Replies

That's just the problem, FK, "our understanding of what God's word says". The Church's understanding, we may be sure, is correct; our own personal understanding...not so sure. These matters are as we say "up to God". We shouldn't presume anything and hope for everything through God's mercy.

I can agree with this entirely, but from a very different perspective. First I think we would disagree on what the composition of "The Church" really is. In addition we would disagree on the source of "our understanding of what God's word says". If God really doesn't care to lead us, but rather only a few men, then we should just presume to blindly follow what other fallible men say. -- I think I remember that on the Orthodox side the laity has to approve of the pronouncements of the Bishops, but that such authority is very rarely invoked. -- But in any case if God does want a personal relationship with us, then we may presume that He does indeed lead us. It appears to be a presumption either way, in favor of Holy Spirit leading groups or individuals, based on our world views of the relationship God wants to have with us.

If God really doesn't care to lead us, but rather only a few men, then we should just presume to blindly follow what other fallible men say.

The fatal flaw with that action is that just any group of men can come along and claim to be instructed by God, lead by God, inspired by God and how does the laity discern this? Do we just blindly follow on their say so? That didn't work out so well for the followers of Jim Jones and other cult leaders. The blind following the blind.

That's the reason it is so critical to have ONE source of recognized truth to refer back to and correct doctrine against.

The written word of God does not change. Doctrines of denominations do. I've heard pastors from the pulpit preach and tell the congregation to not just take their word for it that it's even in the Bible but to read and study it for themselves and if they think the he (the pastor) is in error, to approach him and show him and they will discuss it.

That's the pastor recognizing that he's human and subject to error, just like any man. That's accountability and someone who takes their responsibility seriously.

That's something I don't see happening in the Catholic church. The laity is so intimidated by their priests and so in awe of their position, that I can't imagine any of them daring to challenge them. I've seen all kinds of questionable behavior excused by the laity because if the priest did it, he wouldn't sin so it must be OK.

We probably do disagree on what The Church is and where its fullness is found. For the Orthodox The Church, in all its fullness, is found where there is one bishop, surrounded by his monastics, clergy and laity all centered on the Eucharist. That, FK, is actually very "collectivist"; The Church is definitely NOT the hierachy or the clergy but rather the entire community and it is that entire community to which the promise of infallibility is given. The bishops teach but the people, within the ecclesia, are the judges of Orthodoxia, much as virtually all bishops try to avoid this and impose their will on The Church. In the end, they don't succeed, their skulls pave the floor of hell and Orthodoxia and Orthopraxia prevail.

I don't see where any of this is negated by pointing out that "God wants a personal relationship with each of us". He may very well. We as humans, however, are not "saved" in some divine vacuum, at least not the overwhelming majority of us. We advance in theosis and become like God, thus fulfilling our created purpose, within the liturgical community of The Church.

"It appears to be a presumption either way, in favor of Holy Spirit leading groups or individuals, based on our world views of the relationship God wants to have with us."

I like that, FK! The religiously individualistic mindset of the West since the Renaissance is particularly suited to Protestantism. This seems even more true since the Enlightenment. The East was and is a very different place. There was a real, "God Ordained" Emperor until 1453 and after that in Russia until 1917. And these empires were seen as imitations, flawed certainly, of the Empire of God. Everyone had a role and a place in these empires (this was true even under the Mohammedan caliphates, but those roles and places were all designed to create "heaven on earth" The more collectivist religious phronema of the East, therefore, developed earlier into a very very different way of looking theosis than developed in the West 1500 years later.