity of Mary – and doubtless others. But I cannot see what you mean when you say we have added new beliefs, that is, innovations. (I do not of course refer to such recent and regrettable practices as the ordination in some churches of women; nor to what many of us view (as you do) as irreverent entertainment-based ‘megachurches’; nor to various practices brought in by groups who might assume the name 'Protestant' but hardly retain its beliefs and practices – such as those who praise homosexuality). Leaving aside such recent innovations, and looking only at real, classic Evangelicalism or Protestantism, let me ask you: what do you mean by our “innovations”?

You know, I didn't realize you were against the ordination of women, David. Is that the usual Baptist view?

I would say: Yes, we innovate. This is because we are the living Church; we do not stagnate.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #55 on: January 25, 2010, 10:43:15 AM »

I didn't realize you were against the ordination of women, David. Is that the usual Baptist view?

I am not as well versed in church history as I would like to be (not being an Orthodox catechumen!), but I would say that the idea of women ministers is an innovation among Baptists. None of the churches I have been a member of in Kent (Hadlow and Borough Green) and North Wales (Llay and Wrexham) or attended regularly (Cambridge, Tunbridge Wells and Basingstoke) ever had a female preacher whilst I was there. This spans the period 1965-2010. Nonetheless it is true that a lot of Baptist churches nowadays do go in for a female ministry.  Sad
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2010, 10:49:53 AM »

I recently read a paper that I believe speaks directly to the problem within protestantism and speaks directly concerning the rampant innovations. http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/paradosis2.doc

I have printed it out to read at leisure in the next few days. Thank you.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2010, 01:33:34 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2010, 01:37:56 PM »

Grace and Peace,

The Apostle Paul spoke of Christianity as a Spiritual Journey or an Athletic Exercise, a Race or a Good Fight.

Modern Christianity has lost this, even amongst Catholics. We have become spiritually flabby...  Wink

We need to get 'in shape' to that which is why I am here.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2010, 02:37:47 PM »

Well, Great Lent is coming up:  Spring Training.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2010, 09:41:32 PM »

I am slightly puzzled by the frequent Orthodox references in people’s posts to our Protestant or Evangelical “innovations”, for I am not aware of any. If you were saying that we have pared down the true Faith and removed vital aspects, I’d know what you mean: things like prayer for the dead, prayer to the saints, the effect of the epiclesis, baptismal regeneration, chrismation as the way to receive the Holy Spirit, sacraments additional to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the perpetual virginity of Mary – and doubtless others. But I cannot see what you mean when you say we have added new beliefs, that is, innovations. (I do not of course refer to such recent and regrettable practices as the ordination in some churches of women; nor to what many of us view (as you do) as irreverent entertainment-based ‘megachurches’; nor to various practices brought in by groups who might assume the name 'Protestant' but hardly retain its beliefs and practices – such as those who praise homosexuality). Leaving aside such recent innovations, and looking only at real, classic Evangelicalism or Protestantism, let me ask you: what do you mean by our “innovations”?

You know, I didn't realize you were against the ordination of women, David. Is that the usual Baptist view?

I would say: Yes, we innovate. This is because we are the living Church; we do not stagnate.

Liz,

As someone who spent a good number of years in the Baptist Church (Dad is Orthodox, Mom is Baptist) I can affirm that this is a traditional Baptist view.

In XC,

Maureen
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2010, 01:14:17 AM »

Grace and Peace,

The Apostle Paul spoke of Christianity as a Spiritual Journey or an Athletic Exercise, a Race or a Good Fight.

Modern Christianity has lost this, even amongst Catholics. We have become spiritually flabby...  Wink

We need to get 'in shape' to that which is why I am here.
O.K! In the meantime...no spiritual Speedos for you until you whip your spiritual self back into shape Smiley
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,612



WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2010, 01:45:43 AM »

Here in VA many Baptist churches have women in ministry, and I know of at least one congregation that is known as being gay-friendly.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2010, 02:29:11 AM »

There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.

Or an agnostic, an apostate, a biblical critical scholar, etc.
Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2010, 08:58:28 AM »

Here in VA many Baptist churches have women in ministry, and I know of at least one congregation that is known as being gay-friendly.

In the United States atleast the Baptist churches are now all over the theological map.  You have your conservative baptist, arminian baptist, calvinist baptist, women ordination baptist, fundamentalist  baptist, charismatic baptist (which is kind of puzzling lol), what ever you want to believe baptist, etc.

As for your last part what do you mean by gay-friendly?  If someone who is gay comes seeking God and seeking to over come their particular passion that controls them why would you reject them and not be friendly to them?
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #65 on: January 26, 2010, 09:52:42 AM »

Quote
The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology

Martin Luther's version of the Bible.

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbiling done at Charismatic services that is labeled as "Biblical" but is, in fact, NOT.

Being "slain in the Spirit."

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away and you are no longer guilty of any sin. Ever. You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.

Televangelists.

Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"

Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration (John 3:5).

You lack apostolic succession,
you have no Holy Mysteries,
you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,
you have stripped the Old Testament,
you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

I have extracted the above from your posts. I'll try to comment on them in a different order, lumping together the ones that seem similar to each other.

REAL INNOVATIONS

The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology

As far as I know this is a very recent innovation, and is rejected by orthodox Evangelcials.

You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.

This is repeatedly and strongly denied from our pulpits - but there have been people who were (inaccurately, I think) dubbed Antinomians who have taught such heresy.

Televangelists.

Well... if one is going to preach by broadcasting, which in itself is a good thing, surely it must be an innovation?

MAYBE INNOVATIONS

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbling done at Charismatic services.

The problem is that no-one has direct knowledge of what speaking in tongues was in the early church, either in people's private devotions or in church gatherings. But yes - the introduction of what you describe probably dates from 1906 in Azusa Street.

Being "slain in the Spirit."

This happened in the 18th cenury awakening, though then it was discouraged and died down or out, whilst today I gather on hearsay that there are people who encourage it. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that there are cases of people falling to the ground when they meet the holy - God, Jesus, and angel - both in the days of our Lord's flesh, and at other times.

NOT INNOVATIONS

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away

This, of course, we hold to be NT teaching, not an innovation.

Martin Luther's version of the Bible... you have stripped the Old Testament,

I assume you are referring to his use of the Hebrew canon rather than the LXX. Whether you are right to use the LXX or we are right to use the Hebrew OT is no doubt open to debate - but I don't think the Hebrew canon can be dubbed a specifically Protestant idea, nor an innovation

WHOSE INNOVATIONS?

you have no Holy Mysteries

See my comments on the Lord's Supper and baptism: if you mean the other sacraments, again we think these are your innovations.

you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,

It depends what you mean by "venerate". You are right that we do not do it in the manner you do, but again, we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!

Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"

By many, called Zwinglians. Again, those who hold this view do not believe it is an innovation, but rather was the biblical understanding.

Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration

A similar view to the Zwinglian one on the Supper, believed by those who teaching it to be biblical. Others do believe that God meets one in a special way and does indeed impart a influx of grace at that moment.

You lack apostolic succession

Yes, we lack that: but we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!

you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

I'd need to think a lot more about this one. We believe, of course, that the Fathers developed theology beyond the beliefs of the apostles, and that as it evolved not every new idea was correct. But, as I've said before, we read other Christian writers in the same spirit, and here the difference between you and us seems to me to be that we treat all post-canonical writings on the same level, whereas you accord special authority to the Church Fathers as part of Holy Tradition. Again, the question is, which of us has created the innovation?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 10:22:40 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,495



« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2010, 10:02:58 AM »

Here in VA many Baptist churches have women in ministry, and I know of at least one congregation that is known as being gay-friendly.
As for your last part what do you mean by gay-friendly?  If someone who is gay comes seeking God and seeking to over come their particular passion that controls them why would you reject them and not be friendly to them?
I'm going to guess that what Tallitot means by "gay-friendly" is how I understand the term myself: friendly towards (i.e. not opposed to) a gay lifestyle usually including sexual behaviour between two loving, consenting, and committed adults of the same sex.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #67 on: January 26, 2010, 10:24:29 AM »

Quote
The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology

Martin Luther's version of the Bible.

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbiling done at Charismatic services that is labeled as "Biblical" but is, in fact, NOT.

Being "slain in the Spirit."

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away and you are no longer guilty of any sin. Ever. You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.

Televangelists.

Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"

Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration (John 3:5).

You lack apostolic succession,
you have no Holy Mysteries,
you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,
you have stripped the Old Testament,
you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

THIS SEEMS TO HAVE GOT ITSELF ON TWICE. NO IDEA HOW. SORRY.

I have extracted the above from your posts. I'll try to comment on them in a different order, lumping together the ones that seem similar to each other.

REAL INNOVATIONS

The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology

As far as I know this is a very recent innovation, and is rejected by orthodox Evangelcials.

You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.

This is repeatedly and strongly denied from our pulpits - but there have been people who were (inaccurately, I think) dubbed Antinomians who have taught such heresy.

Televangelists.

Well... if one is going to preach by broadcasting, which in itself is a good thing, surely it must be an innovation?

MAYBE INNOVATIONS

"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbling done at Charismatic services.

The problem is that no-one has direct knowledge of what speaking in tongues was in the early church, either in people's private devotions or in church gatherings. But yes - the introduction of what you describe probably dates from 1906 in Azusa Street.

Being "slain in the Spirit."

This happened in the 18th century awakening, though then it was discouraged and died down or out, whilst today I gather on hearsay that there are people who encourage it. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that there are cases in the Bible of people falling to the ground when they meet the holy - God, Jesus, and angel - both in the days of our Lord's flesh, and at other times.

NOT INNOVATIONS

The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away

This, of course, we hold to be NT teaching, not an innovation.

Martin Luther's version of the Bible... you have stripped the Old Testament,

I assume you are referring to his use of the Hebrew canon rather than the LXX. Whether you are right to use the LXX or we are right to use the Hebrew OT is no doubt open to debate - but I don't think the Hebrew canon can be dubbed a specifically Protestant idea, nor an innovation

WHOSE INNOVATIONS?

you have no Holy Mysteries

See my comments on the Lord's Supper and baptism: if you mean the other sacraments, again we think these are your innovations.

you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,

It depends what you mean by "venerate". You are right that we do not do it in the manner you do, but again, we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!

Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"

By many, called Zwinglians. Again, those who hold this view do not believe it is an innovation, but rather was the biblical understanding.

Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration

A similar view to the Zwinglian one on the Supper, believed by those who teaching it to be biblical. Others do believe that God meets one in a special way and does indeed impart a influx of grace at that moment.

You lack apostolic succession

Yes, we lack that: but we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!

you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.

I'd need to think a lot more about this one. We believe, of course, that the Fathers developed theology beyond the beliefs of the apostles, and that as it evolved not every new idea was correct. But, as I've said before, we read other Christian writers in the same spirit, and here the difference between you and us seems to me to be that we treat all post-canonical writings on the same level, whereas you accord special authority to the Church Fathers as part of Holy Tradition. Again, the question is, which of us has created the innovation?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 10:28:56 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #68 on: January 26, 2010, 10:31:50 AM »

sexual behaviour between two loving ... adults of the same sex.

I agree with your understanding of how the term is usually used, but can it in any true sense be called "loving" to encourage another person in a perversion which scripture plainly calls an abomination to the Lord?
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,495



« Reply #69 on: January 26, 2010, 11:35:19 AM »

sexual behaviour between two loving ... adults of the same sex.

I agree with your understanding of how the term is usually used, but can it in any true sense be called "loving" to encourage another person in a perversion which scripture plainly calls an abomination to the Lord?
You are exactly right on that. I was using words that others frequently use in order to create a definition. While such people may indeed love each other (and consent, and be committed) that love falls short of God's best for us.
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2010, 11:53:53 AM »

that love falls short of God's best for us.

Amen. And I believe it is the higher and more conspicuous moral stance taken by the Catholic Church, in comparison with the feeble bleatings of so-called Protestant leaders, that is leading people to convert to Catholicism here in Britain. Not the only reason, but a significant one. But we are wandering off the theme...

Or are we? Isn't this vagueness adopted by so many Protestant leaders itself an innovation? "The bland leading the bland," as one wag said. I would have expected a higher proportion of those who leave Protestantism to convert to Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism than seems to be the case - but perhaps I am biassed.  Smiley
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #71 on: January 26, 2010, 12:43:14 PM »

how many times are we going to go around about this?

I was thinking the same thing. Many people have provided evidence (which you refuse to accept) on threads without number that those things you continue to reject were in fact and always have been part of the Apostolic Faith. You can't bring yourself to accept that - why not be honest about it?

Quote
Why should we place ANY value whatsoever in your opinion ... why should YOU place any value in your opinion ...?

No reason at all. But it was of course not I who dreamed up these ideas. Rightly or wrongly they have been held by thousands and probably millions for some centuries. I think that this at least means they deserve serious and respectful consideration.
Why? Are you really saying that if a lot of people believe something, even if it's wrong, it deserves serious consideration? And anyway do you really want to play a numbers game? Because if so, our team "wins" - more of us have believed this longer.  Wink

Quote
your faith is based ... not in the FAITH of the apostles as it was originally practiced,

And that's the truth of it, really. No matter how much evidence we present, no matter how much we discuss, you will never accept it because it might just possibly mean that you might be wrong.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #72 on: January 26, 2010, 12:47:24 PM »

that love falls short of God's best for us.

Amen. And I believe it is the higher and more conspicuous moral stance taken by the Catholic Church, in comparison with the feeble bleatings of so-called Protestant leaders, that is leading people to convert to Catholicism here in Britain. Not the only reason, but a significant one. But we are wandering off the theme...

Or are we? Isn't this vagueness adopted by so many Protestant leaders itself an innovation? "The bland leading the bland," as one wag said. I would have expected a higher proportion of those who leave Protestantism to convert to Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism than seems to be the case - but perhaps I am biassed.  Smiley
That's assuming that they know about Orthodoxy. Sadly (and largely our fault) such is not the case.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #73 on: January 26, 2010, 12:50:31 PM »

Grace and Peace,

The Apostle Paul spoke of Christianity as a Spiritual Journey or an Athletic Exercise, a Race or a Good Fight.

Modern Christianity has lost this, even amongst Catholics. We have become spiritually flabby...  Wink

We need to get 'in shape' to that which is why I am here.
O.K! In the meantime...no spiritual Speedos for you until you whip your spiritual self back into shape Smiley
OK

http://www.processionemisteritp.it/confraternite/flagellanti.jpg
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #74 on: January 26, 2010, 12:52:32 PM »

There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.

First of all, david, let me apologize for my sharp tongue. With Lent staring me in the face, it ill behooves me to criticize anyone else.

The thing is, I was probably one of the more reluctant Orthodox converts in the history of the Church. I spent months looking for loopholes that would allow me to ignore it, and go back to my comfortable Protestant church, with friends and family, where everyone thought I was wonderful and smart. (of course, I knew differently, but that's another story... Smiley)

Unfortunately, the more I read, the more I studied, the "worse" it got!

And finally the only honest thing to do was to quote Bro. Martin, "Here I stand. I can do no other, God helping me," and admit to myself that the Orthodox Church was the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and to take a deep breath and step off into the unknown.

It hasn't been easy, I can assure you. But it has been a blessing.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #75 on: January 26, 2010, 12:54:00 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #76 on: January 26, 2010, 12:55:42 PM »

I didn't realize you were against the ordination of women, David. Is that the usual Baptist view?

I am not as well versed in church history as I would like to be (not being an Orthodox catechumen!), but I would say that the idea of women ministers is an innovation among Baptists. None of the churches I have been a member of in Kent (Hadlow and Borough Green) and North Wales (Llay and Wrexham) or attended regularly (Cambridge, Tunbridge Wells and Basingstoke) ever had a female preacher whilst I was there. This spans the period 1965-2010. Nonetheless it is true that a lot of Baptist churches nowadays do go in for a female ministry.  Sad
I remember the debate in the Southern Baptist Conference, and trying to controll my laughter as the conservatives tried to appeal to Tradition to stop it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #77 on: January 26, 2010, 01:40:31 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,011


"My god is greater."


« Reply #78 on: January 26, 2010, 01:55:51 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?

It is a fiction when Anglicans pretend that their Protestant church really isn't Protestant, really wasn't founded by Henry VIII so he could divorce his wife, and is in fact one of three (or more) "branches" of the invisible Catholic church.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #79 on: January 26, 2010, 02:14:25 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?

It is a fiction when Anglicans pretend that their Protestant church really isn't Protestant, really wasn't founded by Henry VIII so he could divorce his wife, and is in fact one of three (or more) "branches" of the invisible Catholic church.

As to the point on King Henry VIII it was not a divorce but an annulment.  There is a thread here on the forum in which the real history and the complicated situation is looked at.  It was also not the first such request made by a king or noble to the Bishop of Rome; there had been other in centuries previous. 

As a long time poster on this forum, I hope and believe that others may read that I have and still do study history, real history, and that I take it seriously.
I am not EO or OO or RC.   As a side point I have seen the same little quip about one who studies history made with EO changed to RC.  A question of alignment and point of view, it would seem.

But it is just that, a remark that does not apply to real human beings such as, to give an example, Sir Steven Runciman, a paramount scholar and historian who did know EO history and yet did not become EO himself as far as I have been able to find out. 

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #80 on: January 26, 2010, 02:19:23 PM »

As to the point on King Henry VIII it was not a divorce but an annulment.  There is a thread here on the forum in which the real history and the complicated situation is looked at.  It was also not the first such request made by a king or noble to the Bishop of Rome; there had been other in centuries previous.   

I remember that thread... You don't happen to remember the title, or anything that could be used to narrow a search, do you?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #81 on: January 26, 2010, 02:24:38 PM »

If I recall correctly, it had Anglican in the title, it may have been in response to a question by Sloga. I shouldn't be lazy and expect others to search for it.  I'll take a look.  I had to do something after my last...

Found it.  It was from a bit over 2 years ago.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13426.0.html

There may have been other threads, but that might take more digging.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 02:27:34 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2010, 03:39:34 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?
It is a communion in name only, a bridge to nowhere, universal in England, defined by double entendres, a Protestant faith wrapped in a historicized (rather than historic) Apostolic shell.  The 39 Articles do not summarize the Faith brought by the evangelizers of the British Isles.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #83 on: January 26, 2010, 03:48:24 PM »


There's a reason for that: what do you call a Protestant who learns Church history?  An Orthodox catechumen.
You could call him that--I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few weeks about 4 years ago.  However, you could also call him an "Anglican Catholic".  Grin
In which case he has become an afficionado of Alternative History, a more accurate form of Protestant fiction, but fiction none the less.
And how specifically is it a fiction?

It is a fiction when Anglicans pretend that their Protestant church really isn't Protestant, really wasn't founded by Henry VIII so he could divorce his wife, and is in fact one of three (or more) "branches" of the invisible Catholic church.

As to the point on King Henry VIII it was not a divorce but an annulment. 
A distinction without a difference.  We don't approve of the Vatican's Korban Tribunals, why would we Henry's actions?

Quote
There is a thread here on the forum in which the real history and the complicated situation is looked at.  It was also not the first such request made by a king or noble to the Bishop of Rome; there had been other in centuries previous. 

And more recent: Henry condemned his aunt's "shameless sentence sent from Rome," and her progeny (including Elisabeth II) shouldn't have inherited the throne according to him.


Quote
As a long time poster on this forum, I hope and believe that others may read that I have and still do study history, real history, and that I take it seriously.
I am not EO or OO or RC.   As a side point I have seen the same little quip about one who studies history made with EO changed to RC.  A question of alignment and point of view, it would seem.

Not quite.  The RC has to explain how filioque wasn't an innovation, an impossible task.  But at least the RC is aware of the question: Protestants fight for it without knowing what they are fighting for.

But it is just that, a remark that does not apply to real human beings such as, to give an example, Sir Steven Runciman, a paramount scholar and historian who did know EO history and yet did not become EO himself as far as I have been able to find out. 
[/quote]
He delved into the occult. One can be familiar with history but not know it.

As for real human being: Jaroslav Pelikan.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,011


"My god is greater."


« Reply #84 on: January 26, 2010, 06:10:12 PM »

Re: the 39 articles, some Anglo-Catholics will retort that they aren't binding, or give them a dramatically different interpretation, thereby compounding Anglicanism's bad doctrine with disunity.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #85 on: January 26, 2010, 07:02:02 PM »

...always have been part of the Apostolic Faith. You can't bring yourself to accept that - why not be honest about it?

I think you have to admit that some people really are Baptist by conviction, not through laziness, or inheritance, or unwillingness to think. Being Baptist can itself be an honest conviction.

Quote
Are you really saying that if a lot of people believe something, even if it's wrong, it deserves serious consideration?

I probably am. There have been - and are - many atheists, agnostics, Communists, Jews, Moslems, and so on. I do not think it does any harm for an honest, thinking person to give thought to those views, assess them, and have good solid reasons for rejecting them. You may say this is rejecting authority, and contrast it with a call to submit to apostolic Tradition: but I am aware from many posts that people have given long, deep and often sacrificial thought and decision to their conversion to Orthodoxy.

We must be ready to give account for the hope that is in us, and I suspect that that "reason" is wise to include one's reasons for rejecting other, false hopes and submitting to Christ (however one understands that). I want to know (for example) why I am not an atheist.

In re your second post - I have previously expressed my admiration for those who have risked severance from background, fellowship, friendship and familiarity and converted to Orthodoxy - or for that matter to Catholicism. It bears some resemblance to an abrahamic exodus. I do not say I think their decision was the right one, but I deeply admire their willingness to pay the price for what they believe to be right. I have no reason, nor indeed wish, to exclude you from that number; and indeed, reading many of your posts who live in Dixie, I wonder what on earth I would do if I lived among the kind of Evangelical you describe, if they really are all like that. It would be a profound dilemma: yet I find a oneness with Cleopas in all he writes (including his recent posts on the Mindset thread), so I guess I would fit in somewhere among them.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,769


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #86 on: January 26, 2010, 07:17:44 PM »

...always have been part of the Apostolic Faith. You can't bring yourself to accept that - why not be honest about it?

I think you have to admit that some people really are Baptist by conviction, not through laziness, or inheritance, or unwillingness to think. Being Baptist can itself be an honest conviction.

Quote
Are you really saying that if a lot of people believe something, even if it's wrong, it deserves serious consideration?

I probably am. There have been - and are - many atheists, agnostics, Communists, Jews, Moslems, and so on. I do not think it does any harm for an honest, thinking person to give thought to those views, assess them, and have good solid reasons for rejecting them. You may say this is rejecting authority, and contrast it with a call to submit to apostolic Tradition: but I am aware from many posts that people have given long, deep and often sacrificial thought and decision to their conversion to Orthodoxy.

We must be ready to give account for the hope that is in us, and I suspect that that "reason" is wise to include one's reasons for rejecting other, false hopes and submitting to Christ (however one understands that). I want to know (for example) why I am not an atheist.

In re your second post - I have previously expressed my admiration for those who have risked severance from background, fellowship, friendship and familiarity and converted to Orthodoxy - or for that matter to Catholicism. It bears some resemblance to an abrahamic exodus. I do not say I think their decision was the right one, but I deeply admire their willingness to pay the price for what they believe to be right. I have no reason, nor indeed wish, to exclude you from that number; and indeed, reading many of your posts who live in Dixie, I wonder what on earth I would do if I lived among the kind of Evangelical you describe, if they really are all like that. It would be a profound dilemma: yet I find a oneness with Cleopas in all he writes (including his recent posts on the Mindset thread), so I guess I would fit in somewhere among them.

Is Christ divided, David? Do we follow Apollos, or Cephas, or Cleopas? Genuine, honest "ignorance" of the true Christ and the true Faith, through cultural or geographic isolation, is entirely excusable (though not irredeemable), and the Orthodox have never disagreed with this. But, someone like yourself has now long been exposed to this Truth, the true Christ and His true Church. For goodness sake, David, how on earth can you say that all these disparate and dissonant strands of "christianity" of the various versions of evangelicals and many, many others who proclaim to be Christians (let alone those who are not, such as your aforementioned Moslems, atheists, etc), are somehow one unified whole, entire, intact, true, Apostolic faith?

Please answer this honestly.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 07:24:29 PM by LBK » Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #87 on: January 26, 2010, 07:22:28 PM »

Grace and Peace,

The Apostle Paul spoke of Christianity as a Spiritual Journey or an Athletic Exercise, a Race or a Good Fight.

Modern Christianity has lost this, even amongst Catholics. We have become spiritually flabby...  Wink

We need to get 'in shape' to that which is why I am here.
O.K! In the meantime...no spiritual Speedos for you until you whip your spiritual self back into shape Smiley
OK

http://www.processionemisteritp.it/confraternite/flagellanti.jpg
I was being facetious. I don't think Ignatius is a Flagellant, but I suspected someone would take a jab at that one.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 07:34:44 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #88 on: January 26, 2010, 08:36:18 PM »

sexual behaviour between two loving ... adults of the same sex.

I agree with your understanding of how the term is usually used, but can it in any true sense be called "loving" to encourage another person in a perversion which scripture plainly calls an abomination to the Lord?
Its definitely not loving to encourage another person to engage in a sin that could put his or her soul at risk. Homosexual sex is not only a sin againts yourself but also against the other person involved. Real loves wants what's best for the other even if it means giving that person up.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #89 on: January 27, 2010, 04:11:31 AM »

David, how on earth can you say that all these... Moslems, atheists, etc, are somehow one unified whole, entire, intact, true, Apostolic faith?

I never said that at all. What I said was, that as a considerable number of honourable people hold these views, it is not a bad thing to know why I reject them, rather than simply saying, "I'm a Christian, your beliefs are mistaken," whilst in reality I have little or no idea about what those beliefs are. Surely, not to consider why one rejects other belief systems is to put oneself at risk of being overcome and entrapped by one of them, if a suave, well-informed and clever person tries to win you over. Is not this exactly one reason why people fall into the grasp of such heretics as the JWs? or lose their faith and become atheist?

In re how your other question (not quoted above) - how disparate Christians can be one in Christ - please call to mind our doctrine (erroneous in your view, I know) of "the invisible church". I haven't time to defend it now, as work calls, but in any case I suspect it has been dealt with on other threads at no small length - certainly it has been mentioned several times. We do believe that all those who truly repent of their sins and turn in faith to Christ - yes, the faith that works by love, not a hollow profession of assent - are united to him and thus also to each other.

But I must away...
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #90 on: January 27, 2010, 07:40:08 AM »

Re: the 39 articles, some Anglo-Catholics will retort that they aren't binding, or give them a dramatically different interpretation, thereby compounding Anglicanism's bad doctrine with disunity.


Apparently (and if this is hearsay, sorry - I rely for Russian news on my partner), there is in Moscow at the moment a certain Orthodox bishop, who believes that NI numbers are somehow a plot aligned with the number of the beast. Other bishops have come together and asked him to retire; he refuses. From the outside, there is no disunity - but at what cost, and how honest is this?

In my city of Oxford, there are two Orthodox churches, with some kind of extremely complicated reason for not worshiping together. This is not disunity, either.

Amongst members of this forum (most of whom, I know, never represent Orthodoxy in any official capacity and all of whom post as private people rather than as clerics) there are significant differences of opinion concerning the faith.

While I admire the way that the Orthodox Church is able to weather disagreements and a lack of consensus amongst her members, I find it really odd that these disagreements are always discounted when talking about the unity of the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,880


« Reply #91 on: January 27, 2010, 07:52:18 AM »

Liz,

A small clarification, if I could modify a sentence of yours... these disagreements are often discounted by Orthodox Christians when talking about the unity of the Orthodox Church. Wink As for myself, while I don't usually make posts on the forum about this type of stuff, I have brought up with more than one person behind the scenes that I have a lot of difficulty detecting in Orthodoxy the "one mind of Christ" which Bible speaks of, that I don't understand the tendency for Christians to divide, etc.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #92 on: January 27, 2010, 10:11:56 AM »

Re: the 39 articles, some Anglo-Catholics will retort that they aren't binding, or give them a dramatically different interpretation, thereby compounding Anglicanism's bad doctrine with disunity.


Apparently (and if this is hearsay, sorry - I rely for Russian news on my partner), there is in Moscow at the moment a certain Orthodox bishop, who believes that NI numbers are somehow a plot aligned with the number of the beast. Other bishops have come together and asked him to retire; he refuses. From the outside, there is no disunity - but at what cost, and how honest is this?
If keeps it up, he will be deposed.  It's happened at least twice in Russia alone that I recall, and I don't follow Russian events all that closely.

In Romania one bishop was getting too friendly with the Vatican, even concelebrating with its clergy.  He was given the alternative to recant or be defrocked.  The Holy Synod then met and issued a number of canons on his actions, so it was clear that such things would not be tolerated.


Quote

In my city of Oxford, there are two Orthodox churches, with some kind of extremely complicated reason for not worshiping together. This is not disunity, either.

I'd have to know the specifics of why.  I do know that when the Patriarch of Moscow struck the EP from the Diptychs, that the community at Oxford (which was Greek and Russian) pleaded for their patriarchs to settle the matter, as it might not cause problems in Russia or Greece, it was making life difficult in Oxford, and that was because they were united.


Quote
Amongst members of this forum (most of whom, I know, never represent Orthodoxy in any official capacity and all of whom post as private people rather than as clerics) there are significant differences of opinion concerning the faith.

While I admire the way that the Orthodox Church is able to weather disagreements and a lack of consensus amongst her members, I find it really odd that these disagreements are always discounted when talking about the unity of the Orthodox Church.

Depends on what disagreements you are talking about.  What language to use and how much incense when is one thing.  Disagreements on gay marriage and the Real Presence are another. And women's ordination another still.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #93 on: January 27, 2010, 10:45:58 AM »

Re: the 39 articles, some Anglo-Catholics will retort that they aren't binding, or give them a dramatically different interpretation, thereby compounding Anglicanism's bad doctrine with disunity.


Apparently (and if this is hearsay, sorry - I rely for Russian news on my partner), there is in Moscow at the moment a certain Orthodox bishop, who believes that NI numbers are somehow a plot aligned with the number of the beast. Other bishops have come together and asked him to retire; he refuses. From the outside, there is no disunity - but at what cost, and how honest is this?

In my city of Oxford, there are two Orthodox churches, with some kind of extremely complicated reason for not worshiping together. This is not disunity, either.

Amongst members of this forum (most of whom, I know, never represent Orthodoxy in any official capacity and all of whom post as private people rather than as clerics) there are significant differences of opinion concerning the faith.

While I admire the way that the Orthodox Church is able to weather disagreements and a lack of consensus amongst her members, I find it really odd that these disagreements are always discounted when talking about the unity of the Orthodox Church.

That's because it seems you have a very limited definition of "unity." It does not mean that we are all identical. People have different opinions, understandings, experiences - those opinions can be mistaken or wrong, or simply a way of expressing or understanding what is ultimately a mystery.

As Orthodox Christians, we can all have many happy hours discussing (quibbling and arguing?  Cheesy) calendars, beards on priests, pews, organs and many other interesting topics. What we don't have to discuss are things like the Real Presence, because these are the things that, to paraphrase St. Vincent of Lerins, the Church has believed at all times and places.

From the GOA website:
"The Orthodox Church today, numbering over 250 million worldwide, is a communion of self governing Churches, each administratively independent of the other, but united by a common faith and spirituality. Their underlying unity is based on identity of doctrines, sacramental life and worship, which distinguishes Orthodox Christianity...All share full communion with one another. The living tradition of the Church and the principles of concord and harmony are expressed through the common mind of the universal episcopate as the need arises. In all other matters, the internal life of each independent Church is administered by the bishops of that particular Church. "
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #94 on: January 27, 2010, 12:24:15 PM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 12:24:35 PM by Liz » Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #95 on: January 27, 2010, 04:56:38 PM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!

Then what are the Big Theological Things that all Anglicans agree on?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #96 on: January 27, 2010, 05:19:22 PM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!

Then what are the Big Theological Things that all Anglicans agree on?

The Nicene Creed.

Katherine, I think my response earlier may not have quite got my point across. I was being surprised by what you said as I've so often heard Orthodox believers criticize the Anglican Church for being too keen on unity at all costs (ie., in situations where you Orthodox might be more likely to stop and say, 'this is no longer Orthodoxy; we do not wish to be united with these people'). That's where I was coming from.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,011


"My god is greater."


« Reply #97 on: January 27, 2010, 06:21:58 PM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!

Then what are the Big Theological Things that all Anglicans agree on?

The Nicene Creed.

Bishop Spong would beg to differ.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #98 on: January 27, 2010, 07:07:02 PM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!

Then what are the Big Theological Things that all Anglicans agree on?

The Nicene Creed.

Bishop Spong would beg to differ.

I don't know that much about what he says (maybe you could tell me?), but isn't he retired?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #99 on: January 27, 2010, 08:06:27 PM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!

Then what are the Big Theological Things that all Anglicans agree on?

The Nicene Creed.

Bishop Spong would beg to differ.

I don't know that much about what he says (maybe you could tell me?), but isn't he retired?
I hope so!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,011


"My god is greater."


« Reply #100 on: January 27, 2010, 08:24:14 PM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!

Then what are the Big Theological Things that all Anglicans agree on?

The Nicene Creed.

Bishop Spong would beg to differ.

I don't know that much about what he says (maybe you could tell me?), but isn't he retired?

He retired in 2000. That doesn't change the fact that he openly denied basic Christian teaching (e.g., the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth) while a bishop, and was never disciplined for it. If Anglican bishops can openly deny the Nicene Creed without any repercussions, it can hardly be considered a binding or agreed document for Anglicans, even if it's recited at every mass.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #101 on: January 28, 2010, 07:44:28 AM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!

Then what are the Big Theological Things that all Anglicans agree on?

The Nicene Creed.

Bishop Spong would beg to differ.

I don't know that much about what he says (maybe you could tell me?), but isn't he retired?

He retired in 2000. That doesn't change the fact that he openly denied basic Christian teaching (e.g., the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth) while a bishop, and was never disciplined for it. If Anglican bishops can openly deny the Nicene Creed without any repercussions, it can hardly be considered a binding or agreed document for Anglicans, even if it's recited at every mass.

I am in no way knowledgeable about this bishop (I was 15 when he retired, and not to hot on American bishops). But, from a quick wiki check, it sounds as if there were quite some repercussions.

Also, I don't quite see why a bishop who has clearly gone somewhat peculiar in the Anglican Church is different from a bishop who has clearly gone somewhat peculiar in the Orthodox Church. I don't agree with what he is said to have argued (I've not read/heard his originals), but I would hope that the Church is big enough to take it all in.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,880


« Reply #102 on: January 28, 2010, 08:21:14 AM »

Liz,

How much can you tell about a man from reading two of his books? I don't know, but I feel that I have at least some idea of the general intentions and point of view of Spong. To a large extent, I can sympathise with him. Spong seems to be someone who has identified issues or difficulties to be worked through, and is struggling with what to do about them. I can certainly identify with that. In spades. But his ideas about how to deal with those issues seem radically different than my ideas. I will freely criticize Orthodox beliefs, that's true (though usually I try to use some humor, so people know that I do not mean to be malicious), yet I have a basic respect for orthodox Christianity, and wouldn't presume to change my role from critiquer to reformer. Not when it comes to basic doctrine, anyway. But Bp. Spong, he has gone well beyond critiques, and even beyond calling for reforms. He wants to completely recast Christianity using his own theological mold.

As to his relevance in this discussion, I don't know what consequences Spong has experienced for his, shall we say, maverick positions. It seems that he is still writing books. And I expect he is still free to say whatever he wishes--perhaps even more free now that he is retired. On the other hand, what do you think would happen to an Orthodox bishop if (for example) he wrote a book denying the literal resurrection of Christ? Do you think he would remain a bishop in good standing, and be allowed to write a book every couple years calling for a new Christianity?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 08:22:38 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #103 on: January 28, 2010, 08:35:52 AM »

Liz,

How much can you tell about a man from reading two of his books? I don't know, but I feel that I have at least some idea of the general intentions and point of view of Spong. To a large extent, I can sympathise with him. Spong seems to be someone who has identified issues or difficulties to be worked through, and is struggling with what to do about them. I can certainly identify with that. In spades. But his ideas about how to deal with those issues seem radically different than my ideas. I will freely criticize Orthodox beliefs, that's true (though usually I try to use some humor, so people know that I do not mean to be malicious), yet I have a basic respect for orthodox Christianity, and wouldn't presume to change my role from critiquer to reformer. Not when it comes to basic doctrine, anyway. But Bp. Spong, he has gone well beyond critiques, and even beyond calling for reforms. He wants to completely recast Christianity using his own theological mold.

As to his relevance in this discussion, I don't know what consequences Spong has experienced for his, shall we say, maverick positions. It seems that he is still writing books. And I expect he is still free to say whatever he wishes--perhaps even more free now that he is retired. On the other hand, what do you think would happen to an Orthodox bishop if (for example) he wrote a book denying the literal resurrection of Christ? Do you think he would remain a bishop in good standing, and be allowed to write a book every couple years calling for a new Christianity?

That's a difficult question, Asteriktos. Thanks by the way for filling me in on the man's work.

On the one hand, it sounds as if Spong has made a false leap from interest/healthy doubt to the conviction that something hard to believe must be incorrect. That's not good, I agree. But I still have to be glad that he isn't silenced by the hierarchy, that he does get to put his views forward, however wrong we may think they are. I don't like the idea of calling someone out as a heretic. It's better to educate everyone else and show them the truth. If you push someone out of the Church, you end up with a better consensus among believers, but possibly also weaker belief.

I admit I don't know where the line should be drawn in this case, though.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #104 on: January 28, 2010, 11:45:46 AM »

On the one hand, it sounds as if Spong has made a false leap from interest/healthy doubt to the conviction that something hard to believe must be incorrect. That's not good, I agree. But I still have to be glad that he isn't silenced by the hierarchy, that he does get to put his views forward, however wrong we may think they are. I don't like the idea of calling someone out as a heretic. It's better to educate everyone else and show them the truth. If you push someone out of the Church, you end up with a better consensus among believers, but possibly also weaker belief.

I admit I don't know where the line should be drawn in this case, though.

He wouldn't have been silenced by the hierarchy - but he wouldn't have been writing as an Orthodox bishop, either.
And it's not "pushing someone out of the Church" - if you deny the Resurrection, you've moved yourself out of the Church. The Church would then officially acknowledge what the reality was - you were no longer Orthodox, because of your beliefs.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #105 on: January 28, 2010, 11:47:08 AM »

I was being surprised by what you said as I've so often heard Orthodox believers criticize the Anglican Church for being too keen on unity at all costs (ie., in situations where you Orthodox might be more likely to stop and say, 'this is no longer Orthodoxy; we do not wish to be united with these people'). That's where I was coming from.

Please explain more, if you please. Since I am not at all sure of what you are saying.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #106 on: January 28, 2010, 01:26:10 PM »

I was being surprised by what you said as I've so often heard Orthodox believers criticize the Anglican Church for being too keen on unity at all costs (ie., in situations where you Orthodox might be more likely to stop and say, 'this is no longer Orthodoxy; we do not wish to be united with these people'). That's where I was coming from.

Please explain more, if you please. Since I am not at all sure of what you are saying.

I have often been asked, 'how is it that I have been to several churches, that look very different and use different wording for their services - and yet they are all Anglican? And how is it that there can be so many different viewpoints amongst Anglicans?' And also, of course, there is this ongoing worry that Rowan Williams is very reluctant to come down hard on either side of the homosexuality debate, trying instead to keep the Church in unity and avoid schism.

That's why I wondered about disunity.

NB - I'm not at all sure 'unity' of this kind is necessarily a good thing; it's certainly not uncomplicatedly 'good'.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 01:27:18 PM by Liz » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,844


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #107 on: January 28, 2010, 01:32:07 PM »

Getting back to David's original question, Orthodox have a popular saying "Roman Catholics have added too much and Protestants have taken away too much"

So the central concern is the stripping down of Christianity to what you would see as the essential truth of it but what we see as impoverishment. This also leads to some degree of rewriting history to rationalize this change. You would have us believe that most all of the things you listed were "added" later on and that the Early Church looked like stripped down Protestantism. That claim does not stand up under rigorous scrutiny. It turns out the the Orthodox Church practices best reflect the Early Church. Protestant assumptions come more from late day western idea's about rugged individualism than from historic fact.

The other problem is the re-emergence of nearly all of the ancient heresies within Protestantism from Gnosticism, to Arianism, to Monophysitism to Iconoclasm. You can list every old heresy and then draw a line to at least one Protestant group that once again believes in it.

And then finally, there are certainly a few additions that butress this stripping away as has already been mentioned. Sola Scritura, Believers Baptism, Once saved always saved, Atonement theories, The Rapture..etc. etc.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 01:33:29 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #108 on: January 28, 2010, 02:12:54 PM »

I don't think I have a limited definition of unity.

After all, what you say is pretty much what I would say in defending the many strands of accepted faith in the Anglican Church. A judgment of 'unity' depends very much on whether you're inside or outside the unified group you're describing!

Then what are the Big Theological Things that all Anglicans agree on?

The Nicene Creed.

Bishop Spong would beg to differ.

I don't know that much about what he says (maybe you could tell me?), but isn't he retired?

He retired in 2000. That doesn't change the fact that he openly denied basic Christian teaching (e.g., the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth) while a bishop, and was never disciplined for it. If Anglican bishops can openly deny the Nicene Creed without any repercussions, it can hardly be considered a binding or agreed document for Anglicans, even if it's recited at every mass.

I am in no way knowledgeable about this bishop (I was 15 when he retired, and not to hot on American bishops). But, from a quick wiki check, it sounds as if there were quite some repercussions.

Also, I don't quite see why a bishop who has clearly gone somewhat peculiar in the Anglican Church is different from a bishop who has clearly gone somewhat peculiar in the Orthodox Church.

The Anglican retires in full honors and standing. The (formerly) Orthodox gets the boot, if not his croisier broke over his head (and I'm not exaggerating)

Quote
I don't agree with what he is said to have argued (I've not read/heard his originals), but I would hope that the Church is big enough to take it all in.

The Church is never big enough for heresy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #109 on: January 28, 2010, 02:32:13 PM »

Getting back to David's original question, Orthodox have a popular saying "Roman Catholics have added too much and Protestants have taken away too much"

So the central concern is the stripping down of Christianity to what you would see as the essential truth of it but what we see as impoverishment. This also leads to some degree of rewriting history to rationalize this change. You would have us believe that most all of the things you listed were "added" later on and that the Early Church looked like stripped down Protestantism. That claim does not stand up under rigorous scrutiny. It turns out the the Orthodox Church practices best reflect the Early Church. Protestant assumptions come more from late day western idea's about rugged individualism than from historic fact.

The other problem is the re-emergence of nearly all of the ancient heresies within Protestantism from Gnosticism, to Arianism, to Monophysitism to Iconoclasm. You can list every old heresy and then draw a line to at least one Protestant group that once again believes in it.

And then finally, there are certainly a few additions that butress this stripping away as has already been mentioned. Sola Scritura, Believers Baptism, Once saved always saved, Atonement theories, The Rapture..etc. etc.

This is a really good post.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #110 on: January 28, 2010, 02:37:03 PM »


Also, I don't quite see why a bishop who has clearly gone somewhat peculiar in the Anglican Church is different from a bishop who has clearly gone somewhat peculiar in the Orthodox Church.

The Anglican retires in full honors and standing. The (formerly) Orthodox gets the boot, if not his croisier broke over his head (and I'm not exaggerating)

Er ... no, not really. I believe that this Orthodox bishop has already been asked to retire, and refused! He will presumably be disciplined at some point, but it hasn't happened yet.


Quote
I don't agree with what he is said to have argued (I've not read/heard his originals), but I would hope that the Church is big enough to take it all in.

The Church is never big enough for heresy.
[/quote]

That's true. I admit I'm disquieted by this man. I only hope he's not so much a willful heretic as someone who has gone astray. A big problem, I think, is that some people struggle more than others with what significance doubt should have. It sounds as if this man was uncertain about his ability to believe certain tenets of the faith, and mistakenly concluded that the tenets (not himself) should be revised.

On a not totally unrelated point, what would the Orthodox do about someone who had lost his faith, perhaps painfully and against his will? Indeed, what would an Evangelical church do? I don't know the answer to either, but when you say the Church isn't big enough for heresy, I agree - but I also wonder where the line between heresy and the dark night of the soul is.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #111 on: January 28, 2010, 03:47:07 PM »

...what would the Orthodox do about someone who had lost his faith, perhaps painfully and against his will? Indeed, what would an Evangelical church do? I don't know the answer to either, but when you say the Church isn't big enough for heresy, I agree - but I also wonder where the line between heresy and the dark night of the soul is.

It's difficult to generalize, since the Church would more than likely respond pastorally, as it does in most situations. However after counseling, prayer, consideration (all of which, knowing the Orthodox, would take forever and a day), the Church would probably and likely officially recognize that the particular individual had removed him or herself from the Church. As I said before, it would be a formal recognition of the reality of the situation - that individual no longer believed and by that, had removed themselves from the Church. Not vice versa.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #112 on: January 28, 2010, 03:48:51 PM »

...and mistakenly concluded that the tenets (not himself) should be revised.

But isn't this practically the essence of Protestantism?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #113 on: January 28, 2010, 03:50:22 PM »

Getting back to David's original question, Orthodox have a popular saying "Roman Catholics have added too much and Protestants have taken away too much"

So the central concern is the stripping down of Christianity to what you would see as the essential truth of it but what we see as impoverishment. This also leads to some degree of rewriting history to rationalize this change. You would have us believe that most all of the things you listed were "added" later on and that the Early Church looked like stripped down Protestantism. That claim does not stand up under rigorous scrutiny. It turns out the the Orthodox Church practices best reflect the Early Church. Protestant assumptions come more from late day western idea's about rugged individualism than from historic fact.
The other problem is the re-emergence of nearly all of the ancient heresies within Protestantism from Gnosticism, to Arianism, to Monophysitism to Iconoclasm. You can list every old heresy and then draw a line to at least one Protestant group that once again believes in it.

And then finally, there are certainly a few additions that butress this stripping away as has already been mentioned. Sola Scritura, Believers Baptism, Once saved always saved, Atonement theories, The Rapture..etc. etc.

This is a really good post.

This is an excellent post, especially the highlighted, I think.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #114 on: January 28, 2010, 04:50:42 PM »

...and mistakenly concluded that the tenets (not himself) should be revised.

But isn't this practically the essence of Protestantism?

I hope not.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #115 on: January 28, 2010, 07:39:42 PM »

And now we are back to the Anglican discussion. Thank God! Maybe we Catholics will a short rest. LOL
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,305



« Reply #116 on: January 29, 2010, 04:23:05 PM »

"Why should we not be honest and say that while we love all who believe in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, yet there are essentials important to us that are lacking to them, that, it would be cruel to deceive by Society Courtesy those who do not believe in its entirety the 'Faith once for all delivered to the Saints?'" Fr. Ingram Irvine, in a letter to Fr. Sergei Dabovich, 1916

I was just reading this on the orthodoxhistory website and it reminded me of this thread.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,341



WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 19, 2010, 02:17:19 AM »

I was being surprised by what you said as I've so often heard Orthodox believers criticize the Anglican Church for being too keen on unity at all costs (ie., in situations where you Orthodox might be more likely to stop and say, 'this is no longer Orthodoxy; we do not wish to be united with these people'). That's where I was coming from.

Please explain more, if you please. Since I am not at all sure of what you are saying.

I have often been asked, 'how is it that I have been to several churches, that look very different and use different wording for their services - and yet they are all Anglican? And how is it that there can be so many different viewpoints amongst Anglicans?' And also, of course, there is this ongoing worry that Rowan Williams is very reluctant to come down hard on either side of the homosexuality debate, trying instead to keep the Church in unity and avoid schism.

That's why I wondered about disunity.

NB - I'm not at all sure 'unity' of this kind is necessarily a good thing; it's certainly not uncomplicatedly 'good'.

Personally, I am in favor of unity, even for inside nonOrthodox Churches, but it would be bad to be united directly under a bad doctrine, and force everyone to accept it, wouldn't it? I hope this problem of forced unity under a bad doctrine will never be a problem in our church. It's my own opinion that the calendar issue is not big enough of a doctrine problem to demand a split. I am OCA for example, but in general I think the Old Calendar was probably better. it's just my idea. Some other thigns though could justify leaving if things got bad- Halloween liturgies etc might be one to start at. What do you think?
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 02:17:37 AM by rakovsky » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #118 on: June 19, 2010, 04:35:36 AM »

I was being surprised by what you said as I've so often heard Orthodox believers criticize the Anglican Church for being too keen on unity at all costs (ie., in situations where you Orthodox might be more likely to stop and say, 'this is no longer Orthodoxy; we do not wish to be united with these people'). That's where I was coming from.

Please explain more, if you please. Since I am not at all sure of what you are saying.

I have often been asked, 'how is it that I have been to several churches, that look very different and use different wording for their services - and yet they are all Anglican? And how is it that there can be so many different viewpoints amongst Anglicans?' And also, of course, there is this ongoing worry that Rowan Williams is very reluctant to come down hard on either side of the homosexuality debate, trying instead to keep the Church in unity and avoid schism.

That's why I wondered about disunity.

NB - I'm not at all sure 'unity' of this kind is necessarily a good thing; it's certainly not uncomplicatedly 'good'.

Personally, I am in favor of unity, even for inside nonOrthodox Churches, but it would be bad to be united directly under a bad doctrine, and force everyone to accept it, wouldn't it? I hope this problem of forced unity under a bad doctrine will never be a problem in our church. It's my own opinion that the calendar issue is not big enough of a doctrine problem to demand a split. I am OCA for example, but in general I think the Old Calendar was probably better. it's just my idea. Some other thigns though could justify leaving if things got bad- Halloween liturgies etc might be one to start at. What do you think?
But that is your opinion. I have heard others say that the calendar issue is an essential issue and if you don;t go by the Julian calendar, then you are a heretic?
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,769


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: June 19, 2010, 04:59:40 AM »

Quote
I have heard others say that the calendar issue is an essential issue and if you don;t go by the Julian calendar, then you are a heretic

The differing calendars are an anomaly, an irregularity, but not a heresy (despite what some folks might try to say). If the new calendar were heretical, then there would be no communion possible between the canonical Orthodox churches which use the old calendar (such as Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Jerusalem), and those which use the new (such as Greece, Antioch, Cyprus, Bulgaria).

Those who claim the new calendar is heresy are, at best, misguided. Note that my comments include the reality that all Orthodox churches (with the unfortunate exception of Finland) keep the same Paschal cycle for moveable feasts.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #120 on: June 19, 2010, 10:49:19 AM »


It's my own opinion that the calendar issue is not big enough of a doctrine problem to demand a split.

But that is your opinion. I have heard others say that the calendar issue is an essential issue and if you don;t go by the Julian calendar, then you are a heretic?

Here is a list of the Churches...  I am totally sure, I would stake my life on it, that not one of the Old Calendar Churches has made any statement that the New Calendar Churches are heretical!!

New Calendar Autocephalous Churches:

1. Patriarchate of Constantinople
2. Patriarchate of Alexandria
3. Patriarchate of Antioch
4. Patriarchate of Romania
5. Patriarchate of Bulgaria
6. Church of Cyprus
7. Church of Greece
9. Church of Poland
10. Church of Albania
11. Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
12. Orthodox Church in America (uses both old and New Calendars)

Old Calendar Autocephalous Churches:

1. Patriarchate of Jerusalem
2. Patriarchate of Moscow
3. Patriarchate of Serbia
4. Patriarchate of Georgia
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 10:50:49 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 19, 2010, 10:54:47 AM »

12. Orthodox Church in America (uses both old and New Calendars)

As well as Poland, Czech lands and Slovakia and Romania (in Moldova).
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 10:55:16 AM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #122 on: June 19, 2010, 10:59:20 AM »


Apparently (and if this is hearsay, sorry - I rely for Russian news on my partner), there is in Moscow at the moment a certain Orthodox bishop, who believes that NI numbers are somehow a plot aligned with the number of the beast. Other bishops have come together and asked him to retire; he refuses. From the outside, there is no disunity - but at what cost, and how honest is this?


Isn't this Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka?

He was deposed by the Synod of the Russian Church a year ago.
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,014



« Reply #123 on: June 19, 2010, 02:40:27 PM »

5. Patriarchate of Bulgaria

But the Patriarchate of Bulgaria is a very recent "convert" to the New Calendar, isn't it?  I also thought the Bulgarian Church recently has been seriously considering about returning to the Julian Calendar because of demands from the faithful and some serious (failed) contenders for Patriarch among the Church's bishops.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #124 on: June 19, 2010, 03:11:28 PM »


It's my own opinion that the calendar issue is not big enough of a doctrine problem to demand a split.

But that is your opinion. I have heard others say that the calendar issue is an essential issue and if you don;t go by the Julian calendar, then you are a heretic?

Here is a list of the Churches...  I am totally sure, I would stake my life on it, that not one of the Old Calendar Churches has made any statement that the New Calendar Churches are heretical!!

New Calendar Autocephalous Churches:

1. Patriarchate of Constantinople
2. Patriarchate of Alexandria
3. Patriarchate of Antioch
4. Patriarchate of Romania
5. Patriarchate of Bulgaria
6. Church of Cyprus
7. Church of Greece
9. Church of Poland
10. Church of Albania
11. Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
12. Orthodox Church in America (uses both old and New Calendars)

Old Calendar Autocephalous Churches:

1. Patriarchate of Jerusalem
2. Patriarchate of Moscow
3. Patriarchate of Serbia
4. Patriarchate of Georgia

So no one has ever claimed that it was a heresy to abandon the julian calendar?
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,014



« Reply #125 on: June 19, 2010, 03:19:34 PM »

So no one has ever claimed that it was a heresy to abandon the julian calendar?

Some have, such as HOCNA (Holy Orthodox Church of North America) but they are not a canonically recognized church. 

But though those churches that are canonical and old calendar have stopped short of calling new calendar churches heretical, they will readily (and rightly) point out the dangers that the new calendar brings to the correct observance and practice of the faith.  One of those criticisms can be found here:  http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/calsci_ch9.aspx
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
ag_vn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 408



« Reply #126 on: June 19, 2010, 03:56:04 PM »

5. Patriarchate of Bulgaria

But the Patriarchate of Bulgaria is a very recent "convert" to the New Calendar, isn't it?  I also thought the Bulgarian Church recently has been seriously considering about returning to the Julian Calendar because of demands from the faithful and some serious (failed) contenders for Patriarch among the Church's bishops.

The Patriarchate of Bulgaria switched to the New Calendar in 1968.

Although about 85% of the population identifies as Orthodox, practicing faithful in Bulgaria are relatively few, not more than several percent of the population. Among the practicing people the calendar isn't such an issue, I would say the ratio between those who support the returning of the Old Calendar and those who don't want it is about 50:50.

Last year when the media popularized a letter by a priest, demanding the returning to the Old Calendar, written about ten years ago, there were negative reactions among the people. Many of them were saying things like "they want to stole Christmas from us" or that if the Synod return the Old Calendar, Russia would have greater influence over us, etc.

Actually, at present no one of the Metropolitans (especially the contenders) supports the returning to the Old Calendar. At least, as long as Patriarch Maxim (95 years old) is alive, I don't think any Metropolitan would say anything about returning to the Old Calendar, because it would certainly decrease his popularity.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 03:57:05 PM by ag_vn » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,014



« Reply #127 on: June 19, 2010, 04:27:03 PM »

^Thanks for the clarification.  It must have been that letter that I was referring to. 

You can see the forces of ignorance at work when the very notion of moving Nativity back to January 7 would be seen as "stealing Christmas."  Perhaps now is not the time to switch the calendars for the Bulgarian church (even if there were any backers) especially when the people seem to be in great need of catechesis on the basics.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #128 on: June 30, 2010, 08:55:49 AM »

Folks, headcoverings for women is not a matter of Orthodox doctrine and faith with the same importance as, say, the contents of the chalice being truly the body and blood of Christ vs the merely symbolic, or the act of Holy Communion being merely a "meal of remembrance".
Yes, of course you are right here. However, is it an innovation of some sort from what was allowed in the early Church according to the New Testament?

Well, that quote is directed only to women that preach in the Church, not to all women.

No, because women are also told not to talk in church, not to teach men, and to keep quiet and if they have questions to ask their husbands later. There is no preaching.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #129 on: June 30, 2010, 01:26:42 PM »

Of course, St. Paul's dictum apparently did not preclude informal teaching, or he would not have spoken of St. Priscilla as highly as he did, nor name her before her husband St. Aquila, as he frequently did.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 01:27:22 PM by Cymbyz » Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #130 on: June 30, 2010, 02:28:05 PM »

Of course, St. Paul's dictum apparently did not preclude informal teaching, or he would not have spoken of St. Priscilla as highly as he did, nor name her before her husband St. Aquila, as he frequently did.

Just think of St. Ninos, Enlightener of Georgia. She certainly would have had to have preached outside of church to covert a nation.
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #131 on: June 30, 2010, 02:42:25 PM »

So no one has ever claimed that it was a heresy to abandon the julian calendar?

Some have, such as HOCNA (Holy Orthodox Church of North America) but they are not a canonically recognized church. 

But though those churches that are canonical and old calendar have stopped short of calling new calendar churches heretical, they will readily (and rightly) point out the dangers that the new calendar brings to the correct observance and practice of the faith.  One of those criticisms can be found here:  http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/calsci_ch9.aspx

The criticism you linked to comes from people affiliated with the Holy Synod in Resistance of the Orthodox Church in Greece, not from a canonical Old Calendar Church, e.g. Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, or Georgia.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,921



« Reply #132 on: June 30, 2010, 03:16:18 PM »

Might I mention that the Gregorian Calendar is not the calendar used by any EO Churches? The Calendars that are used are the Julian Calendar and the Revised Julian Calendar. The Revised Julian Calendar is (obviously) a revision that brings the Julian Calendar in line with the actual modern dates.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #133 on: June 30, 2010, 03:56:56 PM »

The Revised Julian Calendar is (obviously) a revision that brings the Julian Calendar in line with the actual modern dates.

And the "actual modern dates" are according to which calendar?
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #134 on: June 30, 2010, 04:06:28 PM »

Regarding the title of this thread... why the redundancy?  Wink
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #135 on: June 30, 2010, 05:11:39 PM »

The Revised Julian Calendar is (obviously) a revision that brings the Julian Calendar in line with the actual modern dates.

And the "actual modern dates" are according to which calendar?

Wait 'till 2800.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.466 seconds with 163 queries.