parresia

Even some Protestants agree: See Wayne's webite for more.

Orthodoxy is a challenge to us who have been in organisations which claim to be 'New Testament Churches' - that is, which purport to be based on the belief and practice of the early Church. If indeed they were, such churches would be liturgical and sacramental, because the early Church was liturgical and sacramental. If such churches really want to do what the early Church did, they should convert to Orthodoxy!

It is also a challenge to those of us who declare that we follow the Bible, but claim the freedom to interpret it as we please. In rejecting the authority of the Pope, we each run the risk of making ourselves our own Pope in matters of belief, practice and interpretation. Such rabid individualism is not Biblical!

If we were to apply Saint Vincent's criteria to our own forms of Christianity, much of it would have to be tossed out because there is so much which has been added, and there is so much that we have omitted or deleted. The Orthodox Church, however, would stand without a need for Reformation, for it has held, without addition or subtraction, the faith handed down from our Fathers.

Jeremy - thanks for this posting. I had a thought rumbling in my head last night about the place of doubt in the process of faith and I could find no way to express my thoughts at all. You did this wonderfully:

Betsy...may be convinced that what the Orthodox call "Holy Communion" is merely a memorial in remembrance of Christ's work... she submits to the Orthodox Church and over time learns the historic, biblical Tradition of the sacrament of Holy Communion-- with time she'll find that Tradition of the church to be her conviction as well.

Thank you!

Natch, all due props if/when I finally write something :-)

Huw,

I'm glad my little example was helpful to you.

Though it is often difficult to admit, we as Orthodox especially, but I think Roman Catholics, Jews, and Muslims have similar experiences-- we simply must submit to the teaching of the Church even when it flies in the face of the "dogma" of our lives and prior educations. Needless to say, the "dogma" of our lives and experience is often uninformed "heresy" (in the loosest sense of the term); hence, a sometimes needed exfoliation.

In contrast-- hark, one of the joys of Orthodoxy-- is that submission to the Church reveals by ever greater degree how credible the Church is.

This really is a crucial difference between us and almost all Protestants: Protestants choose a church based on internal convictions/interpretations of Scripture, while the Orthodox (and others mentioned for the most part) submit to the authority of the external conglomerate body, i.e., the external Church-- not, mind you, the "invisible" church.

Admittedly, this is not to say that human reason and "judgement calls with/against our consciences" are not a part of the conversation-- our convictions are certainly a part of the search. The difference is that our convictions-based-on-reason ultimately must be subordinate to faith...and this is why we are Orthodox: trusting that God has not abandoned His church that He established through the Apostles.

Lord have mercy on us all.

I think Protestants might say that (1) there was no episcopate to begin with (a later development of men who were out of their wits and intent on corrupting God's word with the traditions of men - you know the story), and (2) men may rightly break away if those who are in authority are spreading the false teachings of men (again, you know the story). But as it is I agree with you, and even Protestants should see that, aside from questions of the legitimacy and origin of the episcopate, one should never under any circumstance break away from the Church, no matter how bad things get. Yes, it is always better to stay and fight.

I like what you say about submitting to the authority of the Church as well. How presumptuous it is to assume that one knows better than what the Church - the very body of the Lord Christ - has always taught and believed. If one finds herself in such a disagreement then the answer is not to find a Church that agrees with her interpretation but, as you say, to submit to the authority of the Church and to, well, just deal with it :-).

Three cheers for a good post.

Wayne Oh,

Thanks for your comments. Just curious, in your opinion what are the biggest issues facing the origin and legitimacy of the episcopate (perhaps only from a Protestant perspective)?

Saint Athanasios is a terrific example for us. Remember the well known phrase: "Athanasios against the world"

Even though most of the hierarchy was Arian (even post-Nicea) St. Athanasios never dreamed about leaving and starting his own "denomination." Instead he endured persecution and numerous exiles.

But, eventually he persevered and the heretics were driven out. This is the coolest thing about Orthodoxy in that Truth always prevails within her walls and we can have faith in her being guided by the Holy Spirit and so we need not look elsewhere.

Holy Saint Athanasios, pray for us!

Amen, James. Thank you.

Just poked my head in. Saw what I expected to see, a meeting of The Orthodox Admiration Society. :)

Just a question, who broke away from who over the filoque controversy? I mean, isn't Eastern Orthodox a breakaway from (or broken away from) something? Isn't that what the Protestant Church claims happened? Rome chose her course and we went with Apostolic teaching?

Talk amongst yourselves.

Tim,

Rome was the one who added to the Ecumenical Creed.

Rome was the one who defied all of the other four Patriarchates: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.

Rome was the one who sent Constantinople (the east) the "papal bull" of excomunication.

The eastern church is not a "breakoff" of anything.

In recent years it has fascinated me to think about the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christian sects today can be traced back to a specific founder, a specific (and typically very late) birthdate, or more generally a group of people breaking away from another group of people. Ahhh the branch theory...but guess who is the trunk? You'll find no founder and no birthdate for Orthodoxy unless you look to Jesus Christ and Pentecost.

I forgot to sign my name!!!

James
card-carrying member of the Orthodox Admiration Society.

You'll find no founder and no birthdate for Orthodoxy unless you look to Jesus Christ and Pentecost.

Rome was the one who sent Constantinople (the east) the "papal bull" of excomunication.

The eastern church is not a "breakoff" of anything.

I cannot believe that I am arguing from the side of Rome! What has become of me?

"Oh please James, EVERYONE says that! Rome certinally does and they claim that everyone departed from them."

everyone? like?

ok..maybe Rome...but are you willing to look at the history to see who might be right?

When you read about the slowly developing political and theological seperation of the Roman Patriarchate and the other 4 in the East it becomes clear. Rome stood alone and shared power and authority with noone in the West, while in the East the other four continued to share conciliar authority...basically keeping one another in line.

Over the centuries you can see the Roman authority changing and growing....you can also see theology changing and evolving without input from the East. The filioque being an excellent example.

I could go on and on, but the fact is (and I firmly believe history supports us) that the East maintained the ancient faith while Rome picked up her marbles and left the other four players because they would not play his game.

if you like:

http://web3.foxinternet.com/jsnk/orthodox/Roman%20Papacy.htm

AND

http://web3.foxinternet.com/jsnk/orthodox/Schism.htm

The history is there Tim and the simple existance of differing claims does not in and of itself mean that the truth cannot be discerned in the matter.

Rome was the one who sent Constantinople (the east) the "papal bull" of excomunication.

The eastern church is not a "breakoff" of anything.

~~~So what Rome would say is that you DID break away when you failed to follow the Pope.~~~

Yes, Rome would say that. But the difference is-- and this is key-- Rome ADDED to the Creed of the Church that was ecumenically decided upon. Put again, Rome unilaterally modified a statement of faith that was the "symbol" of faith for the entire church. Without an ecumenical councel to approve such a change, such a change is completely unjustified.

In short, Rome's actions demonstrated (and this is a historical point) that they strayed from the orthodox (ecumenical) faith.

Again, as James elludes to, history (the facts of the matter) are clear: Rome was the agent of destruction, not the east. This is not a matter of "he said, she said": this is a historical/factual point that is bourne out with but little historical inquiry.

Rome was the one who sent Constantinople (the east) the "papal bull" of excomunication.

The eastern church is not a "breakoff" of anything.

~~~So what Rome would say is that you DID break away when you failed to follow the Pope.~~~

Yes, Rome would say that. But the difference is-- and this is key-- Rome ADDED to the Creed of the Church that was ecumenically decided upon. Put again, Rome unilaterally modified a statement of faith that was the "symbol" of faith for the entire church. Without an ecumenical councel to approve such a change, such a change is completely unjustified.

In short, Rome's actions demonstrated (and this is a historical point) that they strayed from the orthodox (ecumenical) faith.

Again, as James elludes to, history (the facts of the matter) are clear: Rome was the agent of destruction, not the east. This is not a matter of "he said, she said": this is a historical/factual point that is bourne out with but little historical inquiry.

In short, Rome's actions demonstrated (and this is a historical point) that they strayed from the orthodox (ecumenical) faith.

Rome, the great schizmatic.

BTW, so is it NOT true that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son? I thought Rome and the East patched that up some time ago.

Hi Tim...

You wrote:
Cool, so Orthodoxy are the first protestants! :o) I mean, isn't this what Luther and Calvin and Zwingli said, that Rome had departed from orthodox doctrine?
___________________________

Well, certainly some Roman Catholics like to call us "proto-protestants" but really about the ONLY thing we share in common with the Reformation is our shared denial of the pope's authority.

In alot of ways RCC and protestants have more in common with each other than we have we either! This is no doubt why the likes of Calvin and Luther didn't run to the East - ultimately they had their own ideas on what Christianity is all about.

Rome went down a different path and her children are still wandering about trying to find their way home...hence 30,000+ different guides offering their services.

Also in regards to the filioque: No, the Orthodox deny the doctrine and do NOT recognize it as apart of the creed in any way, shape, or form. What we have affirmed (to which the RCC has said essentially: "it's all good.") is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and THROUGH the Son (as scripture makes quite clear.)

Thanks James, it was the repsonse I was expecting. The clown smiley face was showing that I was just ribbing you.

Rome went down a different path and her children are still wandering about trying to find their way home...hence 30,000+ different guides offering their services.

Again though, this quote sounds like something Protestants would says. Indeed, I've said it before, Rome chose her path at Trent and departed from Apostolic, biblical teaching in denying sola fide. Substitute filoque and toss in a council and you have Eastern Orthodoxy.

Now, I know that you Orhtodox guys (and I am still mad at you for abscounding that name!) are big on councils. Here's something I read in a book on the Trinity:

The councils of Lyons and Florence are generally considered the two "reunion councils" because they included delegates from both the Greek Eastern and Latin Western halves of Christendom and promulgated dogmatic assertions that were intended to achive unity of East and West by overcoming the unfortunate divisions cause by the filoque clause in the Western creed. The Second Council of Lyons met in 1274 in Lyons, France, and was attended by the Patriarch of Constantinople and two representatives of the Byzantine emperor. Pope Gregory X called the council and presided over it. The dogmatic significance of the council consists in the "Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit," which received support from both the Eastern delegates and the Western bishops and thus achieved formal reunion of the Greek and Latin churches. It affirms the filoque clause and concept as well as the concept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son "not as from two principles but as from one, not by two spirations but by one." The later qualification seems to have satisfied the Eastern delegates, who objected to the filoque clause on the basis that it involves a "double" procession of the Spirit that creates havoc for the unity of the Trinity as well as for the equality of the Spirit with the Father and Son.
[SNIP]
The Council of Florence (1438-1445) was the last general or ecumenical council of the Latin church to concern itself with dogmatic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It repreated much of what wsa already stated by Lyons II, with Greek delegates once again in attendance and agreeing to language that included filoque qualified byt the assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son as from one principle (not two) and in one procession (not two).

One last poke in the ribs before I run off and pay the bills:

What we have affirmed (to which the RCC has said essentially: "it's all good.") is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and THROUGH the Son (as scripture makes quite clear.)

VERY BIG *

Hi Tim...

you wrote:
This somewhat nebulus statement seems to infer that a) there is only one path
_________________________________

Isn't this what all of us Christians have always said in regards to Christ? I am not neccesarily saying there is one speicifc path to salvation for indeed salvation is a mystery and we dare not infer who is and is not going to "make it" as it were.

What I meant was that there is one path of authentic Apostolic Christianity.

You wrote:
b) all of these 30,000 guides are leading in different directions to different ends and c) we in the West are all Rome's childern.
____________________________________

I have no idea to what ends they are leading, but I think it is pretty clear that they are on different paths, lest they'd all see each other on Sunday mornings.

Are protestants the children of Rome? Well I dunno, certainly the prots and RCC share a very definitive history that certainly shows its influence in many areas.

You wrote:
Substitute filoque and toss in a council and you have Eastern Orthodoxy.

Well...hehehe...no way Dude...where are your icons?

Regarding the Councils:

A council isn't a council until it is a council. Does that makes sense? In other words a council isn't a council simply because a number of particular bishops were present. A council obtains its authority through a much more organic method in which the whole of the Church is involved. These two councils were highly politically motivated (Consider the political situation during Lyons as Constantinople was crippled by the 4th crusade and the Turks were taking Huge portions of the Empire, and by the time of Florence the Turks were virtually besieging Constantinople. In both cases the East was desperate for military help from the West) and the Eastern Church wisely and sternly rejected them both the minute news of their deicsions arrived in Constantinople.

"Better the Turkish Turban than the Latin Mitre" was the rallying cry and the Church would later canonize St. Mark of Ephesus - the one bishop who refused to sign the council of Florence.

Given all of the political pressures, it was quite clear that these councils were tarnished and not authoritative and in fact were never received as such in the East.

You wrote:
An evangelical Eastern Orthodox believer if I've ever seen one!

_______________________________

hehehe good one...well I said it in the hopes of convincing you...but give me some credit because I didn't provide a specific proof-text. :)

peace
james

the Eastern Church wisely and sternly rejected them both the minute news of their deicsions arrived in Constantinople.

Ribbing aside, since it was an East Meets West council, on what grounds did the East reject it? It was ecumenical was it not? On what grounds was it then rejected? And how is that any different than my rejection of the 7th and icons?

hehehe good one...well I said it in the hopes of convincing you...but give me some credit because I didn't provide a specific proof-text. :)

Looking forward to your answer on the council thing, I thought you guys accepted them if they were ecumenical, period full-stop. I'm curious now.

Hi Tim...

I'm strapped for time at the moment so I have to keep this brief - at least as brief as I am able (grin).

You wrote:
since it was an East Meets West council, on what grounds did the East reject it? It was ecumenical was it not? On what grounds was it then rejected?
______________________________

Authority in the East is not understood in the same sense that it is in the West. Frankly it simply isn't a cut a dry, forensic approach. (Pope makes a proclamation, Joe Protestant quotes a proof-text, or Ivan of Moscow convenes a council)

We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that ultimately the Church in her collective conscious with Christ as her head will be the ultimate judge of whether or not a council was truly authoritative - and sometimes this takes a long time. You know us Orthodox, we move with all the speed of a glacier - which can be a VERY good thing if you think about it. Remember, the Church remained for the most part Arian even after the heresey was condemned at Nicea.

As I mentioned briefly, a council is not neccesarily a council by virtue of its existance and the presence of certain Bishops. Certainly the presence of the Patriarch of Const. is nothing to neccesarily tout because if memory serves at least 5 or 6 of them through the centuries have been declared heretics. We don't have a pope, we don't have a magistrate to speak for us, and we don't have a magic formula for understanding exactly under what conditions a council is authoritative - except to say that when the Church at large comes to understand it as such.

The two councils you mentioned specifically were quite easily rejected on the grounds of the obvious political motivations which inspired what amounted to a surrender of Orthodox theology. In fact, these councils were rejected immediately - which should tell us something right off.

I hope this makes some sense...as I said it is a little "messy" when viewed from our western perspective (we like to have things neat, tidy, and categorized - like to say that a council is ecumenical and authoritative when more than 300 bishops are in attendance and that their makeup includes a represenative from each 10 degrees of latitude and longitude) Orthodoxy just doesn't work that way.

You wrote:
And how is that any different than my rejection of the 7th and icons?
______________________________

Well, you - in and of yourself - are not the Church.

I'll see if I cannot come up with a better explanation of Orthodoxy and the Councils...I fear I have not properly or fully explained the concept here.

peace
james

Excellent answer James, thanks. I had been lead to believe that once an ecumenical council spoke that was it. In response to that I pointed to the Arian heresy you mentioned and chaos ensued in the discussion.

Actually, your position on councils is pretty much the same as mine. I did a blog entry on this but the archive is acting up.

Now since Orthodox consider themselves The Church, I guess it isn't a problem if you reject a council, but if you accept it and someone else rejects it they're in trouble. Protestants are not The Church because they reject councils that the Orthodox accept so that puts them out of the Church.

This is an oversimplification but it sounds VERY much like the rest of Christendom. If you don't agree with me, you're not in the Church/church. I just don't see how you guys can gripe about Protestants! For you the councils are not authoritative unless the (some? how do you decide which ones?) Bishops approve, so the authority is not in the council, but in the Bishops. For us it is in the local pastor and elders and the individual. Your authority wear robes and ours don't.

Hello Again Tim...

You wrote:
Protestants are not The Church because they reject councils that the Orthodox accept so that puts them out of the Church.
___________________________________

No. Protestants are not in the Church because they have never returned to the Church. It makes no difference which councils they accept or reject.

You wrote:
If you don't agree with me, you're not in the Church/church
___________________________________

Belief and doctrine does not determine who is or is not in the Church. Only membership in the protestant "invisible church" relies on such a qualifier. Which is not to say that doctrine is not important...rather I should say that being IN COMMUNION with the visible Church determines whether or not one is in the Church and the doctrines should naturally fall in line behind.

You wrote:
For you the councils are not authoritative unless the (some? how do you decide which ones?) Bishops approve, so the authority is not in the council, but in the Bishops. For us it is in the local pastor and elders and the individual. Your authority wear robes and ours don't.
____________________________________

Oh dear, you see I did poorly.

For the Orthodox, there is no authority other than Jesus Christ who is head of the Church (not the Pope or Bishops), and the ever present guidance of the Holy Spirit (not the councils or any other institution.)

The infallibility of a council is dependent on the infallibility of the Church...EXACTLY LIKE the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures are dependent on the infallibility of the Church. How we can ascribe infallibility to a book and not do so for the Body which effectively wrote and compiled the contents of the book is beyond me. And note also that there was no ecumenical council which definitively defined the NT canon...rather it evolved organically over centuries and with a few pushes from some local synods and councils...but in the end, the CHURCH as headed by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit delivered to us the Holy Scriptures and in like manner can accept or reject councils.

It is a radically different understanding of authority than we are familiar with in the west and neither the RCC model (the pope or magistrate) or the protestant model (the scripture as interpetted by _________)come close to fitting the model of Orthodox authority.

In essence, one might summarize Orthodox authority as:

"The Church Abides."

Hope this makes sense....gotta run
james

highest quality replica jewelry Rolex watch, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com

No Fax Payday Loans - Faxless Cash Advance