OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 06:32:34 AM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Universal vs. Eucharistic Ecclesiology  (Read 5541 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« on: March 06, 2003, 08:59:59 PM »

Howdy,

Here are three posts from a thread on another forum. I was asked (in the interest of a "united front" toward the Protestants on that forum) to end it, which I did. This is more the place for this discussion anyway. So...here we go...

Universal vs. Eucharistic Ecclesiology
Posted: Mar 3, 2003, 5:52 PM


I just re-read an article from a 1995 issue of This Rock magazine. In it, Ray Ryland quotes John Meyendorff: Eucharistic ecclesiology (hereafter called EE) is "the basis, the nucleus of Orthodox ecclesiology itself." (Catholicity and The Church, 134,135)

I know there are some (Eastern?) Orthodox here and was wondering if this is the prevalent doctrine concerning ecclesiology in your Church? Seems pretty important since ecclesiology is the main issue that divides us (I'm Roman Catholic BTW).

I am wondering how you view Universal ecclesiology (hearafter called UE), and what you think it's errors are. I don't know much about the debate, but I would like to discuss it with you.

In Christ,

Mark
"If you're a god, then I'm an athiest"

-Fulton J. Sheen-  
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Monkey the Catechumen
Veteran

Post: 2 of 17
Views: 80

 reference
Re: Universal vs. Eucharistic Ecclesiology
Posted: Mar 3, 2003, 6:20 PM


EE is very important. The unity of the Church through the Eucharist, the unity of the bread and wine with the Body and Blood, and the unity of of God and man in Christ are intertwined.

I'm not sure what you mean by UE.
-El Mono

In these words, 'Except ye believe that I am,' Jesus meant nothing short of this, 'Except ye believe that I am God, ye shall die in your sins.' It is well for us, thank God, that He said except ye believe, and not except ye understand.
-St. Augustine  
--------------------------------------------------------------------

dadof10
Novice

Post: 3 of 17
Views: 78

 reference
Re: Universal vs. Eucharistic Ecclesiology [Monkey the Catechumen]
Posted: Mar 3, 2003, 7:41 PM


Monkey,

UE is how the Catholic Church views ecclesiology. Whereas the Orthodox see the local diocese as "the Church of God in all its fullness", the Catholic Church sees itself as the "sum of all local churches, which altogether constitute the Body of Christ."

Here is a quote from the article:

"UE conceives of the Church in terms of the whole and its parts. Each local church is only a part of the Church; it is Church only because it is part of the whole.

Advocates of EE deny what they regard as a parts-and-whole mentality. The local church is not a part or member of a wider universal organism; it is simply 'the Church.' In the Eucharist we have the whole Christ, not a part of him. Therefore the Church which is 'actualized in the Eucharist' cannot be simply a member or part of the whole; it can only be 'the Church of God in her wholeness'." October 1995 This Rock, pg. 13.

Does the second paragraph adequately explain the majority Orthodox position? The article says that proponents take as the starting point the famous quote from St. Ignasius; "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

What are your thoughts?

In Christ,

Mark
"If you're a god, then I'm an athiest"

-Fulton J. Sheen-  


Logged

NULL
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,479



« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2003, 11:11:16 PM »

Welcome! Smiley

Quote
I know there are some (Eastern?) Orthodox here and was wondering if this is the prevalent doctrine concerning ecclesiology in your Church?

Christ and his uncreated grace working in His theanthropic body (the Church) is the center of Orthodox ecclesiology. Period. Everything else is simply a manifestation or result of this (No one specific sacrament is "the key").

The eucharist is very important (and it's interesting that the body of Christ in the eucharist is partially what mystically unifies the body of Christ as the Church). However, the eucharist is not the center. Baptism and all the other sacraments (definately not limited to 7) form a mystical union, bringing the Church together, as does a common faith, apostolic succession in its fulness, being canonically valid (in both formation and actions), and the bishop ruling over an actual flock, celebrating the liturgy.

In the end, Christ as the divine aspect of the theanthropic body of Christ, the Church (and not only--or even mainly--the eucharist) is the unifying factor. EE ecclesiology makes Mary of Egypt into someone barely in the Church (having received the eucharist extremely rarely), while those infected with modernism suddenly somehow become fully within Orthodoxy (in spite of not having the fulness of the truth, they apparently are somehow thought to have the fulness of communion). Indeed, such EE would make hermits out to be fools, for they would in essence be, practically speaking, cutting themselves off from the Church by cutting themselves off regarding communion. Thank goodness, according to Orthodox ecclesiology, prayer and the other virtues links each of us as cells in the body of Christ, when done within the body of Christ. (ie. prayer won't make an outsider a part of the Church, but it will keep the hermit, for example, inside the Orthodox communion).

Justin
« Last Edit: March 06, 2003, 11:27:07 PM by Paradosis » Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2003, 12:29:28 AM »

Justin,

I think that you wish to defend an Orthodox truth, which is that St. Mary of Egypt and other hermits who commune infrequently are still in the Church.  To do this you conclude that 1) the Eucharist is not the most important sacrament and 2) Eucharistic ecclesiology leads to the conclusion that infrequent communers are not as much in the Church.

I can't say that I agree with either #1 or #2, although with #1 I am more flexible and open to correction if I have misunderstood Orthodox theology.  I have always heard in both Roman Catholic and Orthodox circles that the Eucharist is the sacrament par excellence because it is so much: it is an eschatological realization of the coming of Christ; it is a making of the Body of Christ; it is a participation in Christ's death and resurrection (as is baptism); it is for forgiveness of sins; it is the medicine of immortality; etc.  While of course it doesn't make sense to say one sacrament is "better" then the others, I don't think that negates the Eucharist's special role.

An aside: I heard one priest argue for the invalidity of Protestant baptisms on the grounds that since all sacraments point to the Eucharist, it is impossible to say that Protestants have baptism since they have no Eucharist.  What do the participants think of this statement? Is it a valid proposition? (of course I know the New Calendar Churches accept Protestant baptisms and I personally do as well).

Back to the point.  As far as #2 is concerned, St. Paul clearly teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ, and that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ.  In 1 Corinthians he links the two by saying that those in the Body who are divided over the issue of spiritual gifts who then partake of the Eucharist (the body of Christ) are condemned.  St. Ignatius of Antioch of course taught that "where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church."  I think when we add all of this together, Eucharistic ecclesiology fits well: the Church is made by the Eucharist, and where the bishop is there is the Church.

I don't think that such an appraisal in any way suggests that hermits are out of communion with God because Eucharistic ecclesiology has to do with a community, not with individual communions.  The hermit most certainly is NOT "the Church" in its local form although he is a part of the body because he is under a bishop (as all Orthodox Christians are).  His personal sacrifices, if blessed by his bishop, will make up for infrequent communion since he is living his whole life with God radically.  It's a similar thing to baptism by blood; the unbaptised-by-water martyr becomes baptised by his blood, which does not affect baptism's necessity per se.  In the same way, the hermit does not challenge the maxim of Eucharist=Church=bishop.

Sincerely in Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2003, 10:21:01 AM »

Great conversation and replies. I don't think Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church are that different regarding belief in a universal Church, but each side has a different criterion for it. Eucharistic ecclesiology = the local Churches are in communion with each other eucharistically; their bishops are in communion with each other. Also, while the Sacrament is in many places but there is only one Eucharistic Christ, so it is with Churchness. There may be a Church in Russia, etc., but only one universal Church, no more a contradiction that the local Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in many places yet there is only one Christ. AFAIK, the Orthodox criteria for universality are 1) shared orthodox faith and 2) being in the Orthodox communion (no games about being outside that communion but having 'valid succession'). The Catholic criterion, when you boil down their arguments, is the Pope, specifically, being in communion with him. Not that orthodoxy and communion don't matter at all, but the Pope makes or breaks Catholicity in the Catholic order of things. Each side has its loose ends, too: canonical boondoggles and 'impaired communion' in situations such as the SSPX in relation to the Catholics and ROCOR and the UAOC (each recognized by at least one Church in world Orthodoxy but not the others?) to the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2003, 10:22:26 AM by Serge » Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,479



« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2003, 10:40:10 AM »

"accept Protestant baptism"? Wha...? Your whole post and mindset is beyond me, I'm afraid. Protestants don't have "acceptable" sacrament, and neither does anyone else outside Orthodoxy. Those who don't "rebaptize" follow that practice not because the "first baptism" had grace--it had NONE. Rather, by chrismation, grace fills i where there was no grace before (ie. chrismation acts as a way of giving the grace of baptism as well).

My whole hermit/mary of egypt paragraph was just one example of why the EE doesn't work. The main reason though is because the Lord Jesus Christ didn't teach it, and apart from the writings of Saint Ignatius, you'd have a hard time proving it from the early Fathers. (hence, you should question whether this one father so clearly articulated it while the rest remained reticent, or if perhaps you are misunderstanding Ignatius).

EE is, essentially, the attempt to dumb down Orthodoxy for the masses. You take something visible, and something everyone can participate in without any effort (since most Priests don't even question whether people are "properly prepared" anymore). All that "Christ is the theanthropic body" stuff is just to mystical (so I've been told), and the EE is much prefered. It's something that people can wrap their minds around, which is what they want. Apparently Christ's teaching is "to spiritually minded for any earthly good," so a more earthly unifying force was looked for.
Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2003, 10:48:26 AM »

Paradosis, Eastern Orthodoxy believes that Eastern Orthodoxy has grace; everything else is a big question mark. Your position is an opinion in EOxy, not dogma. So is the official position of the Church of Russia, which copies Roman Catholic language and thus talks about the 'validity' of Roman Catholic sacraments.
Logged

Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2003, 01:27:55 PM »

It's been hard for me to understand this, many priets I have spoken with talk in terms of validity too. Here people who have been Baptized are generally received through chrismation and those chrismated are just received (sometimes with unction of chrism that priest tell me is different from the mystery of chrismation).
They tell me that if grace lacked in the Roman Sacraments it is recovered when the person enters to the Orthodox Church, but if the Baptism is invalid it's just invalid (like a pentecostal baptism) and ikonomia can't invent a Bapstism.

The same with Eucharist. In addition to the fact that since the early Church, Eucharist as the sacrament of unity must be celebrated in communion with all the Bishops, new problems have appeared. An article avaible in Spanish written by a Russian Orthodox priest deals with this topic, in which he analyses that the problems of invalid consacrations, ilicit abuses in the liturgy, that the West faces, were unknown in the Orthodox Church, at least after the 4th Century. Even when intercommunion has been permitted sometimes (in the Russian Church, before 1986), he writes that a desacralized Eucharist can become devoid of grace, and this is why intercommunion with Rome nowadays will be difficult, because of the way many parishes celebrate it.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2003, 01:44:49 PM by Remie » Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2003, 05:22:02 PM »

Quote
It's been hard for me to understand this, many priests I have spoken with talk in terms of validity too. Here people who have been Baptized are generally received through chrismation and those chrismated are just received (sometimes with unction of chrism that priest tell me is different from the mystery of chrismation).
They tell me that if grace lacked in the Roman Sacraments it is recovered when the person enters to the Orthodox Church, but if the Baptism is invalid it's just invalid (like a pentecostal baptism) and ikonomia can't invent a Bapstism.

All that does square with Eastern Orthodox theology. In order for the grace from entering Orthodox communion to fill a sacrament, the right (OK, 'valid') form must be there. If the form isn't there, economy can't fix that and the sacrament must be done from scratch.

Quote
The same with Eucharist. In addition to the fact that since the early Church, Eucharist as the sacrament of unity must be celebrated in communion with all the Bishops, new problems have appeared. An article avaible in Spanish written by a Russian Orthodox priest deals with this topic, in which he analyses that the problems of invalid consacrations, ilicit abuses in the liturgy, that the West faces, were unknown in the Orthodox Church, at least after the 4th Century. Even when intercommunion has been permitted sometimes (in the Russian Church, before 1986), he writes that a desacralized Eucharist can become devoid of grace, and this is why intercommunion with Rome nowadays will be difficult, because of the way many parishes celebrate it.

Don't know that holds up theologically. Intercommunion outside the Orthodox communion makes absolutely no sense to Eastern Orthodox theology. Anything done outside that communion is seen as an unknown, no matter how 'sacral'. Literally 'God only knows' if it has grace, says Eastern Orthodox dogmatics.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2003, 06:04:27 PM by Serge » Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,479



« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2003, 05:34:16 PM »

Quote
Your position is an opinion in EOxy, not dogma.

Good point, Serge. And admittedly, I went way further than I should have in minimizing the place of the Eucharist in relation to the local bodies/churches being in communion.
Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2003, 05:42:40 PM »


An aside: I heard one priest argue for the invalidity of Protestant baptisms on the grounds that since all sacraments point to the Eucharist, it is impossible to say that Protestants have baptism since they have no Eucharist.  What do the participants think of this statement? Is it a valid proposition? (of course I know the New Calendar Churches accept Protestant baptisms and I personally do as well).


Dear friend-in-Christ anastasios,

Somewhat off the topic, but you introduced it; I think that your portrayal of New Calendar versus Old Calendar usage Churches, in this case in particular, is not applicable.  (I's not sure if this was your intention, it is what it appears to be.)  

To cite but two examples:  The MP (Old Calendar) generally accepts, in accordance with the received practice of the ROC, baptisms performed outside of Orthodoxy.  The state Church of Greece (New Calendar) in general does not. These practices seem to carry over into the churches which find their roots in those communities.  

Tony

Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2003, 05:44:57 PM »

So is the official position of the Church of Russia, which copies Roman Catholic language and thus talks about the 'validity' of Roman Catholic sacraments.

Dear friend-in-Christ Serge,

I understand this is the case but I have never seen an example of it.   Can you cite any modern sources for this?  I would truly appreciate it.

Tony
Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2003, 05:50:57 PM »

An article avaible in Spanish written by a Russian Orthodox priest deals with this topic, in which he analyses that the problems of invalid consacrations, ilicit abuses in the liturgy, that the West faces, were unknown in the Orthodox Church, at least after the 4th Century. Even when intercommunion has been permitted sometimes (in the Russian Church, before 1986), he writes that a desacralized Eucharist can become devoid of grace, and this is why intercommunion with Rome nowadays will be difficult, because of the way many parishes celebrate it.

Dear-to-Christ Remie,

Is that article available online?  Can you provide a link or cite for it please?  I will truly appreciate it.

Tony
Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,643


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2003, 06:05:57 PM »

Tony, I don't know if you'll find it there but try looking for it on the official site of the Russian Church - the link is on my Faith page.
Logged

TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2003, 06:20:42 PM »

Tony, I don't know if you'll find it there but try looking for it on the official site of the Russian Church - the link is on my Faith page.

Serge,

Looking in Russian would it be: -ö-¦-¦-ü-é-¦-+-é-¦-+-î-+-+-ü-é-î -é-¦-+-+-ü-é-¦(-¦)?  

(Corrected spelling)

Tony
« Last Edit: March 08, 2003, 06:31:41 PM by TonyS » Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2003, 06:33:10 PM »

Tony, I don't know if you'll find it there but try looking for it on the official site of the Russian Church - the link is on my Faith page.

There is a bit of material to work through but I got results with that vocabulary.

Thanks for the suggestion!
Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2003, 01:55:52 AM »

dadof10 -

I am sure glad to see you over here at OC.net, especially now that the Fundies over at "Protestants R Us" are in the process of suppressing the truth and censoring our posts.

I have not visited this site in awhile, but I am sure I will be spending most of my net time here from now on.

Anyway, I know this post is off-topic, but I welcome you!

You were a great ally to all of us other Catholics (East and West) over at "Protestants R Us."

May God bless you here!
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2003, 10:29:49 PM »

Linus is that what you really believe of them?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 11:04:53 PM by Lavis Knight » Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2003, 10:58:43 PM »

Lavis -

Welcome!

Yes, Lavis, that is what I believe of them.

Have you followed what is happening over there?

The Evangelicals were unable to prevail in open debate, so they have begun censoring the posts of those with whom they disagree.

Oblio, Monkey, and I have all had posts edited or outright deleted.

Monkey's thread, Where Were the Evangelicals?, was shut down by wintercrow.

Why?

Wintercrow became upset when no one could provide evidence of any early Christians who thought and taught like modern Evangelical Protestants, so he began carrying an anti-Orthodox post as his signature. Now he is using his authority as a moderator to censor and delete the posts of those with whom he disagrees.

It is perfectly okay over at CBBS to refer to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches as "the great whore" and "cults." It is even premissible to refer to Orthodox and Roman Catholics as "idolaters;" "pagans;" "heretics;" and "necromancers." Calling the Pope the "Antichrist" is all the rage.

But now we have been forbidden to even express views that run contrary to Evangelical Protestantism.

How are we to debate anyone under such constraints?

Christianity.com is not really that. Such a name is dishonest. The site should be called Evangelical ProtestantChristianity.com, just as this site is called OrthodoxChristianity.net.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 11:05:09 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2003, 11:13:22 PM »

Nice to see you Linus ^_^

I have seen some sensorship, although i am not sure.. i can understand that they would not want it to get far away from their beliefs..but i would say that any belief so long as it is rationally and politely argued in a civil manner should be allowed..

I admit i am strongly against calling the Church the whore church.. i remember i challenged it a few times..all i ever got was God said it not me...that phrase really began to get me discouraged.. i brought it to the Administrator and he told me that it was perfectly within the Tos, i argued about respect and other things, but really to no avail.. just reading such things like the pope is the antichrist, and that the Church is the whore or cultist church does bother me.

However the Orthodox church broke away just as the protestant Church broke away did it not? Legitimacy in breaking off or not they both came from the same place.

Everyone does everything in God's name it's all done in God's name.. i am almost sick and tired of hearing anything done in God's name because it has become as varied as opinions...calling one names.. can it ever be done out of love? Even if it is the truth.. well i suppose there are plenty of examples.. even some saints have called people children of the devil have they not?

I'll never understand Linus..
« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 11:18:41 PM by Lavis Knight » Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2003, 11:31:56 PM »

Lavis -

I understand what you mean about being sick and tired of all the confusion and strife. I feel the same way. But there is an evil force in this world, and he will do all he can to discourage those who are seeking the truth. He wants you to just give up.

Regarding the Orthodox Church "breaking away."

That is just not the case.

The long and terrible process that produced the "Great Schism" between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church was one of mutual fault and shared responsibility.

Likewise, if it is ever to be repaired, the effort to do so must be one of mutual work and shared responsibility.

Both sides believe the other broke away.

Naturally, I come down on the Orthodox side, which I believe is the historically accurate one.

However, I recognize that the Roman Catholics are not without some strong arguments for their position.

Actually, I prefer not to argue with them about it, because we have too much in common to dwell on difficulties and past mistakes.

I do not feel that way about Protestantism, however.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 11:34:16 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2003, 11:43:55 PM »

Welcome Lavis Knight,  we are glad you made it over from CBBS.  
May you find welcome, fellowship and the answers you seek here at oc.net.

In IC XC,

Oblio
Logged
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2003, 11:44:02 PM »

Great Schism? I'll have to look into that thank you, I remember hearing of such things now that you mention it.

What do you feel of protestant denominations Linus? Certainly we cannot call them the same things as some call Orthodoxy and Catholicism, there are many within the protestant denomination who see the other two as one with them in the body of Christ.

Hi Oblio, I see you are here as well. Thanks for the welcome! ^_^
« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 11:47:04 PM by Lavis Knight » Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2003, 11:57:21 PM »

Here is something I posted here awhile back that I think sums up what I think about Protestantism.

When I wrote it, Oblio joked about it and called it "Theo-heretical Physics."  Wink

He was right on the money, as he usually is.

Protestantism is a heresy with a multitude of sects that form a kind of spectrum with a "more orthodox" end and a "radically heretical" end. At the "more orthodox" end of the spectrum are the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and the Presbyterians. At the far left one progresses through the Baptist and Anabaptist groups until one passes out of the visibly Christian wavelengths and enters the ultraviolet zone of heresy: the zone wherein dwell the JWs, the Mormons, and their ilk.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 11:59:19 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2003, 12:05:43 AM »

So you believe that all Protestants are heretical? We know the church is not infallible Linus, if this were true the "reformation" and the "schism" would not of occured. How can it be the ground and the pillar of truth if such things happened?

Something must be going on somewhere..

Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,376



« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2003, 12:15:44 AM »

Good evening Lavis Knight and welcome.

A date often given for "The Great Schism" is 1054, but there were disagreements and politics for a long time previous.

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.
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2003, 12:20:30 AM »

Yes, Lavis, Protestantism is heresy.

Here is another paste from a prior post of mine that provides a good working definition of heresy from the English Roman Catholic writer, Hillaire Belloc:

Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. We mean by "a complete and self-supporting scheme" any system of affirmation in physics or mathematics or philosophy or what-not, the various parts of which are coherent and sustain each other.


The key word in that quote from Belloc is the adjective novel. Protestantism attempts to introduce the novel doctrines of the 16th-century Reformers into historic Christianity and thereby to displace it.

That makes Protestantism a heresy.

And the Church founded by Jesus Christ is infallible, Lavis, especially when assembled in general councils of her bishops.

That is why St. Paul called her "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

The various groups that have left the Church are not part of the Church. They have left her.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2003, 12:30:34 AM »

Thank you Ebor ^_^ Nice to meet you.

I can understand how you can say such things Linus, but i do not know if i can agree with you. I am not sure if the Church nor the scriptures are innerant.. i don't think that makes them any less.. God can use things which are less then perfect to do great things.. and i think there is a beauty in that.

The Church is made up of people.. people who strive people who do their best to honor God, just as the scriptures were written by people as well.. it is fine to say what is left is innerant but there is no way to determine which piece.. will one let history be their guide for this? Will another let scripture? History can be interpreted just as scripture can.. there seems to be no escape from this Linus... either scripture interpretation or history interpretation..

« Last Edit: March 30, 2003, 12:32:58 AM by Lavis Knight » Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2003, 12:46:51 AM »

Well, Lavis, I understand your point. The perspective of the observer alters whatever he observes.

Recognizing that, I am responsible to God to make the best choices I know how to make and to adhere to them in faith. I believe IN the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. This is an essential element of my faith.

I regard Protestantism as heresy, but I leave the judgment of individual Protestants to God.

Believe it or not, Lavis, but I am one of those who hold out hope that God will eventually save everyone who ever lived!  Shocked

That does not make me a Universalist; not at all; because I will not say dogmatically that God will save everyone or that He must.

But I hope He does, and I suspect, given His great love for all people, that He will find a way.

The problem is that God values human free agency and will not violate it. He will not force Himself on anyone.

Those who reject His love create hell for themselves in their own egoism and isolation.

I pray that God will ultimately save them and me.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2003, 12:51:20 AM »

The idea of Free agency puts things in perspective for sure.. although some would deny it ^_^;;

I agree with you Linus that i do hope that God does find a way to save everyone.. that would be a very happy day. Not that i would use that hope to get out of making a decision before my time is up.. but it would be my hope as well.

Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2003, 12:58:05 AM »

A happy day indeed.

You know, some Orthodox saints have even prayed for the salvation of the devil!  Shocked

Now that's love!

God will win in the end, and He is love, so there is good reason for hope.

Let's hope that not too many people have to spend a million years or more in hell before our hope is realized.

That's why we need to share God's love with them now.

I wish I could do a better job of it.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2003, 01:03:07 AM »

All you can do is your best Linus, i know logically God cannot ask of one anymore than that.
Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2003, 01:08:45 AM »

Thanks, Lavis.

It is important that our faith produce some kind of best effort on our part, or it is not the kind of faith that leads to salvation.

I hope you will continue to visit this web site and discuss things with us and pose your questions here (though they are often very difficult, I will admit!).

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2003, 01:15:17 AM »

I will be sure to, thank you Linus for all your answers ^_^;;
Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2003, 01:28:19 AM »

You are very welcome, Lavis.

I better wish you a good night. I am on the East Coast. It's late here, and it takes me over an hour to get to church in the morning!  Shocked

If I were RC I could walk to church in about 10 minutes . . .  Cool

Good night, my friend!
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
dadof10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2003, 04:49:05 PM »

Linus,
Thanks for the kind words, I have been out of apologetics for a while, with 10 kids it's hard to find the time. I'm really enjoying the battles at Prots-r-us. LOL..

I would ask you to reconsider leaving the Prot site, although I fully understand your reasons. Even though you have been edited (read: censored, black-listed) you have really shut down their silly arguments trying to defend man-made doctrines, which is why you've been ostracized. They can't edit everything. You, Oblio, promodos (sp) and Monkey have been a light in the darkness for me and many others, some who remain silent.

Just do what I'm doing. Keep hammering away until they get rid of you, then scream "sore loser, sore loser". Grin

C'mon, Linus. Don't quit. If you do, they win and people like Lavis lose. 'Aint that right, Lavis?

Whatever your decision, I know you'll make it with much prayer, and I'll respect it. If I don't see you there, I'll see you here.

God Bless,
Mark
Logged

NULL
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2003, 08:44:41 PM »

I don't know, Mark.

I am pretty sick of that web site. The constant contact with heresy has left me kind of depressed and feeling sick. I need a break.

The Divine Liturgy each Sunday has been my anti-venom, but even with that the repeated bites of snakes were beginning to threaten my immune system.

Berean53 has returned just as the new constraints have been imposed on the real Christians.

The devil certainly has a good sense of timing.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2003, 04:43:33 AM »

Quote
promodos (sp)

 Sad (sigh) Prodromos  Wink

For those who don't know, prodromos is Greek for forerunner, another name for John the Baptist.

Don't worry about it dadof10, even Linus was getting it wrong, though admittedly he is probably more familiar with the slavic form of the name.

John.
Logged
Lavis Knight
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


Wanderer


« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2003, 01:09:02 PM »

It is nice to see as many sides to all this as possible.. if sides aren't presented well for that person they do not exist..

From a perspective that one is right have found Christ and the belief that one has all correct doctrines as interpreted from the bible.. From such a viewpoint I can understand why arguments and such would arise.. Catholicism and Orthodoxy would appear exotic..all one has to do is compare some of the customs of each.

Even for some protestants i have spoken with the Anglican denomination appears in the same sort of light. For some People nothing else really exists.. as i am sure myself that i am unaware of many things, Issues become clearer as more options are presented. Although i admit the confusion never seems to go away ^_^;;;

Although a BBS should be by no means a sole source of information, it can provide options and issues to look into for further study. The best one can hope for is that one properly evaluates all the information and sides presented so that they can at the very least make the most informed choice possible. So they can be strong and knowleagle in faith, as well as have a strong relationship with Jesus.

It is not about winning the argument.. it is about presenting your side so that it is not hidden so people can make an informed choice.., no matter how well presented your side is, people are going to have to be willing to read and investigate such things..

What they will notice is that if your kind, meek, and loving they may give it a look, rather than if one yells their head off by posting insulting comments and taking everything out of context.. it is important one does not forget where they have come from.

If they care to take that look then it is truly a victory. As someone is now evaluating their beliefs and thinking upon the things of God.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2003, 01:19:47 PM by Lavis Knight » Logged

If the best thing one can do is point out what they believe darkness be... then how will anyone find light?

The strongest and purest statement of faith i have ever heard was simply: "I love you God"
Tags: ecclesiology Eucharist 
Pages: 1   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 0.108 seconds with 65 queries.