Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50; MarMema; Agrarian; 1 spark; monkfan; The_Reader_David; Destro; Romulus; Iowegian
Kosta, did you read the link I posted? Your opinions on what the Orthodox Church teaches notwithstanding, the Clapsis piece clearly sets forth the understanding of the Church regarding the attainment of theosis outside the Church and that is that we don't know. The problem with that is how it is to be applied in practice with non Orthodox Churches since the canons, which either were decided upon when there was One Church, or after the Great Schism when there were two which hated each other, specifically forbid intercommunion. As the article points out, in preparation of a Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church, this practical problem of intercommunion was discussed. The one side, mostly Greek influenced, wanted to apply economia to the question and allow intercommunion with at least some Churches (Rome in particular). The other side, mostly Russian influenced, wanted to apply strict akrivia on the question and deny intercommunion. Clearly there was no agreement and thus everyone is stuck with the ancient canons. That's the way the Church works, Kosta. You know that and it was unfair of you to proclaim that the Orthodox Church is exclusive in its ideas on theosis and communion without explaining where the Church is now, how it got there, why its staying there for now and where it may be headed and how. There is of course a way out of this situation, which would be for Constantinople to simply hold a council of the Church of Constantinople and anyone else who wishes to come and declare intercommunion with, say, Rome. The rest of Orthodoxy could follow or do nothing or break communion. We may be headed in that direction but I suspect the SCOBA jurisdictions and their mother churches will come along.

I am at something of a loss as to your recent fulminations against the Church. Frankly, you know better than to say that Greek Orthodox hierarchs are indulging in feel good talk or modern touchy/feelyism. Those guys are the antithesis of that. You are of course free to believe that the Church has been completely compromised by hypocrasy and has gone off the rails. You have an obligation to speak out against that. But choosing the lack intercommunion and the maxim "no salvation outside the Church" as a causus belli in support of your position just doesn't wash. You know the history, the canons and the process to change that. You also know that there are powerful elements in the Church trying to do just that. Condemning the entire Church for the inflexible attitude of one or more national churches or Patriarchates and then using that to prove the corruption of the whole Church is not intellectually honest or fair to any of use here. Fighting anonymously on Free Republic will have no effect on the problem you perceive. Our obligation as orthodox Christians is not merely to speak out when we see a problem, it is to speak out effectively. That isn't happening here. If you truly and sincerely believe that the Church is corrupted, then it would seem to me that unless you are willing to openly start a movement against this corruption, you're just venting a personal anger for reasons best known and left to you. If you believe the Church is irrevocably corrupt in its hierarchy and/or organization, then it would seem to me that, like traditional Anglicans, its time to go and claim no further allegiance to what is called the Orthodox Church. I certainly would.

Finally, as to Marmema jumping on your post before reading it. She certainly did. A simple correction would have sufficed as the anti-Church tone of certain of your recent posts may have made her a bit trigger happy.
456 posted on 12/15/2004 9:00:52 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies ]


To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; MarMema; Agrarian; 1 spark; monkfan; The_Reader_David; Destro

I thought everyone might profit by being reminded of Pope St. Gregory the Great (Epp. V, ep. xviii ad. Joan. Ep. Const., in P. L., LXXVII, 740), who wrote of: "Sancti ante legem, sancti sub lege, sancti sub gratiâ, omnes hi . . . in membris Ecclesiæ sunt constituti" (The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and the saints under grace -- all these are constituted members of the Church).


460 posted on 12/16/2004 7:27:21 AM PST by Romulus (Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies ]

To: Kolokotronis
Faithful to biblical and patristic Tradition, Orthodoxy strongly believes that there can only be one Church of God since we know only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Eph. 4:5)

Kolo, I did read your link and I am sorry to tell you that I didn't see anything new, save for some names I never heard of before. This debate took place over thirty years ago, and nothing has changed.

Let's just list some of the points I was making:

I did not come up with this, Kolo. These are not accusations. These are plain facts. The canon is not God, yet it is often used in His stead.

As for the conservative Russian side of the Church (which is 9/10 of all Orthodox in this world), which refused to yield to ecumenism, it is not the cause of the eventual schism inside the Church. Ecumenism is. If the Church becomes polarized, it will fracture and its small bits and pieces will be absorbed like the rest of the Eastern-rite churches have been, and will become peripheral and mostly invisible satellites of the mother ship. The Pope is not humiliating himself in front of Catholics by taking the barbs from various Orthodox officials for no reason whatsoever. He knows very well that in his humility he is fracturing the arch rival that stood steadfast for 1,000 years as the defender of one, true, catholic and apostolic Church. Ecumenism is a Trojan horse. It will accomplish that which no other assault could. It will destroy from within.

As for your suggestion that perhaps I should leave the [official] Church, that is already a fact because I neither agree with its un-Christian exclusivity, nor with its liberal wing's naive peddling of ecumenism. I am for a more liberal and Christian acceptance of others, but not for compromising in what constitutes then faith defined by the Councils.

More importantly, it is not up to the Church officials to decide whether I belong to the Church of God or not. I do not recognize their authority or their ability to exclude me from God. They don't have that power, no matter or authority.

I love the Church because of its worship, which is not in itself sacred or holy, as an artistic expression of love for God, put together as the most elegant supper for the most glorious occasion. The Church does not give me my faith and consequently does not decide if God will have mercy on me, a sinner, or not. The Church is overflowing with sinners.

464 posted on 12/16/2004 1:54:14 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson