Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
That's true, a believer seeks God. This obedience is more than an outward sign, however. It is proof that we are persevering, proof that Christ is active within us. Without this, without actively seeking God's will, what sort of faith do we have? James talks about such "faith" in James 2, remember? Even the devil has "faith" - but he certainly does not seek God diligently.
James asks the theoretical question "what would you do if a poor man came into your community, asking for food or clothing"? This is a practical question that defines our faith and love. By our faith working through love, we are persevering in Christ - we are justified. But it doesn't follow that if I do have this positive attitude today, that I will answer James rhetorical question in the positive 10 years from now. I will always ultimately have free will to reject God, although this will be more unlikely as we are further sanctified.
Regards
Interestingly, we have developed the idea of "command responsibility" in the post-WWII judicial system. The person in charge is responsible even if he or she never directly participated but somehow allowed a crime to be committed while they are in command.
This was the basis for the Nuerenberg trials and the subsequent bad imitations of the same. Yet, we do not see any "command responibility" in the case of Job. We separate the soldier from the Commander, and blame, curiously, the solders for a suggestion and not the Decision-Maker.
If satan could entice God to ruin Job for no apaprent cause, than how could God punish Adam and Eve for letting the devil talk them into eating the forbidden fruit?
"On the second question, the church I have in mind is the Church of God, the one that Jesus formed. Of course there can be no one date when Catholicism "left" this church."
_________________________________
I think that point was reached when the Bishop of Rome began to claim special status and authority over all the other Bishops. IMHO, at this point the political became as important, if not more so, than the spiritual.
"I am not sure – given the virtual apartheid that existed linguistically and in day-to-day life of the Greek and Latin Churches since the 5th century A.D. – that a Greek would have recognized the same Faith in Rome or Spain even in the first millennium, let alone understand the language of the Liturgy, yet the Churches were in full communion."
I believe quite the opposite -- that they *would* have recognized the same faith. There is no way to prove either proposition, I would suppose.
Think of St. John Cassian, who moved back and forth between East and West -- he obviously recognized the same faith in Egypt and the Holy Land, and when his writings about what he experienced there returned to the West, they inspired and influenced Western monasticism. Think, even, of the fact that at Charlemagne's coronation, the Pope celebrated a Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
The world of the first half of the first millenium was a rather cosmopolitan one, and I would argue that the world of the second half of the first millenium was far more cosmopolitan than is commonly assumed -- both in the east and the west.
The linguistic "apartheid", as you call it, contributed to the schism in that it delayed the East's awareness of the rising strain in the West that ended up dominating Catholicism after the political takeover by the Franks.
I know that when I visit pre-schismatic church buildings, listen to pre-schismatic western chant, read pre-schismatic western patristic writings, read pre-schismatic western liturgical texts, etc..., it seems *very* familiar to me.
But that is just an opinion. It may be that all that kept the bishops in communion with each other were agreement on dogmatic declarations of faith. I think it was more than that, but again, this is difficult to prove.
"The real Great Schism that widened the gap between the two Churches occurred not in 1054 but in 1870 (Vatican I), when the ex-cathedra infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was added (and eventually dogmatized)..."
I would agree completely that it is the dogmatic declaration of infallibility that seems to be the major obstacle at this time. The filioque is still a major dogmatic theological issue, at the heart of things is are core differences in how we look at grace, original sin, etc... -- but I'm not sure to what extent the later Roman teachings are considered to be dogmatized (although they will *all* have to be dogmatized for a union to take place -- they are issues, and would need to be resolved in Council.)
But I simply do not understand how, given the fact that Orthodox Christians willfully, in full knowledge, reject that conciliarly-declared dogma of the Catholic Church, we could be invited to partake of communion in Catholic Churches. How can one be considered to be of the same faith when one specifically rejects a dogma?
Calling Vatican I a local council doesn't help -- are we to say that the Pope is infallible in the West, but not in the East? He loses his infallibility when he crosses into the territory of the Patriarch of Serbia, or any doctrinal statements he makes in writing are infallible in Rome, but not in Constantinople?
When we receive the elements of the Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus Christ. That is one of many concepts that we "share".
Not if he doesn't want to get reprimanded and possibly excommunicated, he doesn't.
That's the Orthodox bishops' decision, not Rome.
You are attempting to boil down Christianity to a lowest common denominator. And how does this differ, really, from the Protestant lowest-common-denominator contention that they are all Christians and part of the one Body of Christ, even though they disagree on lots of things that I for one see as being pretty significant?
Again, I ask you, what de fide statements are ignored by either Church? Do we both have valid sacraments, meaning the same thing? Do we equally confect the Eucharist? Do we have ministrial priests? Do we share the same baptism? The same loaf? We are part of the Body of Christ, both the Orthodox and the Catholics. There is not two bodies. We both are apostolic churches. Protestantism does not share any of these above EXCEPT the one baptism. I think your comparision is way off mark.
For the most part, the answer is "we don't know, and neither does anyone else."
That didn't seem to prevent people at Nicea and Chalcedon from making statements about the ESSENCE of God, which you say no one can know anything about... The fact of the matter is that when the Church gets together in a properly convoked Ecumenical Council, it is guided by the Spirit of truth. Thus, such things as the infallible doctrine of Purgatory, while not completely definied, has been based on the Tradition of the Church, as well as deeper study of Scriptures, as well as the prompting of the Spirit.
What definition of the word "schism" are you referring to, when saying that it is not a separation?
Our communities are separated in worship proper, but we still are united in Christ as part of His Body.
I'd like to see the pre-schismatic patristic references that speak of the Church granting plenary indulgences to the departed.
Indulgences are granted to the living, AFTER confession and one's sins have been absolved. Do you or do you not agree that the Church provided for "punishment" for the serious sins of a Christian? Was this punishment earning forgiveness that was already given? What was the purpose of this punishment? It is pretty clear that the idea is already there, even if we don't see the words "purgatory" or "plenary indulgences".
As to the Fathers who write about this third state, they are plentiful. Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, Basil, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, John Crysostom - that is just up to 400 AD. They all mention that some sort of purgation occurs in the next life, in line with the pre-Christian belief in this third state of existence. Prayers for the sake of the dead have efficiency. This has been an ever constant concept among the Fathers. Now, a little thought logically leads to "Purgatory", as prayers are not useful to those in Hell, nor are they needed for those in heaven. And "nothing unclean shall enter heaven".
My objection, which I have kept to myself for some time, is that it is being repeatedly and categorically stated on this thread that we are One Church, when this by no means a shared view.
Brother, there is no salvation outside the Church. With your definition of Church, either EVERY Catholic or EVERY Orthodox, ALL Protestants, and ALL other non-Christians are going to hell. Are you willing to categorically state that? If so, your definition of "Church" differs from the Fathers. Before 300 AD, the Church accepted as valid the Baptism of heretics and schismatics. If so, then anyone properly baptized is a member of the Church, even if in a very limited fashion.
Regards
I read somewhere that Calvin quoted St. Augustine over 1000 times.
You'll never fully understand the decision of the 4th Lateran Council of 1213 affirming that the Eucharist can only be given by a priest and that salvation is through the Church only, unless one understands the political situation that Rome had been fighting a "Holy War" for 200 years and people were leaving the Church rather than fight.
This has been refuted before. It is a ridiculous view of history. First, St. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 100 AD, said ONLY THE BISHOP could confect the Eucharist. Seeing the growth of the Church, the Bishop delegated this authority to priests. Apparently, some were confecting the Eucharist who were not priests. You are seeing conspiracy because you have been trained that way. You have previously told me that the doctrine of the Eucharist was based on the Crusades and the need to get bodies to the front lines! Same with indulgences! Ridiculous. The concepts were BOTH part of the Church well before the Crusades. But since Calvin and his group felt the need to vindicate their leaving the Church of Christ, they had to make the worst accusations against the Church to justify their own pride.
As to salvation outside the Church, this has been amply explained to you. If you desire, I can cut and paste it to you to jog your memory.
You'll never understand the Council of Orange creeds unless you understand the heretical doctrine of John Cassian (a great saint of the Orthodox) and his relationship to Pelegius
You still don't understand the doctrine of the Second Council of Orange... as to St. John Cassian, understand his words from his time and his background, a monk. It is only future men who saw in Cassian's words the need for some correction, as his were not finely nuanced theological words, but practical words meant for monks.
You'll never understand how the western church maintained two sets of doctrines (one based upon Cassian) simply because Cassian did a Pope a favor.
Two doctrines? I would have to see what you are talking about, but this idea is not uncommon. It's called paradoxical teachings. We believe in two doctrines that appear contradictory but are not upon closer examination. For example, God suffered/God is transcendant.
I hate to sound cynical but many of the decisions of Rome isn't based upon the "tradition" of the fathers. Rather its based upon the expedient need of the Church at the time.
Whew, now you just need to study more on what was going on in Constantinople from 350-1000 before you make such narrow accusations. Then, go to Geneva around 1550 and see what was happening. Or in Salem, MA. Or in England. Please. Stop being a hypocrite. Politics plays a role in many religious decisions - and if God is directly responsible for EVERYTHING that man does except the guilt of sin, is it surprising that God would "inspire" man through political machinery?
This conspiracy idea is tiring. Is something evil once you see Rome had something to do with it?
Regards
Satan didn't entice God. God made Satan. God made Job. God knew what He was doing.
Would you care to explain to me why God stated that He cause Job's ruin?
You have this backwards. Politics should play NO role in religious decisions. Religious decisions should play a role in politics. Paul certainly didn't worry about politics when he stood up to the Jerusalem Council. You're suppose to do what is right, not worry about politics.
Rome isn't evil. There are some good things from the Vatican. They have beautiful artwork.
"Make that 40%, O.K. make that 30%, 20% and that is off the gross. Alright 10% but that's net after expenses. That should earn me something towards eternity."
______________________________
If a dollar represents a measurement of goods and services and goods and services are the products of works then it follows that if I give enough dollars (works) I can buy my way into heaven. Or am I thinking about indulgences?
"Would you care to explain to me why God stated that He cause Job's ruin?"
Job 1:10-12
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Don't forget to take into account spiritual inflation and those unseen charges like pride, self sufficiency snd self satisfaction. I suppose those who are waiting to find out if they measure up will be disappointed at how much equity was eaten up by inflation and the hidden charges.
Well stated Harley. In the History of Christianity by Paul Johnson, he states that Paul was not exactly enthralled with the 'center' party in Jerusalem, nor them with him, and if James was our Lord's brother, imagine the element that adds to the whole thing?
Unfortunately, the politics started too soon after our Saviour's death, but it seems to me everyone had to see that coming, as Christ left a human church as well as a Divine one.
From Schaff's History of Christianity:
"The conversion of Paul marks not only a turning-point in his personal history, but also an important epoch in the history of the apostolic church, and consequently in the history of mankind. It was the most fruitful event since the miracle of Pentecost, and secured the universal victory of Christianity.The transformation of the most dangerous persecutor into the most successful promoter of Christianity is nothing less than a miracle of divine grace. It rests on the greater miracle of the resurrection of Christ. Both are inseparably connected; without the resurrection the conversion would have been impossible, and on the other hand the conversion of such a man and with such results is one of the strongest proofs of the resurrection.
The bold attack of Stephen—the forerunner of Paul—upon the hard, stiff-necked Judaism which had crucified the Messiah, provoked a determined and systematic attempt on the part of the Sanhedrin to crucify Jesus again by destroying his church. In this struggle for life and death Saul the Pharisee, the bravest and strongest of the rising rabbis, was the willing and accepted leader.
After the martyrdom of Stephen and the dispersion of the congregation of Jerusalem, he proceeded to Damascus in suit of the fugitive disciples of Jesus, as a commissioner of the Sanhedrin, a sort of inquisitor-general, with full authority and determination to stamp out the Christian rebellion, and to bring all the apostates he could find, whether they were men or women, in chains to the holy city to be condemned by the chief priests.
Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world, known in the days of Abraham, and bursts upon the traveller like a vision of paradise amidst a burning and barren wilderness of sand; it is watered by the never-failing rivers Abana and Pharpar (which Naaman of old preferred to all the waters of Israel), and embosomed in luxuriant gardens of flowers and groves of tropical fruit trees; hence glorified by Eastern poets as "the Eye of the Desert."
But a far higher vision than this earthly paradise was in store for Saul as he approached the city. A supernatural light from heaven, brighter than the Syrian sun, suddenly flashed around him at midday, and Jesus of Nazareth, whom he persecuted in his humble disciples, appeared to him in his glory as the exalted Messiah, asking him in the Hebrew tongue: "Shaûl, Shaûl, why persecutest thou Me?363 It was a question both of rebuke and of love, and it melted his heart. He fell prostrate to the ground. He saw and heard, he trembled and obeyed, he believed and rejoiced. As he rose from the earth he saw no man. Like a helpless child, blinded by the dazzling light, he was led to Damascus, and after three days of blindness and fasting he was cured and baptized—not by Peter or James or John, but—by one of the humble disciples whom he had come to destroy. The haughty, self-righteous, intolerant, raging Pharisee was changed into an humble, penitent, grateful, loving servant of Jesus. He threw away self-righteousness, learning, influence, power, prospects, and cast in his lot with a small, despised sect at the risk of his life. If there ever was an honest, unselfish, radical, and effective change of conviction and conduct, it was that of Saul of Tarsus. He became, by a creative act of the Holy Spirit, a "new creature in Christ Jesus."
This tells what I think is the reason for St. Paul's independence and love of freedom. There is not another Christian writer, priest, pastor, rector, vicar, etc. who so joyously imparts the Good News to his congregation. When St. Paul died, decades elapsed and the corralling (necessary or not) of the Faith began, the freedom in Christ, that he so wanted his congregation to keep so close to their breast was lost to exigencies.
As usual that is an excellent analysis. I have always placed the decline around 600AD but on reflecting on your statement, I believe you're right that it started with the death of Paul. The freedom was lost to organizationalism.
"When you compare 2:3 against 1:12, "..The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands", you can only reconcile these verses by saying God not only allows all things to take place but views Himself as responsible although He may not perform the act."
In 1:12 God limits Satan to Job's possessions "keep your hands off his person." In 2:3-7 God acknowledges he was "provoked" by Satan. Satan challenges God again, "lay a finger on his bone and flesh, and I warrant he will curse you to your face." So, a somewhat capricious God says to Satan "...he is in your power. But spare his life." Three things, I think, are important. God concedes that Satan was able to provoke Him. God goes against his first prohibition and allows Satan the power to touch Job's person. And, God asks Satan to spare Jobs life. It seems to me that God is really allowing Job and Satan to go head to head. If this were not true, what would be the lesson or merit of the story?
Thanks. In Missouri, I have to turn in my COE credits by the end of July, so this helps me catch up. :)
[+John Chrysostomos] "As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost, then are we exposed, ready to be snatched away, as a “bowing wall, and a tottering fence” (Ps. lxii. 3.); when the wall is weak, it will be easy for all to surmount."
With all due respect to +John Chrysostomos, I must respectfully disagree with his premise. His paraphrase of John 10:28 LEPT off the page at me. He equates "As long as we are in the hand of God" with "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish". These two ideas are worlds apart, so while I can appreciate the argument that he makes, I honestly do not think he is starting from the actual words of the scripture. I see him as proving tradition by tradition. Likewise, he starts with the premise of translating "no one is able to pluck us out” into "no one except himself is able to pluck us out”. I simply note that this isn't what the verse says.
"I suppose those who are waiting to find out if they measure up will be disappointed at how much equity was eaten up by inflation and the hidden charges."
_____________________________
Sounds like I need to take out a loan.
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.