“I echo Quix’s comments about transcendence.”
And I, like Kosta, agree with both of you. I also agree that to an extent, and perhaps in spite of what follows, I believe the Holy Spirit did preserve at least some level of “core” Christian belief among most Protestants, Trinitarian and Christologic theology primarily as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the dogmas of the Council of Chalcedon.
“However, this same interconnection [Liturgical praxis and community as a context for scripture] does not help to refute traditional Protestant arguments (positions) concerning the assertion that error did enter the Church.”
That’s a rather broad statement, FK, that I KNOW no Orthodox Christian would disagree with. Roman Catholics might disagree, but not we Orthodoxers. Error has flowed into The Church time and again throughout history, but in the end, The Truth prevails and heresy and apostasy are cut off and rejected. In Eastern Christianity we have extensive experience, up close and personal, with heresy, heretics and heresiarchs. Our ancient “Orthopraxis” within a Liturgical Community centered on the Eucharist, assures that The Church will shake off heresy when it shows up. Our Eucharistic theology and ecclesiology are rooted firmly in the Mystical Supper and the First Council at Jerusalem. Within 70 years of those events, +Ignatius of Antioch explained that theology simply and clearly and in so doing described what The Church in fact was doing in his lifetime. He tells us that the “fullness” of The Church exists in what we now would call a single diocese, a relatively small unit. He tells us what the early Church believed about the Eucharist and what we still believe. In any event, small groups can maintain “orthodoxy” fairly easily if they are interconnected, something large, top down groups have a problem with if error of one sort or another infects the top. Conversely, divorced from an “orthodoxy” of both belief and praxis, small groups can spin off into basic heresy, no matter what the reason for the break. It is in this area that I see the fundamental problem with Protestantism. Any honest person can see and today understand the motivation of the Reformers in their break with the medieval Latin Church. That said, aside from the Lutherans and the Anglicans, the rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist took the very core out of the community and for this reason the Pope could say that Protestant groups are not strictly churches at all but rather “ecclesial groups”. Our Orthodox assurance of “orthodoxy” lies within The Church itself. Let me put it this way. We trust the scriptures because they are “within” The Church. We trust the consensus patrum because the Fathers wrote and taught and preached “within” The Church and The Church accepted what they wrote and taught and preached. We do this because by definition The Church is centered on Christ in the Eucharist and is so structured as to recognize and deal with error. This is not to say at all that Protestantism is inevitably destined to preach heresy. I don’t believe that at all. I listen most Saturday mornings to a pretty fundamentalist radio bible program from Canada. My wife laughs at me, but the preaching is generally pretty good and the hymns are wonderful. But there can be no assurance that what is preached in Protestant ecclesial groups is over time “orthodox” Christianity because these groups are not anchored in the Eucharist.
I can understand why so many of the spiritual children of the great Reformers of the West rejected the Real Presence. So much of what the medieval Latin Church did certainly could have been viewed (erroneusly in my opinion) as “magic” and demonic magic at that. Given that those people were as much social as religious revolutionaries, they were naturally prone to view the opposition as evil. There was a lot of evil in the Latin Church of those days and for many Western Christians, no practical, human way apparent to address that evil save by the Reformation. But within a generation, the centrality of the Eucharist, which both Calvin and Luther recognized, was gone, replaced by sola scriptura (in a way, I am convinced, that Luther certainly never intended).
From a strictly Eastern Christian pov, that rejection of 1500 years of Eucharistic theology, completely unchanged at least in Orthodoxy, led inevitably to error in Protestant groups which sola scriptura simply cannot deal with.
By all of this, I most certainly DO NOT mean to say that Orthodoxy has a monopoly on Theosis. Orthodoxy as a general proposition does not claim that. The mystery of the economia of salvation is just that, a mystery and it is plain that the “sporoi”, the seeds, of Faith exist in human belief throughout the world and down through the ages.
Thanks for your kind
reasonable
and educational points.
Aha, therein is your 'error'! You listen to Canadians. :)
Truth be told, I (of all people!) very often listen to Christian Family Radio and find most of the sermons "orthodox" and wonder how come we can't find the same level of agreement and common thread of Christian unity on the FR (wouldn't it be nice if we could?).
[+Ignatius] tells us that the “fullness” of The Church exists in what we now would call a single diocese
He said "the Chruch is where the bishop is." In other words, the Church is not made up of (local) "parts". Every church (lower case 'c') no matter how large or small, how metropolitan or provincial, that makes Eucharistic offers, contains the fullness of our Faith.
As the NT shows us, out of the twelve, one was the devil. If the Church were a top-down "organization" and infected top will lead the whole Church into error, as you observe. But with each church being "fully" Church it is practically impossible.
Our Portestant friends can argue that they only took the autonomy given to bishops in the Church one step further and gave it to every believer, thereby decreasing the likelyhood of everyone following others into error even further, as each member of the church becomes his or her own "bishop".
It makes sense, but it is not scriptural. The Bible tells us that not everyone is appointed to be an apostle, or a teachier, and that royal priesthood is God given.
In the liturgical makeup of the Church the wisdom and the knoweldge of all the saints and prophets is contained in one unit, something no individual can claim. God did not, and does not, reveal everyting to one person. Instead, He uses many people for His purpose because, I believe, no one person could absorb and handle the entire Truth.
Excellent point, I fully agree.
...... That said, aside from the Lutherans and the Anglicans, the rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist took the very core out of the community and for this reason the Pope could say that Protestant groups are not strictly churches at all but rather “ecclesial groups”.
I don't understand this at all. Without the real presence, we still have a strong community. We just worship differently and under a different theology. Perhaps I am not missing what I have never known, but in terms of living faith, I see no superiority at all among the laity of any of the three groups over any other.
But within a generation, the centrality of the Eucharist, which both Calvin and Luther recognized, was gone, replaced by sola scriptura (in a way, I am convinced, that Luther certainly never intended).
Why do you think that sola scriptura REPLACED the Eucharist? Sola scriptura has to do with authority, and I am not aware that the Eucharist does. SS is not a method of worship.