Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
My church tells me that. I do not look to scripture for my faith but to the Church. However, if you re-read the last chapters of every gospel, you will find there how Christ sent His Church to teach the world. I do not think the Church would produce the New Testament in order for me to read it contrary to the intention of the Church. Wranings about private interpretation are in 2 Peter 1, in Acts 8, and in 2 Timothy at least.
I don't disagree with this spin, but what matters to me is that Matthew 25 (and Apocalypse 20) explains how Christ will judge me, and so I obey the gospel.
"Being that the Orthodox are an apostolic Church, we do share communion."
Um, no we don't. What possible meaning of the English verb "to share" could you have in mind?
"To my knowledge, an Orthodox person can receive communion at a Latin Mass."
Not if he doesn't want to get reprimanded and possibly excommunicated, he doesn't. And out of respect for that, the U.S. Catholic bishops have requested that Orthodox Christians respect the disciplines of the Orthodox Church and not commune in Catholic parishes.
"The same is not the case for a Latin coming to an Orthodox Liturgy, as you point out. And this is because we don't approach the Trinity in the exact same way?"
I don't make Orthodox practices. I'm just reminding you of what they are, and pointing out that in the hothouse atmosphere of FR with talk of this theoretical "One Church" -- that inexplicably isn't in communion with itself -- this fact gets forgotten. I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but it has to be said.
"There is a difference between de fide declarations and common, yet undefined teachings. Our differences are not based on Eastern Orthodox/Latin Catholic flouting of dogmatic declarations made at Nicea or Chalcedon."
You are attempting to boil down Christianity to a lowest common denominator. And how does this differ, really, from the Protestant lowest-common-denominator contention that they are all Christians and part of the one Body of Christ, even though they disagree on lots of things that I for one see as being pretty significant? Does the fact that our lowest common denominator includes bishops and prayers to the Theotokos make it somehow qualitatively different? You know good and well that Orthodoxy has historically never accepted this.
"I don't know if that is correct - as what would be the purpose of a third state of existence if we died and went to immediate heaven or hell? What does the Orthodox envision for this third "place"?"
For the most part, the answer is "we don't know, and neither does anyone else." As to the purpose, why does it have to have a purpose? Is there really any "purpose" to the soul being separated from the body, and remaining in an unnatural state of separation until it is reunited with the body after the general resurrection? It is *all* unnatural, and to speak of "purpose" doesn't make sense to me.
We know that spiritual growth takes place during this intermediate state, through the prayers of the Church -- and for those who are in a state of separation from God, there is an alleviating of suffering, according to some fathers, through the prayers of those on earth. We don't know much beyond that.
"The Church has ALWAYS had this power."
I'd like to see the pre-schismatic patristic references that speak of the Church granting plenary indulgences to the departed, freeing them from purgatory, and categorically stating that *all* of the time in purgatory has been bypassed. I'm not saying that they don't exist -- perhaps they do, since I make no claim to have read everything. I'd just like to see them.
"Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. Being in a state of schism is NOT a separation from the Body."
No, I'm not incorrect. What definition of the word "schism" are you referring to, when saying that it is not a separation?
People who don't share something are really sharing it -- schism is not separation? This is casuistry. Or maybe just wishful thinking. Or maybe we need to start using an OED.
"Thus, it is imperative that we try to understand WHAT the other is saying when they formulate that the Divine uncreated Energies come to man but not the Divine Essence... Or when the West talks about created Grace."
Agreed.
"But remaining stubbornly entrenched in your idea of what Catholics believe..."
I've said little about what Catholics believe -- and when I have, I've tried to put in caveats to the effect that I may not be expressing it in a way that you as a Catholic would agree with what I have said. When I articulate something in a way that you disagree with, then we can hammer it out...
What I *am* stubbornly entrenched in is a sense of reality -- in describing what *is.* Saying 100 times that the Orthodoxy and Catholicism comprise one Church will not make it so. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. The consensus view since the Schism from the Orthodox side is that we aren't -- at least not in the sense that we would call "one." Most traditional but cautious Orthodox would prefer to leave the relationship largely undefined. My objection is not so much that we aren't arguing about whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is really the Church. My objection, which I have kept to myself for some time, is that it is being repeatedly and categorically stated on this thread that we are One Church, when this by no means a shared view.
I am happy to rejoice in every point of agreement that we find, and happy every time that I come to a clearer understanding of Catholic belief, and happy every time I can communicate clearly Orthodox beliefs to the best of my ability. But again, this is a quite different matter.
The closest that anything has been said to my knowledge was the reference to "sister churches" in the Balamand
Agreement -- a hotly controversial document in the Orthodox world (and not particularly well-loved by Eastern Catholics, either, for different reasons.) Here are the comments of the head of what is by far the largest Orthodox Church in the world, Patriarch Alexey, on that agreement:
"As far as the "Balamand Agreement" is concerned—this was a working document produced by a mixed theological commission, aimed, first of all, at curbing the proselytizing activity of Uniates. This text was never given dogmatic significance. Unfortunately, the document did not prove to be an obstacle for the Catholics in imposing Unia and continuing their expansion to the East."
It does no good to pretend that many, and probably the great majority, of Orthodox Christians today do not hold to the "One Church" view -- disagreeable as you may find this fact.
Part of coming to understanding involves honesty with ourselves and each other about where we are. I don't intend to belabor this point, but it needs to be said. It would be my hope that we could at a minimum follow Kosta's suggestion in a recent post that we can agree that there can only be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, then saying, "I think it is wise to leave it at that."
A true believer seeks to obey God. God teaches that we are not to seek sin. Therefore, even though the matter of salvation is closed, the elect will still seek to obey God. Such obedience is an outward sign of the person being a believer.
"The sinning part is "normal" for us so we do take "credit" for that..."
Typical, predictable, even nearly inevitable it may be. But normal it is not. Natural it is not. (I did see the quotation marks you put around the word!)
On a totally unrelated subject, I thought I would share something that touches on the discussions some have had regarding Job and his being "perfect," according to a literal reading of the text.
I came across this in a letter of the Optina Elder, Macarius, and looked it up for myself in the LXX, Job 14:4-5:
"For who shall be pure from uncleanness? not even one; if even his life should be but one day upon the earth..."
Just thought I'd throw that into the mix of what the book of Job says...
I'm not sure that I have any point to make, but found it interesting. I hadn't read that before, since the Hebrew has a different reading.
Another non-Biblical concept. First, nowhere in Acts 10 does Peter say that the persons with the Spirit prior to Baptism were already SAVED! The Spirit existing within man does NOT mean He is saved... In Romans 2, the Spirit comes to EVERY PERSON and writes a Law onto them. Thus, He has entered EVERY PERSON. Does this mean EVERY PERSON are now saved?
If the Spirit indwells non-believers, then you must believe that a house divided against itself is just fine. I'm sure that is very Biblical in Catholicism. But wait, you say that the Spirit darts in and out, in and out depending on whether we have sinned. Before we are believers all have sinned and NOT repented, so this is extremely contradictory. ... Where exactly in Romans 2 does it say that the Spirit indwells all men? Amazingly, I couldn't find it.
Define "saved". It is not just a one-time event. There is your confusion. Just like a person can get sick, and be healed and get sick again, a man also can be saved, sin, and be saved again...
I'm sure this idea is all throughout Tradition. If only the Bible had any support for it, or did not directly contradict it, then you would have a sale. This renders God's promises pointless, but it does raise the power of men because now men are needed to finish the work Christ could not. I don't think this is a coincidence.
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up" James 5:14-15
If you really believe this passage says anything about salvation then you believe that men save each other, because here it is the prayer of men that accomplishes the salvation. This is another text book example of men usurping the power of God.
It was PETER who ordered that they be Baptized in the name of Christ, NOT Paul, so I guess it was Peter who wasn't paying attention to Christ's commands.
It is also evident from St.Luke's account of the Acts of the Apostles that St.Paul believed he was ordained to take the gospel (his gospel) to the Gentiles, yet it is clear that Jesus, Whom St.Paul did not know when He was on earth, gave the commandment to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" [Mat 28:19]
By this standard, then none of the Apostles heard Matt. 28:19 because none of them made disciples of All nations. No one man could. Paul understood his role and fulfilled it, just as the others did.
The message of St.Matthew is clear: the gospels and the judgment were understood to be for the 12 tribes of Israel and not all the nations of the world! [Mat 19:28]
If you believe this, then why bother being a Christian. You are doomed, unless you give enough power to men to override the intent of God, and have Gentiles be included also.
Or was the Trinitarian baptismal formula inserted into the 4th century copies we have? Judging from the rest of the NT, none was aware of that single commandment reported only by St.Matthew.
I don't see this as being a big deal. You can't Baptize in the name of Christ and leave out the Father and Spirit. They are one essence.
And were references to "all nations" also a "politically correct" insertion to the same time at a later date, when the Gospels otherwise seem to refer to only the 12 tribes of Israel being saved and judged?
I don't know anything about any insertions, but Jesus made reference to saving the Gentiles a few times. Here are two:
John 10:16 : I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Matt. 8:10-12 : 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
That's what the Churches are actually doing. Our differences are very clearly defined. They involve both theological and ecclesiastical issues. As of last November, the Churches are working on the subject of Petrine ministry and the extent of its authority. Although not much is heard about it over the media, a lot of work is being done on one of the most important issue: extent and nature of papal authority. Without a consensus on this, no reunion attempts can even begin. Once, hopefully, this is agreed upon (this may take decades!), the Pope can call an Ecumenical Council which will then address theological issues (which may take a lot longer).
Our fallen nature is not sin, FK; it is a consequence of sin, a defect that is inherited through generations.
...it does not follow to me that we can take credit for the good we do
Of course not! All goodness comes from God. When we do something good, give it to God. When people thank us, accept in the name of God.
Well, Augustine for one.
And before I hear the "Tut, tut, Harley, he was but one minor bishop...", Augustine was considered the first theologian who attempted the first systematic theology of the Church. Some of the very early fathers, while they gave us good insights, held some very strange views.
You're right, I had no idea. :) I liked the 1 Sam. quote about the dice too. Hmmm. Sinless dice. I could use a pair of those. Of course I would donate everything to the poor. :)
Where does scripture ever forbid a believer from asking Jesus for anything? There is no humility in bypassing Christ, it just shows Him that for you, there is someone higher on the list than Him at that moment.
Agrarian, you have certainly answered Stripes' question much more inclusively than I have, and that is good. It shows that in addition to theology and ecclasiology, it is ultimately the praxis, the life in the Church is ultimately the all-encompassing concept of what is known as the "Orthodox Church," and that, looking at the Big Picture, that Church is very, very different from the (Latin) Catholic Church as we know it.
I am not sure – given the virtual apartheid that existed linguistically and in day-to-day life of the Greek and Latin Churches since the 5th century A.D. – that a Greek would have recognized the same Faith in Rome or Spain even in the first millennium, let alone understand the language of the Liturgy, yet the Churches were in full communion.
You see, communion is not a means of achieving unity but an expression of it. That's why we cannot allow our Catholic brethren to partake of it in Orthodox Churches. Not yet anyway. Being in communion simply means that, regardless of the praxis, our bishops hold that those bishops with whom they are in communion teach the same Faith and confomr to the same canon.
However, there were periods, lasting even decades, in the history of the Church in the first millennium when the East and the West were not in communion for reasons that were not theological, as is the case with the current issue of the so-called Macedonian and Montenegrin "churches." Oh, for sure, theologically, they are Orthodox, but they have claimed autocephaly in a way that is not prescribed by the canon.
If a bishop finds another bishop to teach that which he believes is wrong, the bishop will ex-communicate the other bishop until such issue is resolved.
The term excommunication has acquired loaded meanings as you noted in one of your earlier posts, but it only means that one bishop believes the other either teaches or does something that is theologically or ecclesiastically wrong.
But that does not excommunicate the bishops from the entire Church. I am sure that St. Augustine and St. John Cassian were not in communion. Yet, both are saints in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Moreover, John Cassian was condemned for his semipelagianism by the Local (Latin) Council of Orange, as was most of the teaching of St. Augustine by the Orthodox Church in the 15th c. and neither were "stripped" of their sainthood by either Church.
It is only when the entire Church Community backs one bishops that the other bishop can be considered outside the Church, which is the case between the East and the West at this point, although the event of 1054, as I mentioned earlier did neither imply, nor aim at such exclusion because the excommunicatios issued were (1) legally invalid and (2) directed at specific bishops and not the entire Greek or Latin community.
In the period of the undivided Church, such disagreements were addressed by Ecumenical Councils and resolved. Obviously such a council was convened even in the informally divided Church, in Florence, but failed on the local level (the Orthodox laity and lower clergy rejected it).
The real Great Schism that widened the gap between the two Churches occurred not in 1054 but in 1870 (Vatican I), when the ex-cathedra infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was added (and eventually dogmatized) to the original topics dealing with liberalism, relativism, modernism and lack of piety for the Eucharist.
If we profess the same faith, outward differences in our approach to praxis should not be a justification to exclude a member of the other community Eucharistically. Outward expressions of our faith, the praxis, the manner of worship, etc. cannot be insisted on as long as they do not violate the Holy Tradition, i.e. do not clash with Apostolic teachings, the Scripture and the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils.
Ar you sure you are not thinking of semipelagianism of St. John Cassian? That is pretty much what the Orthodox Church is based on.
The point is, Agrarian, that the Book of Job, verse 1:1, says he was a "perfect [or blameless] man" [in God's eyes I suppose]. This tells us that saints are not "perfect" as the Father in heaven is perfect, but that they are perfect in their hearts. We will always sin, while in this fallen body, but it is in our Christian hearts that we may become Christ-like.
Obviously, Job was "perfect" in that sense because he never blamed God for his misfortunes. And God knew it.
" Well, Augustine for one.
And before I hear the "Tut, tut, Harley, he was but one minor bishop...","
Some few snips from +Augustine, yes...and I doubt anyone of us would diminish his role in the history of The Church, for good or ill, by calling him a minor bishop. But we all know the Reformers looked to a small part of +Augustine for justification of their innovation, but how about some others. There are over 30 volumes of the writings of the Fathers in one English set. Any others, HD?
It does not such thing. It says that Bishop Timothy will be fully equipped for his work if he supplements his formation with the study of the scripture. But Paul says so only after he exhorted him to heed the lessons St. Paul and apparently others gave him orally (2 Tim 3:14).
He is only supplementing the OT with what he is now learning as what would become the NT. There is nothing in this verse that says he is being taught extra-Biblical teachings and traditions. That is only a presumption that you are making. Timothy did not have the NT at the time as we do now. Paul was telling him to hold on to the teachings that would become scripture, not other teachings. By "EXTRA", I was saying anything outside of what we call the Bible today. Extra-scriptural teaching does zero to make a man thoroughly equipped, only scripture makes him so.
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.