Protestantism: the body of Christ? [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

View Full Version : Protestantism: the body of Christ?

James F.

05-07-2006, 03:48 AM

alexei

07-07-2006, 07:30 PM

James,

Like my response in your other thread, I'll try to keep this short and succinct.

You will be hard-pressed (or at least one hopes so) to find an Orthodox statement of damnation for anyone. We can make no such statements with certainty. Moreover, the Church makes very few proclamations of salvation (through Her saints). God's ways are not our ways--they are both infinitely more merciful (e.g., the pericope of the adultress) and infinitely more terrifying (the story of Abraham and Isaac) than our own. Everyone must approach his salvation with fear and trembling! Of course, this is easier said than done.

Yours in Christ,
Alesha

Ken McRae

07-07-2006, 10:36 PM

Are Protestants in the body of Christ?

That's a good question, James, but like all good questions, we're rarely the first to think of them; so it begs to reason that a lot of ink has been "spilt" over this one. Part of the problem is that the term Protestant covers such a vast territory of confessions and practices these days, that blanket (overally generalized) statements about them are rarely correct.

For example, Luther taught a doctrine of justification by faith "alone", (as you have discovered,) which is sometimes refered to as sola fide. Now, the problem with this formula, in part, is not the "justification by faith" part, but the "alone" apart. What does he mean by alone? Does he mean that we no longer need the sacraments, as the Quackers and Salvation Army soldiers tell us? And if we don't need the sacraments, then we don't need the Church or the Priesthood. So, then, ultimately we are "alone" with just our faith; and the Bible, and this ultimately spells "self-justification", as one member stated in another thread.

In Orthodoxy, it is taught that the only way to enter the Church, or Mystical Body of Christ, is through the grace of baptism, which is described by Christ as "being born of water"; followed then by the mystical grace of holy chrismation, which He described as being "born of the Spirit". Now, while Protestants in general retained forms of at least two sacraments, (despite their own rigid anti-sacramentalism,) the Quackers and Salvation Army sects retained none! So, then, by a logical necessity these particular Protestants and all Protestants, for that matter, who have never been baptised, are by necessity outside the Church, whatever experience they claim.

In some cases, though, Protestants are not re-baptised upon conversion to Orthodoxy, but are received into the Church via holy chrismation. What kind of ecclesiological implications one can legitimately draw from this phenomena or exercise of divine economy, is perhaps best explored from the inside, after a good Orthodox cleansing, or after you have received the "oil of gladness". A second question that merits attention concerns the precise canonical status or relationship of a "formalist" (or "formal hypocrite") to the Church.

Is the Pharisee who boasts an Orthodox baptism, chrismation, and marriage, but who has not retained his baptismal grace and vows, (but rather has in his heart departed into a far-away land, secretly practicing mortal sins,) but still attends Church and receives the Holy Sacrament each week, is this "formal" hypocrite still regarded as a member of the Orthodox Church? I'm personally inclined to view such a person's relationship to the Church as perhaps even less certain than that of a devout Protestant's.

M. Markewich

07-07-2006, 11:54 PM

Are Protestants in the body of Christ? I was just studying about this guy named Luther. He realized that no one can enter into heaven, but by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. So he made a protest against the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant come from the word Protest. Am I right so far? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If Protestants, who believe and treasure the name of the Son of God, have repented of their sins, and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation go to heaven? I can't imagine Protestants going to hell only because they are not Catholic.
God Bless
Hello again, James!

You real Orthodox out there, please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I've read even some non-Orthodox, and those on their way to becoming Orthodox, have been admitted as saints. Saint Sava the Goth, for example, was an Arian converted by the Arian Bishop Wulfilas. Obviously, this is pretty big - Sava denied that Christ was one with the Father. There are also many examples in the Church of catechumens who died before being baptized (they are said to be "baptized in their own blood"), but were sainted. Of course, you have the thief on the cross, too. The Emperor Saint Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop. There was also a whole congregation of Gothic Arian Christians, again under Wulfilas who were killed by the Pagan Goths, and all of them were recognized as saints (they are commemorated on March 26, at least by the OCA). (I got most of my information from oca.org and the rest from wikipedia).

So those recognized as saints themselves seem to bear witness that there are definitely people who are outside the Church but will be in Heaven anyway.

Michael Astley

01-09-2006, 09:04 PM

Hello again, James!

You real Orthodox out there, please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I've read even some non-Orthodox, and those on their way to becoming Orthodox, have been admitted as saints. Saint Sava the Goth, for example, was an Arian converted by the Arian Bishop Wulfilas. Obviously, this is pretty big - Sava denied that Christ was one with the Father. There are also many examples in the Church of catechumens who died before being baptized (they are said to be "baptized in their own blood"), but were sainted. Of course, you have the thief on the cross, too. The Emperor Saint Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop. There was also a whole congregation of Gothic Arian Christians, again under Wulfilas who were killed by the Pagan Goths, and all of them were recognized as saints (they are commemorated on March 26, at least by the OCA). (I got most of my information from oca.org and the rest from wikipedia).

So those recognized as saints themselves seem to bear witness that there are definitely people who are outside the Church but will be in Heaven anyway.

Indeed! Of course, none of this in any way implies that those outside the Church (which group includes protestants), are inside it.

The traditional Christian understanding, attested to by Scripture, the Fathers, and the practice of the Church, is that Holy Tradition is a fulfillment of Christ's promise to the Church of the Holy Spirit, who would lead us into all Truth. It manifests itself in the life of the Church, and more specifically in Holy Scripture, the Oecumenical Councils, the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), the writings of the Fathers, and the daily worship and life of the Church. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and has been leading us into the Truth since then.

The Church - the community of the New Covenant in Christ - exists where that Tradition is, for our Christian unity is in the Truth of God. From our Orthodox perspective, a departure from this Holy Tradition - the guidance of the Holy Spirit - is a departure from the Church.

There have been different heterodox ecclesiologies which have tried to suggest otherwise but each one fails in that it is a departure from the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Tradition of the Church. The Church has Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit to lead it into all Truth and it is in that Truth that it is united. A denial of this Truth is a separation from the Church.

For example, the Anglo-Catholic Branch Theory taught that the Church exists in three distinct "branches": Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. The criteria for being part of the Church under this theory were a retention of the threefold Apostolic ministry, adherence to the Creeds and the Sacraments, and some others that I can't remember off the top of my head. The main problems with this, of course, are that neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy ever accepted it and the vast majority of Anglicans had never even heard of it.

Many people in heterodox confessions today believe in some development of the Branch Theory, perhaps broadening the criteria to encompass more churches without the markers of the original Branch Theory, and accepting more than three branches, but the core principle is still there, and it is this core principle that we Orthodox do not and cannot accept. We do not believe that to reject the Church's beliefs, which are the Christian Faith, is consonant with being in the Church, for to do so would be to say that Christ was wrong when He promised the Spirit of Truth and that the Holy Spirit has been leading the Church into error for the better part of 2000 years. This is blatant heresy.

Now I firmly believe, and I'm sure that many Orthodox here and elsewhere would agree with me, that God is a merciful God. We hear time and time again in our liturgies that God is "a good God and a Friend of man", and so I do genuinely pray that he would extend that mercy outside of the Church. However, I have no certainty that he will, as it only within the New Covenant that there is the assurance of sacramental grace and I don't think that it's my place to attribute to God my ideas of what is and isn't fair or just, and so I offer it as my prayer but don't go any further in terms of speculating what God will or won't do outside of the community of the New Covenant - the Church. The fact that people like the thief on the Cross (Dismas?) have been assured of salvation simply proves the point that God is capable of bestowing his saving grace outside the Church. It doesn't form some sort of blanket salvation to all who reject the Truth of Christ and so cannot be taken to mean that Protestants are part of the Church that they reject.

I do firmly believe that God has made his grace freely available to us through the Church, but that various heterodox confessions throughought history have separated themselves from the Church by omitting aspects of the Church's Tradition (in terms of belief and practice). As it is within the Church that we have the assurance that grace is available, this separation is a rejection of the assurance of that grace on the part of the institutions that embrace those confessions.

However, I fully recognise that, in many cases, this separation occurred centuries ago, and that most individuals currently within these churches have made no conscious decision to be separate from the Church (as was indeed the case with me for years), and most are unaware of the issues surrounding their separation. Largely, they've just continued going where they have always gone and seen this as participation in the Church with no problem. They are just trying to work out their salvation as best they know how, as indeed is true of all of us, and so I see that pastoral sensitivity needs to be put into overdrive when approaching such people. The widespread practice in some jurisdictions of receiving converts by economy instead of Baptism & Chrismation together does not help get our message across as it allows the heterodox to continue in the dangerous and false delusion that they are already sharing in the Sacramental life of the Church.

That said, the history of Christian division aside, over which none of us living had any control, when each of us leaves home on Sunday mornings, the only person who controls where we go is us - so there is a degree to which the responsibility for our continued states of union or separation from the Church lies with us as individuals and people cannot use history as an excuse to continue in their present states of separation.

Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Saviour, save us!

Ty Pearson

28-09-2006, 05:26 AM

Father Alexander Schmemann wrote of the Church as a force to be reckoned with. Since reading this (somewhere in the introduction to his Introduction to Liturgical Theology) it has been on my heart many times throughout my days. I find his statement useful because I do not locate my faith simply in the affirmation of the various propositions Christianity affirms, though they are true and are very important. Rather, the truth of Christian claims is played out and verified in the life of God's people. In other words, watching Christian people live Christian lives allows me to really believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father to come again in glory and judge the living and the dead...

What I'm saying is that were it just me deciding whether or not Christian claims were true or not I would probably be unable to sustain a Christian faith. Fortunately this is not the case. Even if I were to abandon my faith this moment the Church would not go away (please allow me to leave "Church" undefined for the moment). The existence of the Church is a testimony to the truth of the Christian faith.

I'm sure we are probably all on the same page so far, but why bring this up in the present thread? As a reluctant Protestant I certainly see all the flaws in our "churches." We don't know or care about the Christian tradition, we view the Bible anachronistically, our faith is overly rational, etc... BUT, as my profile reveals, I'm still a Protestant. I don't know if this will always be the case but the reason it still is the case is that I can't help but see the continued existence of the Protestant "churches" as a force to be reckoned with.

I pray for the unity of the Church and I definitely recognize Protestantism is not the way to achieve such unity, however, those of us who were born into Protestantism and still have a ministry here cannot simply forget the faces and souls we have loved and respected all our lives as we strive to recognize the delineations of a map whose lines have been blurred through 2000 years of history.

The key is most definitely to work out our faith in fear and trembling. As I try to do this I do not know where I will end up, but I am led to see the Church not so much as an area to be marked out in certainty but as a river that has flooded over its banks, leaving puddles and streams outside of itself, while still containing the same life-giving water. Life in the protestant churches affirms this.

Blessings,
Tyler

The river language is borrowed from Father Tillard, a Roman Catholic ecumenicist and author of Church of Churches.

Xristoforos McAvoy

24-12-2006, 06:54 AM

If the protestants do not have the "Holy Qurbana" the sacrifice which IS the body of Christ, how can they be the Body of Christ?

That is for me the most important thing that makes a Church legitimate besides Apostolic succession (Scandinavian Lutherans and Anglicans have that). I believe that protestant churches are important ecclesial communities and not legitimate authentic "Churches" except for the two mentioned above.

As a Roman Catholic I dont feel the protestants were wrong simply for breaking with Rome I feel that they are wrong because they went into directions farther out than christianity had gone before in any successful long term way. A partial schism is bad but it's not such a big deal to me. To Use the bible for salvation is ridiculous. That is why for me I view the Orthodox in a way I never viewed the protestants and never will. And the way I view the Orthodox is as an equal if not superior edler whom I should learn from fully, a challenge and compliment to my own Churches teachings.

John Hammond

25-12-2006, 06:50 PM

We Orthodox I think have tends to see the differences between Churches. For example the RC /Orthodox.

I am new to this forum so please forgive, and better yet give me correction if this subject has already been covered, or if I am in the wrong spot.

Lets look for what binds us rather than what separates us? The most important being Love (God, Self, and Neighbor.) I put love of self ahead of love of neighbor for if we do not love God we have no love to give to our neighbor.

Having said that Is there anything in the RC theology that if believed would prohibit the believer to enter heaven?

Thank You All and Merry Christmas.

Andrew

26-12-2006, 04:40 AM

The Church is the body of Christ, physically, mystically, in all ways truly the Body of the Theanthropos who sits upon the right hand of the Father. The Orthodox Church is not a religious organization - it is an organism in which fallen humanity is crucified, illumined, and deified by God himself to take part in the very life of the Trinity. Protestant communities do not produce God bearing Elders like Saint Silouan; they have no proof of salvation working in this life; oftentimes they make devout, honorable, righteous men and women, who will probably have a much easier time in the Last Judgement than I will, but they do not make GODS. The Orthodox Church is in the business of making gods.

Orthodoxy is not a religion, it is reality itself, it is life itself, it is Christ himself. Saint Paul is clear about this - "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, whe he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his Body, the Fulness of him that Filleth All in All."

Those who take part in the Eucharist take part in Christ himself. If a man rejects the Eucharist and the Church, he does not fully accept who Christ is. He is not a part of Christ... he may admire him and attempt to worship him in a certain way, but he is not Within His Body. I am thankful for what my Evangelical upbringing gave me in the past, but I cannot say I took part in the life of Christ Our Lord back when I was a youth in that faith.

If I remember correctly, the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com wrote a good book on this subject called The Nonorthodox.

Michael Astley

26-12-2006, 09:25 AM

Andrew, what a superbly accurate and yet humbly charitable assessment of the reality of the present state.

I think that you and I (as you will see from my post earlier in the thread) are at about the same place with regards to this. I, too, value the grounding that I received in Anglicanism, from the interesting blend of Anglo-Catholicism and American televangelism that I encountered in St Kitts to the more subdued, liberal Anglo-Catholicism that I encountered in the Church of England. I needed to pass through those stages to reach where I am now, but I cannot recognise myself as having been part of the Body of Christ at that tims, because while I, personally, may have liked to convince myself that I was, it would be out of acordance with the teaching and self-understanding of the Church throughout the ages. It simply doesn't tally.

It is with great pain that I knelt at communion my last few Anglican masses, not knowing whether my priest was a priest, whether my baptism was indeed a Baptism, or whether what was coming towards me wasthe Body of Christ or just a piece of bread. Should I reverently kneel and adore a piece of bread or should I not, and risk turning my back on my Lord and my God? I was in tears some Sundays and I could no longer stay. It was then that I finally approached the Orthodox priest who had been helping me and asked for Baptism. Blessed be God!

I pray that God, in his infinite mercy, will bestow grace upon those outside his Church but I am sure that such grace will not be received as a result of them sharing in the Sacraments because they simply do not do this. How can the Sacraments, instituted by God as means of his grace within the New Covenant - within the Church - operate in a context where people reject this very Covenant - this very Church? God's grace is freely given but He doesn't force it upon us when we reject it. This is why I cannot understand it when some people take umbrage at not being able to receive Communion in Orthodox churches but at the same time have no desire to be Orthodox. Surely, being Orthodox and sharing in Communion with the Orthodox are both one and the same thing, not so? How can one exist without the other?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

26-12-2006, 05:00 PM

I pray that God, in his infinite mercy, will bestow grace upon those outside his Church but I am sure that such grace will not be received as a result of them sharing in the Sacraments because they simply do not do this. How can the Sacraments, instituted by God as means of his grace within the New Covenant - within the Church - operate in a context where people reject this very Covenant - this very Church? God's grace is freely given but He doesn't force it upon us when we reject it. This is why I cannot understand it when some people take umbrage at not being able to receive Communion in Orthodox churches but at the same time have no desire to be Orthodox. Surely, being Orthodox and sharing in Communion with the Orthodox are both one and the same thing, not so? How can one exist without the other?

Yes, this is what we often forget or overlook. As St Cyprian of Carthage explains, the Church is the only context we know for the sacraments. We do not deny grace outside the Church. But this is not the direct grace of the Church as the Body of Christ.

And as you correctly point out a large measure of this grace is from a conscious undertaking of the Church's way of life. The present day practice of separating the sacraments from the Church's way of life really ends up denying what the Church is for it implies that grace operates despite how one lives.

Of course to be fair no one using the name of Christian denies that grace goes with a way of life. It is this way of life though which is always lacking, at least in its fullness, outside of Christ's Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nicolaj

26-12-2006, 09:47 PM

As the Holy Chuch says the humble how are not in the church but are searching for the truth and trying to live a life in love (caritas) and serving those stumbling etc., and they haven't had a chance to hear the gospel they will inherit the heavenly Kingdom with us, the sinners.
In Christ-Nicolaj

John Charmley

27-12-2006, 12:55 PM

Dear Michael,

It is good to have your contributions back here again.

When you write:

It is with great pain that I knelt at communion my last few Anglican masses, not knowing whether my priest was a priest, whether my baptism was indeed a Baptism, or whether what was coming towards me wasthe Body of Christ or just a piece of bread. Should I reverently kneel and adore a piece of bread or should I not, and risk turning my back on my Lord and my God? I was in tears some Sundays and I could no longer stay. It was then that I finally approached the Orthodox priest who had been helping me and asked for Baptism. Blessed be God!

I have two reactions: the first is an acute feeling of recognition; the second something less easily summarised.

I know that acute pain of kneeling at the Eucharist and no longer being sure whether this is the body of Christ or whether it is a pale imitation; the pain cannot be described, but it can be felt.

It is the uncomplicated approach to Orthodoxy that is foreign to me; or is it a complicated approach? My introduction to Orthodoxy has come via an Oriental Orthodox Church, in which I have to say I find all that posters here say about Orthodoxy. Then I read those little diagrams showing the line of descent of various Churches; the EO ones have a continuous stream with diversions going off; the Roman Catholics have the same diagrams - differing only in having the RC stream being the continuous one. I admit I haven't seen a Protestant one, but then they wouldn't need one. I haven't, however, seen an Oriental Orthodox one.

Even engagement with Orthodoxy isn't quite as uncomplicated as many converts imply.

In Christ,

John

Michael Astley

28-12-2006, 12:02 AM

Dear Michael,

It is good to have your contributions back here again.

Bless you! What a kind thing to say! Having only posted a few times befoere I didn't realise that I would have been recognised.

It is the uncomplicated approach to Orthodoxy that is foreign to me; or is it a complicated approach? My introduction to Orthodoxy has come via an Oriental Orthodox Church, in which I have to say I find all that posters here say about Orthodoxy. Then I read those little diagrams showing the line of descent of various Churches; the EO ones have a continuous stream with diversions going off; the Roman Catholics have the same diagrams - differing only in having the RC stream being the continuous one. I admit I haven't seen a Protestant one, but then they wouldn't need one. I haven't, however, seen an Oriental Orthodox one.

Even engagement with Orthodoxy isn't quite as uncomplicated as many converts imply.

I hear what you say, John. I think that we've just come from different places. For me, it really was that uncomplicated.

I was already aware of who had split from whom and who accepted or rejected which belief because it was a personal interest of mine. My personal idea of history would have been very much akin to the Orthodox timeline. The thing is that, as a branch theorist, I didn't see that any of this mattered. Knowing where we had all come from was all very fascinating but didn't actually have any significance as all of us with the tactile element of Apostolic succession were different "branches" of the "invisible church" anyway.

Of course, I shed that idea, and when I did finally come to recognise the branch theory and its variations for the nonsense that they are, the answer was quite straightforward. I didn't consider the Oriental churches or Rome as options because I was already quite familiar with the histories and they had finally taken on meaning for me. It was to be Orthodoxy.

My only decision was one of jurisdiction, and even then I was already rather well pointed in a particular direction, partly because of a chance encounter on ebay which led to regular correspondence and partly because of a priest (now my parish priest) who made the effort to e-mail me to make sure that I was ok and to take the time to speak with me on the phone. Both were in ROCOR, and there I saw firm affirmation of the very reasons that I felt I had to convert and also an unapologetic missionary attitude.

Reading of other people's journeys has made me realise just how blessed I was but I did really find it that uncomplicated. The adjustment and adoption of an Orthodox mindset and life is proving to be difficult but that is another matter.

And so here I am, a fresh little ROCORite.

John Charmley

28-12-2006, 05:56 PM

Bless you! What a kind thing to say! Having only posted a few times befoere I didn't realise that I would have been recognised.

Dear Michael,

Quite the opposite, I remember your earlier posts for their knowledge and their eirenic good sense, and it is nice to hear your voice again, so to speak.

For obvious reasons the route by which people have approached and found their way to Orthodoxy greatly interests me, and I am struck by what might otherwise seem to be the element of accident in where people end up in terms of jurisdiction.

What you describe as ROCOR's 'unapologetic missionary attitude' interests me, not least because it sometimes almost seems as though some parts of the Church resemble that servant in Matthew 25 who was given one talent:

25:24 Then he who had received the one talent came and said, `Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed.
25:25 `And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.'

- just holding the pearl of great price tight to us seems not enough.

In Christ,

John

Michael Astley

28-12-2006, 07:32 PM

Ian Leyda

28-12-2006, 08:41 PM

For example, Luther taught a doctrine of justification by faith "alone", (as you have discovered,) which is sometimes refered to as sola fide. Now, the problem with this formula, in part, is not the "justification by faith" part, but the "alone" apart. What does he mean by alone? Does he mean that we no longer need the sacraments, as the Quackers and Salvation Army soldiers tell us? And if we don't need the sacraments, then we don't need the Church or the Priesthood. So, then, ultimately we are "alone" with just our faith; and the Bible, and this ultimately spells "self-justification", as one member stated in another thread.

Dear Theophilus,

It may be helpful to recall the context of Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone. His argument here was in "protest" against the system of indulgences set up to finance the building of St. Peters basilica in Rome.

Though indulgences were set up as as a monetary "gift of gratitude" for God's forgiveness, by Luther's time they had been misunderstood by the people as a mechanism of purchasing the forgiveness of God. It had become common practice for people to "buy" forgiveness of sins with money. Because it had become so lucrative, the Church did nothing to correct the misunderstanding.

"Sola Fide," then, is a doctrine of justification to be understood within the Church. Luther is echoing the Pauline doctrine of justification found in Romans (Rom 3:21-31) and adds "alone" for emphasis. Justification happens by faith "alone," apart from the Law and the indulgences of the Church. Luther is not arguing that justification happens apart from the Church, from her sacraments, or any other. That is a different issue.

Luther affirms a doctrine the Church already holds but had allowed to lapse. Ironically, this is a call to return to orthodoxy. He is reminding them of what the Church has always believed about justification. His intent was not to start a new "church" but to reform the Catholic Church from within. But, of course, he was excommunicated and ultimately had to flee for his life.

Peace,

Ian

John Charmley

28-12-2006, 09:56 PM

I agree with you, John. There is very much a danger of hiding the treasure that we have found, and it is precisely that danger of which we need to be wary.

I have said elsewhere that I find it interesting that Antioch and ROCOR, while perhaps different in many ways, are the two jurisdictions that I have heard non-Orthodox say that they would be most likely to join should they convert.

Dear Michael,

Very interesting indeed, and, from the sound of it, two very different ways of approaching the task of mission - but, as you say, very successful ways.

It is, given the history of Orthodoxy and the West since the middle ages totally understandable that the first thing that might strike the Orthodox mind in relation to the West is that it is some sort of threat; John Paul II's apology for the treatment of the Orthodox Church in the past was a very welcome sign of the recognition of the harm that has been done - and of a resolution to move forward in a more positive fashion.

But one of the challenges of our time is how Orthodoxy and the west are going to interact, both in terms of external relations between the Orthodox Church and the Western Churches, and in terms of the development of indigenous Orthodoxy; historically the Orthodox Church in America is where it was in Russia in the eleventh century, and without the advantage of a monarch who can say the whole realm is now converted; but a thousand years from now things will be very different; we are but part of the stepping stones on the way.

If there is a cultural and historical dimension that 'the West' needs to address in its dealings with Orthodoxy, then the same is true, mutatis mutandis of the relationship between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox. There might be thought to be at least a generic resemblance between the Roman assumptions of cultural superiority towards the EO in the centuries when the Great Church was in captivity, and the 'European' assumptions of cultural superiority towards the 'Orient'. I won't weary anyone here with the vast literature on the phenomenon of 'Orientalism', but it can certainly be witnessed at a cultural level in the relations between both the Western and the Eastern Churches, and between them and the Oriental Orthodox.

Much though some of us may look at some of what passes for ecumenism with suspicion, other parts of what passes for it have allowed real steps to be made towards healing the broken body of Christ's Church. Of course 'real' unity must follow the resolution of 'real' difficulties, but in so far as ecumenism helps provide a climate for that to be done, it has something to be said for it.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

28-12-2006, 09:59 PM

Dear John,

Michael is right. Orthodoxy is dead simple. It was its directness and simplicity which persuaded me it is true. Here I am in Moscow, and we pop into church for the evening service most evenings (a real luxury!). And in the atmosphere here, you know how simple it is. Whichever church you find yourself in, there is such grace! Yesterday, though, we went to the evening service in a church in the centre of Moscow which was never closed. It has not been cleaned and done up by some sponsor. We just stood and prayed and felt the grace flood over us! No argument can persuade - only experience.

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

28-12-2006, 10:18 PM