parresia

"With one interpreter there is one church. With many interpretors there is denominationalism."

Classic, Jer. I think you've penned one of those phrases that people find themselves quoting generations after it was given.

Thank you Wayne. Some things we wish we didn't have to say though.

off the subject, I greatly appreciate our time together, being able to talk over these ideas. You've helped me in many ways more clearly present my ideas.

I'm also blessed to have a beautiful fiance who I can express my ideas to, and her questions often aid me in my presentation.

Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

Schaff, on page 174ff, purports the notion that the ante-Nicene fathers based their Orthodox Unity belief on a fallacy. So says Schaff the fallacy is that

[the ante-Nicene fathers] blindly identified the spiritual unity of the church with unity of organization, [they] insisted on outward uniformity at the expense of free development...

Again, the fathers realized the FACT that what they protected was THE FAITH (uno), and that ONE faith had to be protected by a unified body. Just as Christ was God's sole representative on earth, so too he left one representative on earth: the church. It is not a mistake nor coincidence that that unified body the ante-Nicene fathers associated themselves with is still in existence today: the Orthodox Church.

Of course God will save some outside the walls of Orthodoxy, that's not the point, but who is the ordained and justified spokesman for God? There can logically be only one spokesman. Is not that spokesman-- lead by a counciliar body of bishops, who from the time of the Apostles have been ordained by the laying on of hands, even to our very generation-- to accomplish the very thing the ante-Nicene fathers knew to be their responsibility over 1,600 years ago?

Schaff assumes the existence of a "spiritual unity." The fathers recognized that for a spiritual unity to be possible there was required a unified body to defend, interpret, and uphold that unity.

I'm currently reading Fr Schmemann's "Eucharist" and it has a rather long section on unity and the Faith, and goes along with you, Jeremy, but in reverse, as it were:

"In unity is the very essence, the very content of faith, which also is entrance into unity...Faith is the partaking of the unity from above, and in it of the 'beginning of another life, new and eternal.'"

Seems it is true "both ways": without unity there is no Church - without Church, the Body of Christ, there is no unity. So the unified church is a sign of the spiritual unity and vice versa. The visible, unified and ancient Church as sacrament of the Kingdom of God.

My Protestant friends, I ask you to read Schaff's words and ask yourself: is it really so easy to simply dismiss the fathers as wrong?

BTW, as part of the Greek final we got a passage to translate that wasn't from the NT (so it wouldn't be familiar). I was from the Didache on Communion. I got goosebumps when I began to put it together. What a cool prayer, maybe I'll use it some day in a Communion service. You know, that thing we Protestants do monthly with grape juice?

Huw, Thanks for your words; you make a good point.

Tim, it almost sounds like you're turning. :-)
(or is that merely my wishful thinking?)

I do know exaclty what you mean when you mention "getting goosebumps;" so many of the ancient prayers are absolutely magnificent. BTW, the Didache is rather important amongst the ancient texts of the Orthodox faith; I'm curious to know if you have read any more of it, and what your thoughts are?

God be with you both.

Sorry Jeremy, it is just your wishful thinking. I have no interest in the Orthodox Church. However, as I am a catholic Christian, I have to listen to the voicecs of the past as well as the voices of the present. Too many Protestants are skeptical of the past because they (unwittingly) have fallen prey to the Roman Catholic propaganda that all Church history is Roman Catholic history. It isn't. Prior to the Reformation the distinction between Roman Catholic and Protestant didn't exist, it is anachoristic to read that distinction into history. It isn't Roman Catholic history nor is it Protestant history, it is Church history. The Roman Catholic Church chose her path at Trent in denying salvation by faith alone and that was her (as we know her today) beginning. The Protestant Church chose another path about the same time and that is her beginning. The Orthodox rift happened a long time ago but it is essentially the same thing.

Yes, I have read the Didache though it has been a while. I find it a fascinating document! To think that it was *this* close to getting into the New Testiment. The section on baptism should quite a number of debates (though it doesn't). The document was to be reviewed by those seeking baptism and then after fasting they were to be baptized by immersion in moving water and if that wasn't available then in still water and if that wasn't available then by sprinkling.

That speaks volumes to today's baptism debates. First, there is no provision for infants, only those who could fast and be catechized. Second, it shows that the primary mode of baptism was immersion (as Baptists maintain) but that sprinkling was valid too (as other maintain). Third, it shows that catechism prior to baptism was part of the church. No rushing the converts to the swimming pool upon profession.

Too bad we (the Catholic Church, i.e. all of us) listen to this voice from the past. There is a good chance this document was written by the Apostles!

Jeremy -

As a former Anglican myself I do tend to doubt that the Anglicans are connected in anyway to the historic Church. I would have stayed in communion with them if I thought they were.

One of the "bumps" I had to get over on my path of conversion... asking myself if I was willing to accept the Church's claim to be The Church. One of the things that "got" me was a letter from St Raphael of Brooklyn (c 1913) that says, (forgive the length of the quote):

***
"I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices, as well as the discipline, of the whole Anglican Church are unacceptable to the Holy Orthodox Church. I make this apology for the Anglicans whom as Christian gentlemen I greatly revere, that the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. I speak, of course, from the Holy Orthodox Eastern Catholic point of view. The Holy Orthodox Church has never perceptibly changed from Apostolic times, and, therefore, no one can go astray in finding out what She teaches. Like Her Lord and Master, though at times surrounded with human malaria—which He in His mercy pardons—She is the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8) the mother and safe deposit of the truth as it is in Jesus (cf. Eph. 4:21)."
***

It pained me greatly to realize that what he said then was equally (if not more) true now. Generally, all of protestantism left me with that feeling. As you wisely said, "with one interpreter there is one church. With many interpretors there is denominationalism" and I would add 'and so, not the Church.'

St Raphael, now my patron saint, Pray for us!

His letter is here http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/straphaelcanonized/lives/Anglican.html

Huw,

I do greatly appreciate your thoughts, and thanks for writing out that quote; I enjoyed reading it.

Concerning Anglicanism my point was not that Anglicans have a claim to being "The Church," I wanted merely to include Anglicans on my list of the few churches that actually do claim apostolic succession...and it seems there is historical support for such a succession.

Briefly, before becoming Orthodox, I looked into Anglicanism, and I must say that I was in no way convinced that they (Anglicans) were in a much better position than Protestants. It seemed to me that Anglicans too (with the Episcopal break, etc) had consistency problems of their own. I can understand your want to leave their ranks.

What's interesting however, is that I have a Protestant friend who is VERY disallusioned with church in general. For a couple weeks he attended an Orthodox church, trying to find something more that Protestantism could offer, but was immediately turned off by the teachings on Mary, and some teachings concerning Divorce. As a result he now finds himself unwilling to go back to an Orthodox church, yet not at all excited about going back to a Protestant church either. In his current case (though I would love for him to become Orthodox) I believe he would be better off going to a "High Church" Anglican church than back to a Protestant denomination. I see Anglicanism as a step in the right direction (high view of Communion, liturgy, church calendar, etc)... what are your thoughts?

Indeed, not to be over-simplistic, but once one looks into Orthodoxy; once one lives Orthodoxy (not just reads a couple of books on it), I do not see how one could come away from it and remain in any other church. But that's just me. :-)

Let my heart speak not from pride, but rather from gratitude, and may God have mercy on my soul.

God be with you.

Thank you for your reply: I'm working hard on getting over my bad feelings around Anglicanism - please forgive me if they came out too strongly in my earlier post.

You have a good point about it being a step in the right direction. I, too, have a friend who is working hard on issues like the Theotokos and no longer having sola scriptura to fall back on. In that light Anglicanism might be some sort of a half-way house, if you'll forgive the image. And, if it were one of the more stable sorts of places an Anglican church could provide the via media helping one to learn about Mary and the Saints and Tradition in language that a Protestant speaks.

You said - "Indeed, not to be over-simplistic, but once one looks into Orthodoxy; once one lives Orthodoxy... "

Add me to that list. All the reading I had done, all the theology and praying... all fell into place watching Great Week roll past, one service after another. It makes sense living it.

HI..all very intersting, and an informative good site you have. so..i thought id share the site of our corner of heaven, ST. Elias Byzantine Catholic Church (ukrainian), By His Mercy, Emile

www.ssintelias.org

ooppppss! sorry., thats www.saintelias.com , must be tired.:)

I am under the impression that the reason Lutherans hold to infant baptism is because it was held by the church in the first four centuries. Is that correct? Or did it only start with Augustine?