Posted on 12/11/2005 11:07:30 PM PST by jecIIny
A Note for Evangelicals Considering Rome By Clark Carlton Sooner or later, Protestants who are serious about their faith - serious about what it means to be a Christian and to be a member of the Church - begin to look beyond the borders of their limited denominational existence for a more profound spirituality, a God-centered experience of worship, and a concrete sense of belonging to an historical Christian community. In the 1970s this searching gave rise to a movement called Catholic Evangelicalism. This was a movement among Evangelicals to recover their lost catholic heritage while remaining within their Protestant denominations.1
This movement reached a high point with a gathering of 46 Evangelical leaders in 1977. The resulting Chicago Call was a challenge to the Evangelical world to take the past seriously and to recover much of traditional Christian life that had been thrown out with the bath water during the Reformation.2 Interestingly, however, several of the high profile signers of the Chicago Call discovered that they could not recover their catholic roots while remaining Protestant. Some became Orthodox and some, Thomas Howard in particular, became Roman Catholic.3
While Evangelical voices such as Christianity Today tried to pass these conversions off as romantic flights of fancy, the number of conversions continues to increase.4 More recently, two prominent American Lutherans have converted: (now Father) Richard John Neuhaus, author of The Naked Public Square, became a Roman Catholic, and Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan became Orthodox.5
In short, there has been a definite movement, particularly among clergy and intellectuals, from Protestantism toward what may be termed the catholic tradition. The question that faces Protestants looking for the catholic tradition, however, is which Church embodies it: the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church?
In order to help Evangelicals make a reasoned evaluation of these rival claims, it would be beneficial to examine the reasons why some Evangelicals choose Roman Catholicism over Orthodoxy. To this end, let us turn our attention to the story of Scott and Kimberly Hahn, as recounted in their book Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism.6 Scott, a young Presbyterian minister, and his wife could hardly have started out more anti-Catholic. Since their conversions, however, they have become well-known Catholic apologists.
In particular, I want to focus on Scotts consideration - and rejection - of Orthodoxy. It takes him all of two paragraphs (out of 182 pages) to explain this, so I will reproduce the passage in full:
So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gillquist, an evangelical convert to Antiochian Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthodoxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.
While Hahns investigation of Orthodoxy must have been more involved than he describes in this passage, it is clear that he did not put a great amount of effort into it. His reasons for choosing Roman Catholicism over Orthodoxy sound as if they came directly from a 19th century anti-Orthodox tract.
Orthodoxy and Ethnicism Let us begin with his meeting with Father Peter Gillquist. Now I have known Fr. Peter for many years, however, Fr. Peter himself would never claim to be a theologian or a scholar. I am not surprised, therefore, that Hahn found Fr. Peters thoughts on Roman Catholicism less than profound. He would have been better served by talking with people who have a first hand knowledge of Roman Catholicism, such as Fr. Alexey Young or Fr. Theodore Pulcini.
Furthermore, Fr. Peter is not a convert to Antiochene Orthodoxy. There is simply no such thing. Fr. Peter serves in the American archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Antioch. Orthodoxy, however, is Orthodoxy, whether it is practiced among Syrians, Russians, Greeks, or Americans. The claim that the various Orthodox churches [are] hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms is patently absurd. It is the kind of cliché that is often trotted out by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike who are too lazy to undertake a serious investigation of the matter.
To begin with, the division of the Orthodox world into various, self-governing national Churches has more to do with the Western European phenomenon of nationalism and the subsequent interference of western powers (Great Britain, in particular) in the internal affairs of the Balkan nations than it does with the internal logic of Orthodoxy.7 While nationalism has been and remains a problem for Orthodoxy, it is in no way of the essence of Orthodoxy. Indeed, in 1872 the Orthodox Church formally condemned as a heresy the theory that the Church should be organized according to ethnic make-up rather than according to territorial dioceses (phyletism).8
What Hahn fails to mention here is that each of these national Churches professes one and the same Orthodox Faith, observes one and the same liturgical life (albeit in different languages and local customs), and maintains full Eucharistic communion with the others.9 The fact that they do not all answer to a single bishop in a foreign country in no way means that they are not truly united in one, catholic Church. To liken the different local Churches to different Protestant denominations is ludicrous.
Now it is certainly true that the presence of multiple, overlapping jurisdictions in America is a great problem and a cause for scandal. However, it must be noted that this sad situation is the result of particular historical circumstances well beyond the power of anyone to control. Before the Russian Revolution of 1917, North America was de facto the missionary territory of the Russian Church. Aside from the dominant presence of the Orthodox Church in Alaska (formerly Russian territory), Orthodox missionaries moved south along the West Coast during the 19th century.10
When Orthodox from the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe began to arrive in America, most went under the care of the existing Russian Church structure. The first Syrian bishop in America, Rafael Hawaweeny, was actually a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. While many Greek communities maintained a separate existence, bringing priests over from Greece, their requests for bishops were always denied, because there were already Orthodox bishops here, and the Churches of Greece and Constantinople were not willing to establish a parallel hierarchy.
The Russian Revolution, however, created problems not only for the Church in Russia, but for the Church in America as well. In the ensuing chaos, multiple Orthodox jurisdictions were established as the individual immigrant communities appealed to their mother Churches for help. As time went by, people got used to this unusual arrangement. Thus you can find in a single city a Greek, a Russian, and a Serbian Orthodox Church.
It must be noted here that no one today considers this situation to be normal or even acceptable. All Orthodox jurisdictions in this country are aware of the fact that the situation is uncanonical. Of course, if Orthodoxy had a universal pope, he could fix the situation by fiat. Then again, he could also infallibly define strange doctrines and compel everyone to assent to them under pain of excommunication. A certain degree of disorganization is the price the Church pays for not succumbing to the temptations of worldly success and order.
Caesaropapism There have, of course, been times when the Church was more or less forced into a more efficient mode of operation by secular powers, and the Church suffered dearly for such intrusions. That is what makes Hahns comments about caesaropapism so utterly galling. To suggest that the Orthodox Church accepted a state of affairs whereby the emperor decided Church policy and that this is in contrast to the way things worked in the West, where Rome claimed supremacy over the temporal powers, displays an appalling ignorance of history.
To begin with, Orthodox canon law specifically forbids state interference in the internal workings of the Church. That does not mean that emperors did not try to interfere in the Churchs business - most tried, and some were more successful than others. It does mean, however, that the Church never accepted this as a normal state of affairs. Indeed, the Church calendar is filled with saints who suffered mightily for their refusal to go along with imperial policy.11
There is a great irony here. By far the greatest impetus for reunion with Rome prior to the fall of Constantinople came from imperial political motives. It was in the interest of the emperor to have communion restored between the Orthodox and the Church of Rome because of the political advantages it would bring.12 The so-called union councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) were both promoted by the emperor, and both rejected by the body of the Orthodox faithful. Were Hahns views of caesaropapism correct, then the Church would have dutifully obeyed imperial policy, and Rome and Orthodoxy would be in communion now! 13
The fact is, the only place in the Orthodox world where caesaropapism was ever close to being an accepted reality was in Russia, subsequent to the reforms of Peter the Great. Peter abolished the office of patriarch, installed his own government oberprocurator for religious affairs to oversee the Holy Synod, and effectively made the Church a department of state. There is no doubt that this severely weakened the Church and contributed to Her inability to successfully counter the communist Revolution.14 What non-Orthodox historians invariably omit, however, is the fact that the Petrine reforms were based on church-state relations Peter had observed in the German and Scandinavian principalities. Thus, Petrine Russias caesaropapism was the direct result of western, non-Orthodox influences.15 Hahns comment that the sufferings of the Russian Church under the Soviet regime were the fruit of an Orthodox outlook is as misguided as it is insulting.
Before we leave the subject of church-state relations, let us consider the following:
It would be impossible for him to be corrupted by anyone, for he is a catholic in faith, a king in power, a pontiff in preaching, a judge in equity, a philosopher in liberal studies, a model in morals.16
A panegyric to a Roman emperor written by a sycophantic Orthodox bishop? Not hardly. This particular tribute was written by Alcuin in honor of Charlemagne, the Frankish usurper crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800.
The crowning of Charlemagne is often cited as an example of papal supremacy over temporal powers. In reality, however, the Church in Western Europe became part of the Germanic feudal system, with clergy appointed and invested by secular rulers. Simony became a matter of course. This situation did not change until the Gregorian Reforms of the eleventh century. Even then, however, claims of papal supremacy over matters temporal did not always match reality. Pelikan observes:
What the history books describe as the investiture controversy was not merely the churchs defense of its own right to select and install its bishops. It was also the states defense against the claims of the church. The pope claimed the right to depose the emperor, and in the investiture controversy he tried to do just that. Repeatedly pope and emperor clashed over the limits of their respective jurisdictions. The zenith of papal power under Pope Innocent III (d. 1216) was followed less than a century later by the exile of the pope in Avignon and by the humiliating history of the papacy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Through it all the pope claimed authority over the state as well as the church, but conditions within the church seemed to many to prove that he could not rule even the church.17
Clearly, Hahns reading of church history is both selective and inaccurate. Ever since the time Jesus was presented with a Roman coin and asked about taxation, Christians have been trying to come to terms with the proper relationship between Church and state. No one in the East or in the West was able to come up with a perfect solution. Indeed, a perfect solution is not possible in this world, for the Reign of God is not of this world (Jn. 18:36).18
Theology With Hahns comment concerning Orthodox theology, he moves from the absurd to the surreal: Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. If the alternative to being stagnant means changing the creed (the Filioque), worrying about going to a non-existent place (purgatory), paying money to stay out of said non-existent place (indulgences), turning the Virgin Mary into some sort of super-human (an immaculately conceived Co-Redemptrix), and making the bishop of one city into an infallible, universal potentate with both spiritual and political sovereignty, then the Orthodox will gladly stay stagnant.
The really amusing thing about Hahns comment is that it sounds like something one would expect to hear from the ultra liberal Episcopal bishop John Spong - complete with a patronizing reference to Orthodoxys wonderful liturgy. The development of doctrine is the excuse used by Roman Catholics to justify every change in doctrine from the Filioque to papal infallibility. Yet, liberals also believe that their modernizations are justified by the notion of progress. In the final analysis, what is the real difference between the improvements of Christianity made by the Roman Catholic Church and the improvements wrought by liberals such as Spong? 19
The similarities between a conservative Roman Catholic such as Hahn and a liberal Protestant such as Spong are more than superficial. In his classic introduction to Orthodoxy, Bishop Kallistos Ware quotes the nineteenth-century Russian theologian Alexis Khomiakov:
All Protestants are Crypto-Papists. To use the concise language of algebra, all the West knows but one datum a; whether it be preceded by the positive sign +, as with the Romanists, or with the negative -, as with the Protestants, the a remains the same.20
In other words, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are but two sides of the same coin. They may present different faces, but the underlying substance is the same.
This explains why many conservative Protestants are attracted to Rome. Allegiance to Rome allows them to overcome the inherent inconsistencies in Protestantism without having to abandon the basic presupposition of Protestantism, namely that Christianity is an ideology derived from a text.21
Sola Scriptura is patently illogical. The popular Protestant saying, The Bible says it; that settles it makes no sense because, strictly speaking, the Bible does not say anything. It is a text, and like all texts it must be interpreted. An infallible book is only useful if you have an infallible interpreter, which is where the pope comes in. Where two or three Protestants are gathered together, there you have four or five different interpretations of the Bible. With an infallible pope, however, you only have to deal with one interpretation - at a time, that is.22 The pope says it; that settles it.
We have already discussed why the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy is fundamentally incompatible with the Orthodox faith, so I shall not recover that ground here. However, I do want to stress the fundamental unity of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The Hahns did not really convert to anything; they merely exchanged one form of the same authoritarian, rationalistic religion for another.
Hahn and other Catholic apologists go to great pains to demonstrate that Catholicism (both those elements which are genuinely part of the catholic tradition and those which are peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church) are based on the Word of God, both in its written and its oral form. Even if a doctrine cannot claim an uninterrupted history back to the Apostles (i.e. the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility), it can nonetheless be considered scriptural if it can be logically deduced from the Bible.23 This theological method deducing a doctrine from a text is the common heritage of Catholics and Protestants alike, even those Protestants who consider themselves to be the most anti-Catholic.
At this point, allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible. Nor is it based or derived from a set of oral teachings running parallel to the Bible. The Orthodox Church is the living Body of Christ - the living experience in history of the union of mankind with God in the divine-human Person of the Only-Begotten. The Word of God is not a book, but a Person. The Prophets, both those of the Old Covenant and those of the New, are those who have seen and heard and touched the Word of Life.24 The Divine Scriptures and the writings of the Saints are the written witness to this experience, but they are not the source of this experience.
Thus, true and false doctrines are not discerned by whether or not one can logically deduce them from the text of the Bible or the writings of a particular Church Father - one can deduce just about anything from the Bible, as Protestantism has demonstrated several thousand times over - but whether or not the purported doctrine constitutes a faithful witness to or sign of the communion between God and man that is experienced in the Church. Thus, Orthodoxy rejects Roman Catholic doctrines such as papal infallibility or purgatory, not because they cannot be deduced from this or that Bible verse or patristic citation, but because they make a lie out of the Churchs experience of union with God in Christ. False doctrines are false witnesses. They derive from and lead toward false Christs.25
Evangelicals searching for the catholic tradition must understand that Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, She knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Final Considerations I converted to Holy Orthodoxy because I saw in the theology and life of the Orthodox Church a pure witness to the truth - the truth of my own being created in the image of God.26 It was not a matter of subjecting myself to an external authority, but of recognizing and embracing the truth of reality itself.
There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church is larger and better organized than the Orthodox Church. There is no question that the current Roman liturgy is more accessible to modern Americans than the long, sung services of the Orthodox Church.27 Nor can it be denied that Roman Catholicism is easier to grasp intellectually, being neatly set forth in a highly rationalistic system. None of this, however, makes Roman Catholicism true. Our Lord said, I am the Truth. He did not say, I am Efficiency and Convenience.
When I renounced Protestantism and embraced Holy Orthodoxy I implicitly renounced Roman Catholicism as well, for Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are truly two sides of the same coin. When I abandoned the heretical notion of Sola Scriptura, I also abandoned the presupposition that Christianity is an ideology that can be derived from a text. When I relinquished my role as an infallible Protestant pope, interpreting the Bible according to my own lights, I also relinquished the fantasy that there could be another infallible pope.
To put it another way, I was not content to settle for Protestantism repackaged in sacramental garb. I was looking for a truly new vision of the Christian faith, and I found that new vision in Orthodoxy. Of course, what was new to me was in fact the oldest expression of Christianity. Orthodoxy was the religion of the early Church - even in Rome - before the pope became an infallible sovereign, before purgatory became peopled with millions of souls trying to work off their sins, hoping that some of the excess merits of the Saints might fall their way.
If you want to know what life in the early Church was like, look at the Orthodox Church today. She still confesses the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without changes, still baptizes by triple immersion, 28 still keeps Wednesdays and Fridays as fasting days, 29 still observes rather strict fasting rules for Lent and Advent, 30 and still celebrates the Holy Liturgy in forms that are much the same as they were in the sixth century.31
In short, Orthodoxy is what Roman Catholicism used to be. If, however, you are looking for a new and improved version of Christianity, then whether you remain Protestant or become a Roman Catholic matters little. Find a church or parish that meets your needs and fits your lifestyle, one where you are comfortable - a church with a gymnasium might be nice.
If, on the other hand, you are genuinely searching for an encounter with the living God, then forsake all thoughts of comfort or lifestyle. Seek the truth, and settle for nothing less. I can tell you that you will find the truth in the Orthodox Church. Here you will encounter God. Here you will find the guidance you need for the healing and salvation of your soul.
Endnotes 1. Cf. Donald G. Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity: A Call for Unity Amid Diversity (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1983), pp. 48-52.
2. The text of the Chicago Call may be found in Robert Webber, Common Roots: A Call to Evangelical Maturity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), pp. 251-256.
3. Robert Webber and Donald Bloesch are somewhat conspicuous in that they have steadfastly remained in their Protestant denominations - denominations that are among the most liberal in America. Webber is a member of the Episcopal Church and, as far as I know, Bloesch remains a member of the United Church of Christ.
4. Perhaps the most visible Evangelical to convert was Frank Schaeffer, son of the late theologian Francis Schaeffer. See his Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994).
5. Pelikan was received into the Orthodox Church on March 25, 1998 (The Feast of the Annunciation) at St. Vladimirs Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York.
6. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993).
7. Fr. John Meyendorff observes: In Greece and in the other Balkan countries of Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania, nationalism was generally promoted by a western-trained and western-oriented secularized intelligentsia which had no real interest in Orthodoxy and the Church except as a useful tool for achieving secular nationalistic goals. Ecclesiastical Regionalism: Structures of Communion or Cover for Separatism, originally published in St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 24 (1980), pp. 155-168. Reprinted in Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1982), pp. 217-233 (226). It should be noted that this essay was originally written for an ecumenical colloquium and is far from being anti-western. The reader should be aware, however, that Fr. Johns criticism of modern Orthodox regionalism and his expressed openness to the concept of Roman primacy in this article is part of an intellectual dialogue and can in no way be interpreted as a denial of the basic tenets of Orthodox ecclesiology, which clearly rule out concepts such as universal ordinary jurisdiction.
8. See Meyendorff, Ecclesiastical Regionalism, p. 228.
9. There are two primary exceptions to this world-wide Orthodox unity. The first involves the Church calendar. In 1923, Ecumenical Patriarch Melitios Metaxakis (whose career was colorful to say the least, and the legitimacy of whose election is highly questionable) abandoned the traditional Orthodox (Julian) calendar and adopted the Gregorian calendar. Leaving aside the fact that such a calendar change had been condemned by previous Orthodox synods, the action was undertaken without the universal consent of the other Orthodox Churches - a de facto denial of the conciliar structure of the Church. It was, to put it bluntly, the result of papal pretensions on the part of the patriarch. The calendar change was adopted by several (but not all) local Churches, prompting schisms in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria that have lasted to the present day. The calendar change - and I am a member of a local Church that uses the new, Gregorian calendar - was an unalloyed evil and a curse for the Church. It would have never happened, however, had the conciliar nature of the Church not been utterly disregarded. For a decidedly unsympathetic treatment of Patriarch Melitios and the calendar change see Bishop Photius of Triaditsa, The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople in The Orthodox Church Calendar: In Defense of the Julian Calendar (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996), pp. 5-29. The second exception to Orthodox unity is a direct result of the Russian Revolution: the division between the Church of Russia (Moscow Patriarchate) and the Russian Church Abroad (a.k.a. the Synod ). With the demise of the Soviet Union, however, tentative efforts have begun to heal this breach. Lest Roman Catholics get too smug in observing these inner-Orthodox problems, however, we should point out that the entire Reformation, with its thousands of resulting denominations, started out as a schism within the Roman Church. Furthermore, there exist other bodies that claim to represent true Roman Catholicism, notably the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht and the Polish National Catholic Church.
10. For the history of the Alaskan mission as well as a general treatment of Orthodox missiology, see the two excellent studies by Fr. Michael Oleksa: Alaskan Missionary Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987) and Orthodox Alaska: A Theology of Mission (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1992).
11. Caesaropapism, however, never became an accepted principle in Byzantium. Innumerable heroes of the faith were constantly exalted precisely because they had opposed heretical emperors; hymns sung in church praised Basil for having disobeyed Valens, Maximus for his martyrdom under Constans, and numerous monks for having opposed the iconoclastic emperors in the eighth century. These liturgical praises alone were sufficient to safeguard the principle that the emperor was to preserve, not to define, the Christian faith. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 6.
12. Remember that Constantinople was facing overwhelming odds in defending herself against the Moslems.
13. From the thirteenth century on, all discussions between the popes and emperors regarding reunion took place in an atmosphere dominated more by political than by religious considerations, the Byzantine Church itself remaining largely outside the picture. Moreover, those discussions showed that the West harbored completely false ideas about the existence of Byzantine caesaropapism and thought that it was sufficient to win over the emperor to gain the allegiance of the whole Church. It was with this in mind that the popes encouraged the personal conversion of the Emperor John V in 1369. Even today the view is quite common that the Byzantine schism had its roots in caesaropapism; nevertheless it is a fact that from the eleventh century the emperors were almost consistently in favor of reunion with Rome because of the undoubted political advantages to be derived from it, and they tried to bring reunion about at all costs, even by the use of brute force. Equally consistently, since the time of Michael Caerularius, the patriarchs, or most of them at any rate, opposed their efforts in the name of the true faith. By relying so much on the emperors to bring about reunion, the popes were relying, actually, on a caesaropapism which did not in fact exist. John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1981), pp. 59-60.
14. The Patriarchate was re-established at an All-Russian council literally during the October Revolution. Unfortunately, the reforms came too late to stop the communist take over of the government. Interestingly, the newly elected patriarch, St. Tikhon, had been the Archbishop of New York, overseeing the American mission before his election. For an account of the reform movement prior to the Revolution, see James W. Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905-1906 (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1981).
15. Cf. Fr. Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part One; Vol. 5 in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Tr. by Robert Nichols (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1979). Peter wished to organize church administration in Russia just as Protestant countries ordered it. Such a reorganization did not just correspond to his own estimation of his authority or merely follow from the logic of his general conception of state authority or the monarchs will. It also conformed to his personal religious perception or opinion. Peters outlook was wholly that of a man of the Reformation world, even if he retained in his personal life an unexpectedly large number of habits and impulses belonging to the Moscovite past (pp. 117-118). The Reformation remained an act of secular coercion, compelling the body of the church to wither but finding no sympathetic response in the depths of the churchs consciousness (p. 120). And again: The churchs mind and conscience never became accustomed to, accepted, or acknowledged this actual caesaropapism, although individual churchmen and leaders frequently with inspiration submitted to it. The mystical fullness of the church remained unharmed (p. 121).
16. Quoted in Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology, pp. 51-52.
17. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism, p. 44. At least one Roman Catholic writer cites the Churchs involvement with secular rule as a tragedy: But from the time the popes entered the temporal arena, heavy and irremovable chains were forged around their churchly kingdom. Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church (NY: Putnam, 1981), p. 14.
18. "The Kingdom of God" is more properly rendered as "the Reign of God".
19. Hahn has added his name to the list of Roman Catholics petitioning the pope to declare the Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix. He, and another professor from the Franciscan University at Steubenville have prepared a three-part audio series on the doctrine. According to the advertisement for the tape: Scott explains how Mary was a stumbling block in his conversion, and why he was, as a new Catholic, reluctant to support a new Marian dogma. He then shows how this dogma captures Marys vital importance, especially as the new millennium draws near, which Pope John Paul II anticipates will be a new springtime for the Church. If the new millennium demands new dogmas, might it just as well demand a new code of morality?
20. Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church (NY: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 9.
21. I develop this idea in The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1998).
22. Popes, have, of course disagreed with one another. This also assumes that there are no anti-popes, thus making it difficult to tell which is the real infallible pontiff.
23. I am using deduced here in its general sense, rather than in the way it is used in formal logic. Most of these deductions are in fact inductions, for very few could claim to be logically necessary.
24. Cf. 1 Jn. 1:1.
25. Consequently, when the heretic lays hands on the traditional faith he lays hands on the life of the faithful, their raison detre. Heresy is at once blasphemy towards God and a curse for man. This is the reason why the entire organism and the spiritual health and sensitivity of Orthodoxy has from the beginning reacted against the destructive infection of heresies. Archimandrite Vasileios, Hymn of Entry, p. 21.
26. I discuss my conversion in detail in The Way.
27. This is due in no small part to the continual dumbing-down of the Roman Mass since Vatican II.
28. Roman Catholic children are lucky to get the tops of their heads wet. Where in the Gospels did our Lord enjoin his Disciples to sprinkle all nations?
29. Even the famous practice of fish on Fridays has largely been abandoned by Roman Catholics, at least in the United States.
30. By and large, fasting in the Roman Church has been reduced to giving up something for Lent.
31. This is easily contrasted with the folk masses, mariachi masses, polka masses, and even clown masses that have become staples of the modern Roman Church since Vatican II. Indeed, contemporary Roman Catholic worship looks more and more like the baby-boomer friendly seeker services that have become so popular in the Protestant world.
The epilogue of Clark Carltons The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church.
Clark Carlton earned a B.A. in philosophy from Carson-Newman College in Jefferson City, Tennessee. While studying as a Raymond Bryan Brown Memorial Scholar at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, he converted to the Orthodox Faith.
Mr. Carlton earned a Master of Divinity degree from St. Vladimirs Orthodox Theological Seminary in Crestwood, New York in 1990.
In 1993, he earned an M.A. in Early Christian Studies from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. At the time of this writings he was working as an adjunct instructor of philosophy at Tennessee Technological University in his home town while completing his Ph.D. dissertation on the dogmatic and ascetical theology of St. Mark the Monk (5th c.).
As we have discussed, the Roman Catholic Church has not changed the meaning of the Nicean Creed, only the word formula. The words used are not subject to "infallibility". If the Church finds words to better express its faith (the faith is unchangeable, not the words), then we use them. Thus, the Catholic Church is not proposing anything different then what was defined at Nicea. There is one divine principle within the Godhead. The word "and", on retrospect, can be mistaken as meaning two divine principles. But when the Orthodox are willing to listen and not keep bringing this up as some form of "heresy", then they understand that we are not changing the faith.
Regards
It is an old habit.
b'shem Y'shua
Only,indeed.
Canon 28 was not legally entered into the Council of Chalcedon's by-laws, and the Pope firmly had it removed, as I cited earlier. There is no excuse for Constantinople to self-proclaim itself as "second to Rome". For what reason can you give that is not political??? It was not even an Apostolic See, how could it have any religious importance? This was a political move, pure and simple - an effort to place Alexandria and Antioch into second place Sees. Rome saw through this subterfuge, and Leo had it removed. The Canon was recanted and, as far as Rome is concerned, never existed - since the Bishops did not even vote on it.
Regards
It was agreed at the council no one would change the wording.
Search New Advent. The Pri-eminence of Constantinople is sited in numerous places. Pope Leo's reaction is mentioned however it clearly states on New Advent's site that the Pri-eminence of Constantinople is one of 4 recognized canons of the Catholic church. New Advent hosts the Catholic encyclopedia which is referenced by several Catholic publications.
From their site:
The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."
Please note, tho, that the BVM is a dead human being. Necromancy, or trafficing with the departed, is a henious sin in the sight of God. An appealing sin, mind you, but still heinous.
More from NewAdvent Note the 28th Canon. Note it was not at Chalcedon where this was first mentioned. As my previous post indicates it was first at the Council of Constantinople where this was ratified by the bishops. Twice was this entered into the councils and twice was it confirmed as part of church doctrine.:
In the fifteenth session (31 October) the council adopted and approved twenty-eight disciplinary canons. The papal legates, however, as well as the imperial commissioners departed at the beginning of the session, probably foreseeing that the hierarchical status of the Bishop of Constantinople would be defined, as really occurred in canon 28.
The first canon approved the canons passed in previous synods.
The second established severe penalties against those who conferred ecclesiastical orders or positions for money, or received such orders or positions for money, and acted as intermediaries in such transactions.
The third forbade secular traffic to all ecclesiastics, except in the interest of minors, orphans, or other needy persons.
The fourth forbade the erection of a monastery or an oratory without the permission of the proper bishop; recommended to the monks a life of retirement, mortification, and prayer; and forbade the reception of a slave in a monastery without the permission of his master.
The fifth inculcated the canons of previous synods concerning the transfer of bishops and clerics from one city to another.
The sixth recommended that no one should be ordained except he were assigned to some ecclesiastical office. Those ordained contrary to this provision were not to exercise their order.
The seventh forbade ecclesiastics to exercise the military art or to hold a secular office.
The eighth decreed that the clerics of charitable homes, monasteries, or oratories of martyrs should be subject to the bishop of the territory.
The ninth ordained that ecclesiastics should conduct their lawsuits only before the bishop, the synod of the province, the exarch, or the Bishop of Constantinople.
The tenth forbade ecclesiastics to be enrolled in the church-registers of different cities.
The eleventh ordained that the poor and needy, when travelling, should be provided with letters of recommendation (litterae pacificae) from the churches.
The twelfth forbade the bishops to obtain from the emperors the title of metropolitans to the prejudice of the real metropolitan of their province.
The thirteenth forbade to strange clerics the exercise of their office unless provided with letters of recommendation from their bishop.
The fourteenth forbade minor clerics to marry heretical women, or to give their children in marriage to heretics.
The fifteenth decreed that no deaconess should be ordained below the age of forty; and no person once ordained a deaconess was allowed to leave that state and marry.
The sixteenth forbade the marriage of virgins or monks consecrated to God.
The seventeenth ordained that the parishes in rural districts should remain under the jurisdiction of their respective bishops; but if a new city were built by the emperor, its ecclesiastical organization should be modelled on that of the State.
The eighteenth forbade secret organizations in the Church, chiefly among clerics and monks.
The nineteenth ordained that the bishops of the province should assemble twice a year for the regular synod.
The twentieth forbade again the transfer of an ecclesiastic from one city to another, except in the case of grave necessity.
The twenty-first ordained that complaints against bishops or clerics should not be heard except after an investigation into the character of the accuser.
The twenty-second forbade ecclesiastics to appropriate the goods of their deceased bishop.
The twenty-third forbade clerics or monks to sojourn in Constantinople without the permission of their bishop.
The twenty-fourth ordained that monasteries once established, together with the property assigned to them, should not be converted to other purposes.
The twenty-fifth ordained that the metropolitan should ordain the bishops of his province within three months (from election).
The twenty-sixth ordained that ecclesiastical property should not be administered by the bishop alone, but by a special procurator.
The twenty-seventh decreed severe penalties against the abduction of women.
The twenty-eighth ratified the third canon of the Council of Constantinople (381), and decreed that since the city of Constantinople was honoured with the privilege of having the emperor and the Senate within its walls, its bishop should also have special prerogatives and be second in rank, after the Bishop of Rome. In consequence thereof he should consecrate the metropolitan bishops of the three civil Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia.
Despite the fact that the author is as ignorant of Catholic theology as perhaps Hahn is of Orthodox theology, he nevertheless makes some good points.
His following paragraph is an argument I have often used when talking to Protestants and potential converts about the faith, but replacing the word "Orthodox" with "Catholic":
"At this point, allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible. Nor is it based or derived from a set of oral teachings running parallel to the Bible. The Orthodox Church is the living Body of Christ - the living experience in history of the union of mankind with God in the divine-human Person of the Only-Begotten. The Word of God is not a book, but a Person. The Prophets, both those of the Old Covenant and those of the New, are those who have seen and heard and touched the Word of Life.24 The Divine Scriptures and the writings of the Saints are the written witness to this experience, but they are not the source of this experience."
This is ultimately why he is hoist by his own petard when he gets his knickers in a twist over doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory and the Papal Primacy. The Church has not defined these doctrines primarily because they are clearly enunciated in Scripture - it doesn't matter whether they are spelt out in Scripture or not. The Church has defined these doctrines because they are true and they conform to what Catholics have always and everywhere believed since we received the Faith from the Apostles. It is precisely because the Catholic Church is the living Body of Christ, animated by the Holy Spirit who leads us into all things revealed by Christ, that her faithful can recognize in these doctrines the same authoritative truth that Jesus bestowed on the apostolic Church who first committed the Faith to writing.
Having said that, with the benefit of the gift of supernatural faith, it is readily apparent that understanding Scripture in its typological, allegorical and anagogical senses, all these doctrines are supported by the Word of God. But that is of more relevance when one must defend these doctrines against those who lack faith and who believe that Christianity is a religion that one can invent from a book.
You have yet to object to Elisabeth's words to the Virgin Mary in the gospel of Luke which are AT LEAST as gloryfying as the phrases you posted.
You have proven yourself yet-another-protestant ignorant not only of church histroy but your own denomination's true attitude toward it.
Elisabeth was addressing a living woman, face to face. She was not committing the sin of necromancy, of trafficing with the dead.
Do you deny the book of revelation which specifically mentions the prayers of the saints will intercede for the living?
... material wealth doesn't necessarily "honor" its recipient (i.e. mother/father).
Sounds like the Pharisees' point of view ...Mark 7:7 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away. Their worship is a farce, for they replace God's commands with their own man-made teachings.'
8 For you ignore God's specific laws and substitute your own traditions."
9 Then he said, "You reject God's laws in order to hold on to your own traditions.
10 For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'Anyone who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.'
11 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, 'Sorry, I can't help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I could have given to you.'
12 You let them disregard their needy parents.
13 As such, you break the law of God in order to protect your own tradition. And this is only one example. There are many, many others."
Which isn't what the church does. We don't see any need to prooftext like you folks do; our faith isn't reverse-engineered from the Bible.
Reverse-engineering can be a good thing ... particularly if that's the only way to recover the truth.
P.S. It worked for Josiah.2 Chronicles 24:14 As Hilkiah the high priest was recording the money collected at the LORD's Temple, he found the Book of the Law of the LORD as it had been given through Moses.
15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the court secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the LORD's Temple!" Then Hilkiah gave the scroll to Shaphan.
16 Shaphan took the scroll to the king and reported, "Your officials are doing everything they were assigned to do.
17 The money that was collected at the Temple of the LORD has been given to the supervisors and workmen."
18 Shaphan also said to the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a scroll." So Shaphan read it to the king.
19 When the king heard what was written in the law, he tore his clothes in despair.
20 Then he gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the court secretary, and Asaiah the king's personal adviser:
21 "Go to the Temple and speak to the LORD for me and for all the remnant of Israel and Judah. Ask him about the words written in this scroll that has been found. The LORD's anger has been poured out against us because our ancestors have not obeyed the word of the LORD. We have not been doing what this scroll says we must do."
Also worth noting:
In 1976, in a lecture in Graz, Austria, Cardinal Ratzinger stated: “What was possible in the church for a thousand years cannot be impossible today. In other words, Rome must not demand from the East more recognition of the doctrine of primacy than was known and practiced in the first millennium.” This so-called “Ratzinger proposition” was well received; it had a wide echo and has become the major theme of several ecumenical dialogues.
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?textID=1569&articleTypeID=1&issueID=333
It is clear that John Paul, Walter Kasper, and then-cardinal Ratzinger all have interpretations of Chalcedon which difer from your own.
For the EVIL living, if I recall correctly! That they would get what's comin' to 'em! Nothing about the godly living trying to establish a connection with "the departed."
The communion of the saints has been affirmed by the church since apostolic days, for it is found in the Old Roman symbol, the Apostles' Creed. That they no longer need fear death and the grave, that they would live after death in Christ--nothing was more central to the dynamism of the first Christians. The earliest Christian creed is found in 1 Cor 15 and it addresses exactly this point. St. Paul says that if death were the end of it all, we of all men are most miserable.
And you Calvinists, after 1500 years, were willing to throw out all of this, believed from the very first generation of Christians, because you were afraid of necromancy? When we pray, asking Mary, our mother, our sister in the Lord, when we ask our Lord's first martyr-witness, Stephen, to join in our prayers, to add their prayers to our prayers, to permit us to join in their prayers around the throne of the Lamb, we do this in and through Christ. The Communion of Saints, upon which invocation of the prayers of the saints and martyrs who have gone before us is based, the Communion of Saints is possible only because all of us have been incorporated into Christ in baptism. We have died with Christ and rise from the waters of salvation in Christ and we shall live in Christ. Because of the powerful interconnection that Christ created in his Body, the Church, we dare to invoke the prayers of Mary, Stephen, John the Baptist, Peter, Andrew, Chrysostom, Augustine, and all the saints, all the holy ones around the throne in heaven.
And you dismiss this ancient practice of the Church by which those who have died in Christ remain active members of his body and intercede on our behalf around the throne, you dismiss this as necromancy?
How impoverished is your vision of the Scriptures, of the glimpse of life in heaven that John the Evangelist gives us in the Book of Revelation, the glimpse that Stephen had as he gasped his last breath. After 1500 years you decide that it's all a bunch of necromancy.
Well, you can have your narrow little wretched truncation of the great truths of the faith, if you prefer it. Like the dwarfs in C. S. Lewis's Last Battle you would sit in the midst of verdant pasture and beautiful blue skies (paradise, heaven), eyes wide open but seeing nothing, convinced you are still surrounded by the wretched walls of the stable/barn.
Sir, we would not dare to try to establish a connection with "the departed" had Christ himself not already established that connection in his Body, the Church, which is found both in heaven and on earth. But, because Our Lord himself established this connection and his apostles preached it when the spoke of the communion of the saints, the cloud of witnesses who have gone before and dozens of other passages, because the connection simply is already established in Christ our Lord, we would be unfaithful to Christ, we would slap him in the face if we were to ignore the connection he established when he poured out his life's blood for us upon a cruel cross.
No, you are completely misinformed. It is not we who "try" to establish a connection with the departed. It is we who are connected by life in Christ himself, with the faithful departed who surround his throne in heaven.
You are the one unfaithful to apostles clear teaching. You have elevated Calvin's soul-sleep to a dogma superior to that of the very apostles Christ himself chose and authorized to write down his message in the Holy Scriptures of the New Covenant. Following your false teacher, Calvin, you dare to reject the apostles' teaching about the meaning of incorporation into Christ and the active membership in the Body of Christ that continues around the throne after death.
I hope and pray that Jean Calvin repented of his error before he died so that he too will be there around the throne and by his prayers, perhaps can plead with Christ to be merciful to those trapped in his soul-sleep fantasy.
Certainly 1, the saints are not dead if they are living in heaven. 2, if they're prayers are of value on the day of judgement then certainly it is worth asking that they pray for us.
Further you hardly need bother 'recall correctly', there are numerous online bibles. BlueLetterBible.org has several translations searchable and free.
Here's a list of times saints are mentioned in scripture:
Deu 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them.
Deu 33:3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints [are] in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; [every one] shall receive of thy words.
1Sa 2:9 He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.
2Ch 6:41 Now therefore arise, O LORD God, into thy resting place, thou, and the ark of thy strength: let thy priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints rejoice in goodness.
Job 5:1 Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints wilt thou turn?
Job 15:15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
Psa 16:3 [But] to the saints that [are] in the earth, and [to] the excellent, in whom [is] all my delight.
Psa 30:4 Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.
Psa 31:23 O love the LORD, all ye his saints: [for] the LORD preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer.
Psa 34:9 O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for [there is] no want to them that fear him.
Psa 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
Psa 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
Psa 52:9 I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done [it]: and I will wait on thy name; for [it is] good before thy saints.
Psa 79:2 The dead bodies of thy servants have they given [to be] meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.
Psa 85:8 I will hear what God the LORD will speak: for he will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints: but let them not turn again to folly.
Psa 89:5 And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.
Psa 89:7 God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all [them that are] about him.
Psa 97:10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psa 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD [is] the death of his saints.
Psa 132:9 Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness; and let thy saints shout for joy.
Psa 132:16 I will also clothe her priests with salvation: and her saints shall shout aloud for joy.
Psa 145:10 All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee.
Psa 148:14 He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; [even] of the children of Israel, a people near unto him. Praise ye the LORD.
Psa 149:1 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, [and] his praise in the congregation of saints.
Psa 149:5 Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
Psa 149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.
Pro 2:8 He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.
Dan 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.
Dan 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Dan 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom [is] an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Hsa 11:12 Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit: but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.
Zec 14:5 And ye shall flee [to] the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, [and] all the saints with thee.
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Act 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
Act 9:32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all [quarters], he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.
Act 9:41 And he gave her [his] hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.
Act 26:10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against [them].
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.
Rom 12:13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
Rom 15:25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
Rom 15:26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
Rom 15:31 That I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judaea; and that my service which [I have] for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints;
Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Rom 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.
1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1Cr 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Cr 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1Cr 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
1Cr 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and [that] they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
2Cr 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy [our] brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
2Cr 8:4 Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and [take upon us] the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
2Cr 9:1 For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you:
2Cr 9:12 For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God;
2Cr 13:13 All the saints salute you.
Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Eph 1:15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Phl 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Phl 4:22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.
Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Col 1:4 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love [which ye have] to all the saints,
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:26 [Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
1Th 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
1Ti 5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
Phm 1:5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
Phm 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.
Hbr 6:10 For God [is] not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Hbr 13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four [and] twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Rev 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer [it] with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
Rev 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, [which came] with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.
Rev 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
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.