Posted on 03/22/2002 4:04:11 PM PST by Wordsmith
I'm off until later as well. Christ Bless! <><
As for our Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, her views were expressed with particular clarity upon the appointment of a representative to the Committee for Continuation of the Conference on Faith and Order on December 18/31, 1931. That decision was as follows:
"Maintaining the belief in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Synod of Bishops professes that the Church has never been divided. The question is only who belongs to her and who does not. At the same time the Synod warmly greets the efforts of heterodox confessions to study Christ's teaching on the Church with the hope that by such study, especially with the participation of the representatives of the Holy Orthodox Church, they may at last come to the conviction that the Orthodox Church, being the pillar and the ground of the truth (I Tim. iii. 15), fully and with no faults has maintained the doctrine given by Christ the Savior to His disciples. With that Faith and with such hope the Synod of Bishops accepts the invitation of the Committee for Continuation of the Conference on Faith and Order."
For some reason I cannot link to the page itself, but it may be found on this most excellent site. Search on "World Council of Churches". It is the third on the list.
Who happens to ba a Serb, by the way!
Yes, the OCA was the Russian Church in America. It was given autonomy in the early 1970's. Many of the parishes that existed before then are still quite Russian in character. Parishes that have been formed since are usually less so.
The Moscow Patriarchate still maintains a few "Representative Churches" in the US and the OCA has one in Moscow.
Although I'm not doing any soul searching because of the scandal. I'm not leaving Jesus because of Judas.
I am trying to acquire the full text of Professor Erickson's address. I do not doubt Father Neuhaus has tried to quote in context, but it would be important for the discussion to see what he chose not to mention.
From the quotes which Father Neuhaus uses, it seems to me that the professor is going to the most extreme fringes of Orthodoxy, and including all Orthodox who have misgivings about the "rush to embrece" with them. Using Internet web sites as primary sources is shoddy scholarship, at best.
In my own Orthodox jurisdiction, (Russian Orthodox Outside of Russia) we are experiencing conflict over our Bishops' moves to begin a dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate, with a view to a reunification.
We have our "hotheads" who declare the MP to be without grace and are not even to be talked to. Some have even left and formed into another jurisdiction.
Reminds me of something Father Seraphim Rose, of blessed memory said.
"Yes, they are Orthodox. But, are they Christians"?
Well my concept of traditionalist Christian would be that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, that Christ is the only way to God (works are a fruit of the faith but not neccesary), and that the Bible says what it says. I'm not much on the interpretation of the Word to fit what one might need it to say. The Holy Spirit opens up God's Word to me and shows me what I might be doing sinful in God's eyes.
I've got a good friend at work that happens to be RC and we talk quite a bit about the differences. I think where we are having the most conflict is in the priesthood of believers and the saints thing. What started it all was this site right here
I've been reading quite a bit of it but the issue of the priesthood and the saints really bugs me. Now understand I'm no theologian and I'm not kicking Catholicism, heck my type of Southern Baptist is about as quiet as a Catholic church in their services(not a lot of amens, very reverant), but I don't understand how they make a statement like this about Sola Scriptura
The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity.And my Catholic friend really can't answer this either. Where else are we supposed to learn our faith if not from the Word of God? And then the whole issue of Sola Fide. But I'll not go there. I read the description under Justification, I just don't understand how one can agree with that argument. But my point on the priesthood of believers is really a sticking point with both of us. Since the temple veil was rent in two at Christ's death, isn't that a statement that the Holy of Holies(the inner sanctum) is open to all men and not just priests? How is the bureaucracy established by having priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope any different then under Judaism? Doesn't this prevent man's communion with God and establish a very strict set of rules, the very thing Christ condemned the Pharisees and Sadducces for doing? And that leads into my argument with saints. From my friend's interpretation of saints, they are a sort of intercessors for us to God. That you pray to the saint to address God with the issue at hand. Again, it's putting God a step away from man, and it doesn't make sense
I am a Christian and know that I am saved through God's grace and Christ's sacrifice, but I don't understand the rules that have to be followed by those of the more Orthodox religions.
Again I am not insinuating or implying that Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are any less Christian than I or any other Protestant am. However, I do see the inherent danger of following the rules not because of belief in Christ, but moreso because it is expected in the enviroment and therefore not truly done in faith
Certainly, it was the Russians who got the ball rolling in Alaska. We have icons of St. Innocent, St. Herman, and St. Yakov on our icon corner.
Last year my mother and I went on a trip to Alaska. There were many examples of Russian icon art. I find icons to be quite beautiful, in an inspirational way, and obtained a matryushka (nesting doll) with carved out pieces that framed icons.
But, the word "traditionalist" means something. Tradition is what is handed down and received and carried forth. For me, tradition was what I was taught as a child. When I became a man, I faced a choice as to whether to accept that or not. At a point, I began to look hard at the tradition I had been handed.
After looking hard at it ("it" was sola scriptura), I had to lay it down. I found another tradition that had the seal of continuation from Pentecost.
What is the origin of the tradition that you embrace?
This is really the key. The Orthodox and the Catholics both think of Mary as the supreme saint, so resolving the whole understanding of saints answers any questions about Mary is role as well.
From the conversations I've had with fundamentalists on other threads, it seems like there's two big points:
1 - The saints are dead, and the OT has some specific language about the dead having nothing to do with the living.
The traditional Christian belief, though, has always been that this dynamic changed completely with the Resurrection. When Christ overthrew death, he broke down this divide. The saints are not dead, they are alive in Christ and as much a part of the Church as people walking the earth today. They are the "Church Triumphant," we are the "Church Militant," but we're all part of the one Body.
2 - Even if the saints are alive, why should they get involved? Can't Jesus handle everything Himself without them?
The traditional view is that God is so full of love and power that He overflows and fills His servants - the holy angels, the saints - with power. He likes to work through others. Scripture is full of such accounts, from the power expressed through Moses to the power expressed through the Apostles after Pentecost. Orthodox Tradition also often speaks of God's Light and Truth as being so intense that it can be difficult for us fallen to be in its presence. Its like we've been in the dark too long, and try to walk out in to the sun. It blinds us. The saints are like lesser lights, like lanterns. Much better than darkness, and easier for our eyes to adjust to. The Lives of Saints are also described this way - as lanterns compared to the bright sun of Scripture.
Highly recommended.
Thanks, picked it up at the library today. Hadn't realized Dalrymple was Catholic! Hilarious 1st chapter, the monk and his cats and Dalrymple almost getting turned away for being Catholic. Should be a good read.
I've got a number of friends associated with the Eagle River parish in Alaska. They were one of the two biggest Churches to convert en masse as part of the former Evangelical Orthodox. I hope that there's also discussion between the OCA and the Russian Church Abroad in your area, since they've both got a strong presence there.
What is the current status of the relationship between these two? I would think that post-communism they would be getting closer to reconciliation. Any hope of that?
Glad to hear it! It was pretty discouraging, I was reading another thread and one Catholic was saying how this was the last straw and he had pretty much given up on believing in God altogether.
I imagine there's a good Judas parallel in what's going on. Church leaders more concerned with the silver of worldly position than with the call of Christ. I'm praying this is a spark that reinvigorates the faith of many Catholics.
Great, I'd love to see it as well. Since it's not up on the St. Vladimir's Seminary site, I was thinking of emailing them but you're way ahead of me.
Servant of God and my transcendent guardian, who are at all times by me, a sinner, redeeming me from all the evil doings of demons, ever putting me onto the heavenly pathways, and urging me towards life uncorrupted, pray for me. – Kontakion of the Canon of the Guardian Angel
How have you been? God Bless!! We haven't posted together in quite sometime. Maybe I'll make some time on this thread. In the middle of writing a thesis for my ecclesiology course("The Primacy of Peter and the Petrine Office"). Get back to this thread maybe tommorrow! Take care!
Good to you see you again as well, friend.
Beat wishes on the opus. I trust that we can read it. The Prtrine office is basic to what separates us.
Fr Neuhaus mentions that JP2 had spoken of a rethinking of such, Erickson noted that there had been silence from the Orthodox.
I have said that the Pope should make one more infallible statement,
"The Bisop of Rome has never nor shall ever make an infallible statement."
Then we can talk.
I'm completely fascinated by Orthodoxy - I'm a happy Catholic (Traditional) but I think the East and West could learn a lot from each other (we did before 1054!) and as for me, I love the fact that you have preserved Tradition through the centuries.
Has the Orthodox Church ever contemplated "modernizing" like the Catholic Church did via Vatican II? If not, has there been a call for modernization from any of the different Orthodox Churches? How have you withstood change? Last question: What is OCA? I see people post that they belong to it, but I have no idea what that means!
Thanks for your time and patience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.