Well that's simple enough. A Picture is worth a thousand words:
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yup.
"Quite another issue is whether the ecumenical movement is wise for the health of the Orthodox Church given the profound cultural crisis rampant in the West. Why on earth would you want altar girls and clown masses?"
Alex, a lot of us are very worried about precisely these things and you and I and Kosta have all seen the depredations committed in the old countries by an embrace of Western culture, almost invariably of the worst the West has to offer. But the flip side is that the sense of the sacred which is so profound in the East may in fact transform the West. Perhaps the "mission civilatrice" has been passed on to Eastern Christendom.
What works have you done that have contributed to your salvation.
I can't figure out if you're purposely being ignorant, or if you just like arguing in circles.
I've already explained the Lord's Prayer to you (hint - it's called the Lord's Prayer for a reason - because He taught it to us)
If you want to continue ignoring the examples I'm showing you, as well as vast amounts of scripture others have shown you, fine, so be it - I can't make you accept the truth. I can only pray that you'll be led to a church that is scripturally sound.
Orthodox Leader to Meet With Pope
Bartholomew says Benedict will visit him in Turkey sometime this year.
By MITCH STACY
The Associated Press
TARPON SPRINGS -- The spiritual leader of the world's 200 million-plus Orthodox Christians said Thursday that he is eager to meet with Pope Benedict XVI sometime in the coming year in an effort to heal the long-standing rift between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Visiting this heavily Greek community northwest of Tampa for the annual Feast of the Epiphany celebration, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I told reporters that the pope plans an official visit sometime this year to his headquarters in Istanbul, Turkey.
"We are in very good relationships with the present pope, Benedict XVI, and I'm in the very happy position to announce to you that we are going to restart the dialogue on the international global level between the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church," Bartholomew said in Greek through an interpreter, Archbishop Demetrios, who is primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America.
The last official talks between the two churches five years ago broke off without an agreement on theological issues that have divided them for almost 1,000 years.
Bartholomew had received a warm reception from the Vatican after inviting the pope to Turkey for the Feast of St. Andrew in PLEASE SEE CHURCHES, PAGE B2
November. But they were subtly rebuffed when the government of 99 percent Muslim Turkey, instead of approving the visit, issued its own invitation to Benedict for an unspecified date in 2006.
Because Benedict is also the head of state of the Vatican, any visit to Turkey would need to be coordinated with the Turkish government.
Bartholomew said Thursday that "within this year that has already begun, the new pope is going to visit officially the ecumenical patriarchy."
Both the current patriarch and the current pope appear deeply committed to bridging the rift between their estranged churches and helping to unite two of the largest branches of Christianity.
"The commitment of the Catholic Church to the search for Christian unity is irreversible," the pope said in June.
The Rev. Ronald Roberson, associate director of the secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said many people are waiting to see if the new pope will continue the efforts of his predecessor, John Paul II, to repair relations with the Orthodox church. Thus, a visit to Turkey would be significant.
"I think Benedict and Bartholomew are committed to getting it going again," Roberson said.
Pope John Paul II was praised by Greek religious and political leaders for his efforts to ease the division between the churches. John Paul II visited Greece in 2001, the first pope to do so in nearly 1,300 years, meeting with Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church.
Rifts between the two ancient branches of Christianity began as early as the fifth century over the rising influence of the papacy and later over wording of the creed, or confession of faith. The split was sealed in 1054 with an exchange of anathemas -- or damnations -- between the Vatican and the patriarch of Constantinople, now Istanbul, and still the spiritual center of Orthodoxy.
The collapse of the Soviet Bloc added to the tensions as both Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches tried to reassert their spiritual roles across Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
The status of Eastern Rite Catholics in former Soviet-bloc states was the primary issue that kept officials of the two churches apart when they met in the United States in 2000 for the last official International Theological Dialogue, Archbishop Demetrios said.
In Tarpon Springs, Bartholomew will preside over this community's 100th celebration of the Epiphany, which for Orthodoxy marks the baptism of Jesus at the River Jordan. About 80,000 are expected to descend on the small town for the Orthodox ceremonies and celebration of Greek culture, including the "Dive for the Cross" in which 56 teenage boys will try to be first to retrieve a wooden cross from the bottom of Spring Bayou.
It's grown to be the largest Orthodox Epiphany ceremony in North America and is overshadowed only by the world's largest in Piraeus, Greece.
While the Eastern design did achieve unity through diversity, we must never forget that it was a Pope who saved the East from falling into several fatal heresies. Let's not forget that Eastern greats such as +Chrysostomos, +Maximos the Confessor, etc. found refuge in papal Orthodoxy.
Clearly, the internal organization of the churches in the west and the east did not constitute problems. The language did, and so did the political realities. Our division is theological first and foremost. It may very well be that one day a Great Council will show that one of us was in error of some kind or at least in deception or some other kind of omission. It wouldn't be the first time. The Church never errs as a whole, but its parts do, because the Cbhurch is mad eup of sinners. There is no shame if one honestly tries and honestly fails. On the other hand, we may come to see that our divisions were our own pride and arrogance and, once stripped of them, we may humbly see more clearly that neither side was in error. That is a minor concern of mine, to be hoenst with you because the very foundations of our beliefs are one and the same, even to intricate details. I never thought I would see that, but I do now, thanks to our Protestant friends here. Until such Council is a reality, we need to live with our differences, but always cognizant of our foundation, which makes us one, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
For such a Council to be even called, we need to agree on the papal jurisdiction when it comes to other particular Churches within the Church. +Benedict XVI is set on discussing this matter, and he is ready to make the Latin Church more patristic, even if it means a smaller Church, which is precisely the patristic attitude.
I think the beginning of the end of schism is perception that we are (if not completely but almost completely) one faith, when we recognize the same theology, and that is becoming more and more obvious with ever-increasing exchange of our views officially and unofficially, as we learn more and more the traps of language and details of our separate but parallel development. It is clear that +Benedict XVI is steering the Church towards patristic roots and traditions of the Church, when East and West were mere geographical locations.
I just pray that his nerve, and his health hold out.
Thank you for your understanding.
Likewise. At least we honestly share the same feeling on that.
Note to Forest Keeper - You'll find the Orthodox do not accept the Nicene Creed as it is currently presented and what my reference based his statements on. As Kosta states and you broach on, how can the Trinity proceed one from another when they were all in the Beginning? I think Kosta raises a legitimate point. However, the Orthodox are equally at a loss to explain the references provided of one proceeding from the other and as is the belief stated in the Nicene Creed.
The makeup of the Trinity is a mystery despite what anyone has to say. No one fully understands it although people have attempted to explain it-never to anyone's satisfaction. It's like Ezekiel trying to explain that wheel thingy. All we know is that they are three and they are one.
There are supernatural forces that are simply outside our knowledge to grasp. This is one of them.
" What works have you done that have contributed to your salvation."
I suppose it depends on what you define as works. Whatever I do which tends to focus me on Christ, which moves me a bit more towards dying to the self, allows me to receive more of the fire of the Holy Spirit, which purifies and thus advance in theosis. I haven't achieved theosis. Very few of us will achieve anything approaching complete theosis in this life. But no matter what the ascetical practices I might adopt, no matter if I become a hesychast, nothing I do can effectuate, of itself, theosis. Theosis is only by the grace of God. But you already knew that, P-M.
"And just as tools without the workmen and the workmen without tools are unable to do anything, just so neither is faith without the fulfillment of the commandments, nor the fulfillment of the commandments without faith able to renew and re-create us, nor make us new men from the old. But, whenever we do possess both within a heart free of doubt, then we shall become the Master's vessels, be made fit for the reception of the spiritual myrrh. Then, too, will He Who makes darkness His hiding-place renew us by the gift of the Holy Spirit and raise us up new instead of old, and part the veil of His darkness and carry our mind away and allow it to peek as through some narrow opening, and grant it to see Him, still somehow dimly, and one might look on the disk of the sun or moon. It is then that the mind is taught -- or, put better -- knows and is initiated, and is assumed that that truly in no other way does one arrive at even partial participation in the ineffable good things of God except by way of the heart's humility, unwavering faith, and the resolve of the whole soul to renounce all the world and everything in it, together with one's own will, in order to keep all of God's commandments." +Symeon the New Theologian
I don't think you answered my question.
Well that's simple enough. A Picture is worth a thousand words:
" The makeup of the Trinity is a mystery despite what anyone has to say. No one fully understands it although people have attempted to explain it-never to anyone's satisfaction. It's like Ezekiel trying to explain that wheel thingy. All we know is that they are three and they are one.
There are supernatural forces that are simply outside our knowledge to grasp. This is one of them."
That's a pretty fair statement, HD. Everything we "know" about the inner workings of the Trinity, which is virtually nothing, is contained in the Greek of the Creed. The Greek is more expressive than the English or the Latin, but not much more.
"I don't think you answered my question"
I do!
Whatever.
Christ is born!
I've told you you are close. There is little difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox any more. And someday you'll discover how close you really are to most of the Protestant denominations. The roots of your side goes to free will. The roots of the truly Reformed Protestants goes to monergism.
It's my understanding that in the normal course of use, the word "covenant" refers to a mutual agreement. That is, except for in the Bible. I thought that Biblical covenants were actually one-way promises from God, requiring nothing in return from man (e.g. the rainbow).
You said when we fall, God allows us to suffer the consequences of breaking the promise. How can we break a promise we never made, or, what was the promise we made that is broken when we fall?
I also respectfully disagree that God "respects" our decision to sin. I agree that He allows us to freely sin, but I doubt that He respects the choice.
The problem with "if your salvation was true" is that WE don't know, only God knows if we are truly of the flock that hears His voice. By placing the onus on yourself to determine if you are saved, you take away God's free will on who is of the elect, aren't you?
I would say that I have nothing to do with determining whether I am saved, only God does that. I say that I can know the truth of my salvation, accomplished by God, through His promises. By God's grace, I know the sincerity of the sinner's prayer I said, and I know the sincerity of my belief. Therefore, I know I can rely on God's promises. I know I am of the elect because I am able to have the faith I have. God gives this faith only to the elect.
Thus, this implies that we WILLINGLY sin. If we willingly sin enough, we will NOT inherit the Kingdom. Whether you want to refer to this as "losing one's salvation" or "never having it in the first place" is semantics.
OK, but this depends on how we define salvation, real or falsely supposed. I would say that true salvation, even IF only known by God, cannot be lost through subsequent sin because God would not allow it.
If we were evil by nature, we'd always choose the evil. Scripture points out some examples of people who choose good, for example, Abel.
If saved people can still occasionally sin, why can't the lost do good? The basic sinful nature, though, remains until salvation.
If I know what the flip of a coin will be, does it follow that I caused it?
If you are God, and only heads fulfills prophesy, then YES! :)
I don't feel "forced" to do good. My will is slowly being formed to do what Christ does. ... When I do good, God is moving within me my will and desire, but not infallibly.
I believe the Holy Spirit works in us, partly, through our consciences. Would you accept "compelled by conscience" instead of forced? On the last sentence, God does anything "not infallibly"?
Even the Scriptures see that Christians saved sometimes continue to sin. It's a battle that is not finished yet, brother.
I wouldn't say sometimes, I would say always. The battle does continue throughout life, but I believe the victory of salvation can be sure to the believer.
God bless you, my brother.
Hey, I saw one of those outside my window... :O)
And I saw you through the porthole.
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.