Divided without division

[Rick H.]

"For those also who believe in Me"

Dear All,

In this forum we talk about "Ecclesiologies in Relation." And, straightway, my mind goes to the 'priestly prayer' of Christ for His disciples in the world in John 17. We see clearly that He is not just praying for those around Him that day:




I do not ask on behalf of these, alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; (John 17:20 a)



there is no limiting of the prayer of Christ on this day to the group that was around Him. And, he goes on to pray in (John 17:20 b):




that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us,



and then from here the words of Christ conclude in this verse with, "so that the world may believe that You sent Me." And, I think this is critical to and speaks to the subject of evangelism. Unity or the lack of it is clearly linked to belief or lack of belief in the gospel message that the Father sent the Son to the world. So, the subject of unity/oneness is clearly linked to the subject of evangelism, just as it is clearly linked to the Body of the Christ, the Church of Christ, the Church of God. But, we are not speaking of evangelism here in this thread. We are speaking of the Ecclesiology of ecclesiologies. And, so far, just as in the "Not I, but Christ" thread we are seeing quickly the primacy of belief and faith here as well.

And, as we consider the Ecclesiology of ecclesiologies, Orthodox 'ecclesiologies in relation,' this is not the same as doing a type of 'comparative ecclesiology' whereby we look at seemingly competing systems and then try to find the common denominator(s) in them and construct a Doctrine of the Church that provides a true Christological ecclesiology, is it? Wouldn't this be to approach the subject backwards?

So, with this in mind, I would like to ask, who are Christ's disciples, as He says, these who will believe in Me? Is there a limiting of the One Holy Catholic Church that we can point to with any degree of certainty?

1.) How did the early Church define it's boundaries?
2.) How does the Church today define it's boundaries?

3.) How is Christ defining her boundaries in the above priestly prayer?

And, it may be hard to avoid a consideration of the work of the Holy Spirit from the day of Pentecost to the present day in this consideration as well. But, I wonder what a discussion of the above would look like if we were able to keep well worn cliche's out of the picture for even just a few weeks here, and just consider the words of Christ, the words of the Apostles, and the acts of the Holy Spirit in and through the Body of Christ as it has been added to since the beginning of the New Testament Church. Is it possible to have such a conversation without short quick answers that almost act as conversation stoppers? I guess we will see.

In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

First, can I say that your response to Matthew's suggestion on the 'American Orthodoxy' thread seems admirably positive. Perhaps not so for those who found the old thread not to their taste, who now face the prospect of two or three more threads to avoid ...!

You are getting into territory which could quickly become conflicted; I hope that won't happen. I can imagine a straightforward response as saying 'well, the Orthodox Church is THE Church, so what's your problem - oh no, not more yatta, yatta, yatta' - or words to that effect. That, whilst understandable, would be to miss the points towards which you are trying to steer us; or so I sense.

There is a deep mystery at the heart of this question, and it is one touched on before on this forum. God's truth and salvation are to be found in His Church; yet can we, His creatures, comprehend His love or circumscribe it?

The early Church struggled hard with those who came to define the Church in a way that became recognisable as not Orthodox; even so, there were times when it seemed as though Arianism had almost triumphed; just as, later, there were times when Monothelitism had done so. We like to read our Church history as a process by which these heresies were overcome and vanished into the dust; there are grounds for suspecting it can't be read that simply; there are many ideas about today which echo these ancient heresies. Nor is that surprising, since the number of ways of constructing answers to Christological questions (for example) is actually limited, and if one does not take an Orthodox view, then the same thought-processes which led to the original 'heresy' are still there; not least in a society where the very notion of 'heresy' raises questions about intolerance and authoritarianism.

I am currently looking through ('reading' would be a little much) a book published by SCM Press called The Queer Bible Commentary edited by prominent scholars which, inter alia, invites us to extend the boundaries of 'the Church' by destigmatising lesbian/gay/bisexual/trans gender sexuality'. I shan't go further; even typing this much on this site seems a little too much; but there is no point pretending these folk aren't out there, and, in the dominant Churches in western society, in something of the ascendant.

Owen's comments, were he to come across this, might be imagined; and would be to the point. Such people are, after all, trying to construct a Church in their own image. It is such attempts which make, for some, the Orthodox Church a refuge from such syncretic heresy; but if the Orthodox Church is only an ecclesiastical Noah's ark, when are the waters going to subside?

If we resort to our helpful metaphor of the spiritual hospital, things perhaps become a little clearer. In this Orthodox hospital the care is first class and the cure certain; that is not to deny that there can be other hospitals were reasonable care can be had; but why check in there if one is in the best one already?

On the specific question of the limiting of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, one can easily slip into comparative ecclesiology with the attendant dangers of controversy; it has been known, even here. But if we turn the question in the way I suggested above, we have a mystery - that we cannot constrain God's love, but salvation is to be found only in His Church. That we believe. Yet His Church is not everywhere present - yet He is.

The answers are less important than the questions - and the ones you raise ought, if we tread carefully, to provide material for an interesting discussion.

Could it be said up front, however, since tone and nuance are often lost in Internet fora, and since pressing' submit reply' is quicker and easier than teasing out a nuance from something that has simply irritated one, that there is no suggestion of ecumenism or syncretism in any of this. These are question which, one hopes, can be asked and answered in a variety of wholly Orthodox ways.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote:



I am currently looking through ('reading' would be a little much) a book published by SCM Press called The Queer Bible Commentary edited by prominent scholars which, inter alia, invites us to extend the boundaries of 'the Church' by destigmatising lesbian/gay/bisexual/trans gender sexuality'. I shan't go further; even typing this much on this site seems a little too much; but there is no point pretending these folk aren't out there, and, in the dominant Churches in western society, in something of the ascendant.

Owen's comments, were he to come across this, might be imagined; and would be to the point. Such people are, after all, trying to construct a Church in their own image. It is such attempts which make, for some, the Orthodox Church a refuge from such syncretic heresy; but if the Orthodox Church is only an ecclesiastical Noah's ark, when are the waters going to subside?

I think this puts in a very clear way what has bothered me about the idea of a specific "American" (or "Canadian" or "German") church all through this thread.

The Church will naturally correspond to what we are as we correspond to God's will. But we do not know who or what we are at this point except to know that we constantly betray what God has given us. So that trying to base our life in the Church by attempting to have it correspond to 'what we are' is sure to fall into the abyss you have described. For this will make the Church into an image of one or more of our sinful preoccupations.

Instead we must begin and continue with a continual striving to be obedient to God and His Church. It is only through this that we become what we were created to be, without programs, which is the renewed Adam & Eve in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear John, Dear All,

What a busy day, what a good day. I should turn in for the evening but, I want to try to make 'just one more' post. Like the man at his favorite pub, having his brown ale and steak and kidney pie (as C.S. Lewis was fond of having), knowing he should leave and go home, he instead declares to all of his friends, "Okay, 'just one more' ale, but then I really have to go.

Because, John, how could I not acknowledge the contribution that you have made here in this thread today? When you suggest that the answers are less important than the questions, I can very clearly see, possibly like not before, that WE *do* speak the same language--yes, as you say we cannot constrain God's love. And, again as you say:




There is a deep mystery at the heart of this question, and it is one touched on before on this forum. God's truth and salvation are to be found in His Church; yet can we, His creatures, comprehend His love or circumscribe it?

. . . But if we turn the question in the way I suggested above, we have a mystery - that we cannot constrain God's love, but salvation is to be found only in His Church. That we believe. Yet His Church is not everywhere present - yet He is.

. . . The answers are less important than the questions - and the ones you raise ought, if we tread carefully, to provide material for an interesting discussion.



you overlap the deep mystery at the heart of this question with the work that is going on in the "Heart of Salvation!" thread. As stated before, and as is common knowledge, this thread--dealing with the ecclesial--works within the realm of the assembly, those called out, the ekklesia; whereas, the H.O.S. thread, works more in the realm of the individual, in the hope of bringing out what is necessary for an awakening to our personal potential within the Eucharistic community. But, how can one really be considered without the other? Yes, John, "a deep mystery" and not one that we seek to find answers so much as we seek to just first *simply* recognize, to acknowledge. And, then from this place of reckoning or enlightenment, then possibly we might dare to hope, while treading carefully as you say, but we might dare to hope in just the way the Bishop Ware has titled the last chapter of his book, "The Inner Kingdom." But, now we are getting ahead of ourselves aren't we. Because, this speaks to the third new spin-off, from the A.O. thread, yet to be initiated. But, even here, it seems there is a place of intersection, or a 'Common Ground' that starts to come into view as we even just begin to consider, "The Kingdom of God." So, possibly it would be best to wait until the third thread in this trilogy of threads/spin-offs is in place to proceed any further in this direction of daring to hope. But, again as I say, I could not possibly allow this seed to go by the wayside.

What is the difference between 'an ecclesiastical Noah's ark' and the deep mystery that is being pointed to in the above? Gratefully, because of contributors like you and others, this question is becoming more discernable with each passing day of conversation. God willing, with our continued pooling of resources that we have in this community, this question will be more fully understood in a very pleasing and in a very Orthodox Way.

In Christ,
Rick

[Andrew]

The Church is humanity thrust into the fires of uncreated eternal life Himself through the offering up of the incarnate Word of God for all the world to partake of. Our very life is centered around entry into Jesus Christ's life; in the Eucharist we become organic members of His body, partaking of his divinity. And as one of my spiritual father's seminary professors would say, "There is no second class divinity!" What God is by nature, man can become by Grace. And there are thousands of men and women who have become deified, and there are those living today who are. So, this is the Church. This is our ecclesiology. We center around the life creating mysteries, under the guidance of right believing bishops, who in turn have a host of priests and deacons to help guide the liturgical worship of the body, just as the pacemaker guides the beating of the heart. The liturgy is sort of like the heartbeat of our lives, I think. But anyways, I ramble.

The outward liturgy must also be accompanied by the interior liturgy of ceaseless prayer. We have much to live up to! How patient and merciful Our Loving Lord is!

One of the points I often make when talking with people about the difference between the ontological reality of the Church as Christ's Body and creedal groups such as the Roman Catholics and the various Protestants is that our Church makes people who are godmen, consistently. They all say the same thing because they have each come to know the same God, and communed with Him. All points of Orthodoxy are to point us towards this. The unity of the faithful that Our Lord talks about isn't something like SCOBA or a pan-American jurisdiction (not that this is bad! Far be it.) but true union of mankind; the nous with the heart, the body with the soul, man with woman, the person with all persons, humanity with nature, uncreated with created. If we become healed persons according to the commandments laid out by the Theanthropos, then we will naturally have a unified Orthodox Church.

[Rick H.]

"A Mystical Theologian Non-Pareil"

Dear Andrew,

You have firmly placed in position our first marker on the Common Ground of a genuine Orthodoxy. In the true Tradition of the Great Orthodox Catholic Tradition, today, you have posited a landmark, a line indicating a 'boundary' here for all monachoi that is non-pareil. When you say the following represents the unity that our Lord spoke of as 'being':




. . . [a] true union of mankind; the nous with the heart, the body with the soul, man with woman, the person with all persons, humanity with nature, uncreated with created.




this is the best depiction/definition of our question to date bar-none. You illustrate for us the 'Who,' the 'What,' the 'Where,' and not least 'How WE can know.' Yes, this 'is' "IT."

In Christ,
Rick

[Celinda Grace]

Rick and others,

Your raise the questions
1.) How did the early Church define it's boundaries?
2.) How does the Church today define it's boundaries?
3.) How is Christ defining her boundaries in the above priestly prayer?

I've been thinking about this for some time and it seems to me that these are the wrong questions.

Andrew makes a great point in bringing up that the church is an ontological reality. It is the tendency of the rational mind to DEFINE things. This is the only way that it can understand things. It works in a this or that, yes or no, black or white mode.

However, ontological reality cannot be defined, it can only be discerned. And if you read those whose minds have been renewed by the Spirit you will notice that things are discerned not in terms of black and white, but in terms of completeness or fullness.

I was reading an article by Florovsky on the church and he talks of this.


The Church is fullness, (Τò πληρωμα) that is, fulfillment, completion (Eph. 1:23). In this manner St. John Chrysostom explains the words of the Apostle: "The Church is the fulfillment of Christ in the same manner as the head completes the body and the body is completed by the head.

In Christ's prayer asking that they all may be one, it seems to me that he is praying for the Kingdom of God to come in its fullness. Just as Paul says that there will be apostles and teachers and prophets...UNTIL we all reach unity in the faith and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In eternity the Church is, and it is One. But eternity must work its way into time such that all of time is transformed and subsumed into eternity.

I think it might be helpful in trying to sort out the unity and division of the Church by looking at the different levels at which it simultaneously exists.

Eph 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

One God- in God all are one. The entire human race, from Adam till the end of time, exists as a unity in the Father.

One Lord – Christ himself broke down the barriers that separate us from the Father and in Him His body is in perfect fullness and unity. This includes all those who have consciously made a decision in time for Christ and those who, though they have never heard of Him, will love Him and bow before Him at the last day.

One faith – All that have consciously believed in Him. We are justified by faith Paul says and have peace with God. This step of faith is the first step bringing the eternal body of Christ down into time. It actuates in time the individual’s union with Christ.

One Baptism – It seems to me that sacraments are the means whereby we seal the decision made in faith. It is the means whereby we recognize the body of Christ in time. It is not so much that in baptism we become members of the church, as that baptism makes visible the invisible. It actuates in time the individual’s union with the rest of the visible Body of Christ.

One Spirit –The Spirit is the means by which the unity is maintained and further actuated in time. Our growth in the Spirit, as we, in ourselves, allow eternal Life to conquer and convert our flesh, allows us to further participate in Christ’s work of transforming and subsuming all of time into eternity. And as this happens, the Body of Christ is recognized in its fullness and the unity is made manifest across time and culture.

One of the reasons I think the ecumenical movement is pointless is that they are trying to come up with some rationally determined man-made boundaries to define the church. This is not our job. Our job is to cooperate with God in recognizing the church and making it recognizable.

It seems to me that the Church in its various forms is in the business of making visible the invisible kingdom of God. This is why belief follows from unity. Somewhere inside each human soul is the ability to recognize God. Paul says that he is the aroma of Christ to those who are pershing and to those who are being made alive. When the church is one and the kingdom of God is made manifest in its fullness people will be without excuse. What is in them will be seen in their response to the Church. (Parable of the sheep and the goats)

I am not sure if this is a good picture of the church, I welcome correction. If what I have said is right though, my question is what can we learn from the Church Fathers about how to go about cooperating with God in this?

One of the first things I think of is humility. (maybe because I struggle so much with this) The Church can only be discerned, only be recognized fully by the one who has been fully made Christ. To the extent that I cannot discern myself, nor Christ in me, I certainly cannot expect to be able to discern the Church, and therefore ought to be silent on the matter, accepting my blindness. Also to the extent that I do not know the other, to the extent that I see only their flesh not their heart, I cannot discern the Church because I cannot see Christ in them. Much of the cross tradition problem stems from the fact that all we see is the surface. I see the heart of the Protestant Church because I know it and love it and live in it. I see past the legalism, the divisions, and ignorance and I see Christ in it. I have little means for seeing what it at the heart of the Orthodox tradition for I am not of it.

This humility would solve an awful lot of the problems of prejudice. Humility is the doorway to love.

Second, I wonder what Church tradition says about actuating what is recognized. Is there some way that those mature in the faith who can much more fully recognize Christ in each other reach out to one another and do anything signifigant about healing the wounds that separate us?

Maybe I am an idealist.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think this presentation indicates some real truths about the Church as the reality of Christ's Body.

It is perhaps due to this reality that the Church does not overly define itself in relation to boundaries but rather according to its own reality which of course is as the Body of Christ and true life.

At times we think in a way that leads us to an agnostic position in regards to what is outside of the Church. But certainly this is at real variance with the Patristic perspective which is that the Church is Life and separation from this is death. In this the Patristic perspective is categorical concerning the Church.

But yet if we see the Church in the way indicated, as a reality, and also consider Her boundaries, we see a mystery, since the fact of any boundary in relation to the Church means that creation is not yet complete. There can only be boundaries because the time of fulfillment for the Church is not yet complete.

I think this shows why in fact such boundaries are only overcome-and in God's time, not ours- through our life in Christ. As you indicate correctly this refers to the life our saints pursue, a life of continual humility and dying to oneself in obedience to Christ. For only in this way are the wounds of humanity understood and people loved; only in this way is Christ found and death healed.

This in fact is why the following from your post is correct:



One of the reasons I think the ecumenical movement is pointless is that they are trying to come up with some rationally determined man-made boundaries to define the church. This is not our job. Our job is to cooperate with God in recognizing the church and making it recognizable.This movement in general is a symptom of a deeper problem, particularly acute in our times, of trying to achieve a unity which in fact is a violation of the human being one wants to be in apparent 'unity' with.

Boundaries or separation from the Church refer ultimately to the fact of sin and death. It also means that the time of the Church, when Christ's Life will be all in all, is not yet complete. So patience and humility are needed.

But above all an understanding of the spiritual life is needed which the saints pursued. To heal the boundaries which presently separate creation and humanity from the Church, constant dying to ourselves is needed so that gradually in Christ we touch the brokenness of humanity and are not destroyed in the process. Only in this way do we begin to touch the reality of humanity and to begin to come to an understanding of what we are. Only in this way is real and not a human love for humanity found which does no violation to it.

So really as members of the Church we are called to an incredible enterprise in regards to the rest of humanity. We must see that there is a reality described by what is within and without the Church. This is the most staggering and fundamental of realities which the Fathers insistently urge us towards.

But we cannot stop with just a recognition of death; ie that which is presently without the Church. We are called just as insistently by Christ to the gradual age-long healing of death by a continual death to ourselves, to a sharing with Christ in the shattered brokenness of humanity, and then through this in its gradual healing through discovering of a Christ like love.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nina]

Dear Celinda,

As Father Raphael said, this is a good observation:



One of the reasons I think the ecumenical movement is pointless is that they are trying to come up with some rationally determined man-made boundaries to define the church. This is not our job. Our job is to cooperate with God in recognizing the church and making it recognizable.

Celinda, you also ask:


I am not sure if this is a good picture of the church, I welcome correction. If what I have said is right though, my question is what can we learn from the Church Fathers about how to go about cooperating with God in this?

One of the first things I think of is humility. (maybe because I struggle so much with this) The Church can only be discerned, only be recognized fully by the one who has been fully made Christ. To the extent that I cannot discern myself, nor Christ in me, I certainly cannot expect to be able to discern the Church, and therefore ought to be silent on the matter, accepting my blindness. Also to the extent that I do not know the other, to the extent that I see only their flesh not their heart, I cannot discern the Church because I cannot see Christ in them. Much of the cross tradition problem stems from the fact that all we see is the surface. I see the heart of the Protestant Church because I know it and love it and live in it. I see past the legalism, the divisions, and ignorance and I see Christ in it. I have little means for seeing what it at the heart of the Orthodox tradition for I am not of it.

This humility would solve an awful lot of the problems of prejudice. Humility is the doorway to love.

Second, I wonder what Church tradition says about actuating what is recognized. Is there some way that those mature in the faith who can much more fully recognize Christ in each other reach out to one another and do anything signifigant about healing the wounds that separate us?
Maybe I am an idealist.In addition to what Father Raphael said in his post, I would like to bring into the picture another Orthodox monk (Elder): Elder Paisios of Mount Athos. He also presents his approach with an admirably simple language, but profound wisdom.

You can find the answer to your questions (such as us Orthodox not living Patristically etc). Most importantly you will notice Elder's emphasis on humility (same as Father Raphael and you point out) and obedience to Tradition and the Fathers of the Church - as explained through the example of the Holy Martyrs (first paragraph). You will see that the Elder speaks about our modern habit of rationalizing everything, which is not very useful in matters of faith (same as you say). Also he strives to make the Church recognizable (again, in your words).

Also notice in Elder's words "But the Lord – when the time is right –" the same idea Father Raphael writes about, that things will be on God's time and not our time; which again brings us back to humility (as our duty).

I post the words of this great contemporary Elder, not only because we can find many answers in it, but also because I have a weak spot in my heart for him.

Elder Paisios was the spiritual mentor (he was not a priest, therefore not a spiritual father, but provided spiritual guidance to many - and what guidance!) of my spiritual father and I honor and love him very much.
God made me worthy to hear from my spiritual father a prophecy that Elder Paisios said about my personal life, without ever meeting, or seeing me in a conventional way. His prophecy was fulfilled very shortly thereafter, and I am more than happy to bear witness about it.
Also while Elder Paisios was still in this life (and because I felt a very strong connection to him through my spiritual father), and I had different problems, I was praying and saying: "Please Elder Paisios hear me, and please pray to God for this!" I do not exaggerate, that sometimes in a matter of minutes solutions and answers would come.

I am sharing this information with you, so you can understand what a gem the Elder is, in case you are not familiar with him. He had great love for all the people of the world! And not only in words, but actions also - he used to spend his time praying for all in the world without discrimination, and guiding people of all backgrounds and religions, who came to him for advise. I find him straightforward in proclaiming the truth, because as my spiritual father said, Elder Paisios loved all.

On Respect for Holy Tradition and the Errors of Contemporary Ecumenism
ELDER PAISIOS OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN

http://uncutmountain.com/uncut/imageupload/paisios_telos_2b.jpg
Elder Paisios

Many of the holy Martyrs, whenever they were unfamiliar with a dogma, used to say: “I trust whatever the Holy Fathers have instituted”. If anyone dared to say those words, they would suffer martyrdom. In other words, although they did not know how to present any proof to their persecutors, they did, however, have faith in the Holy Fathers. They would think to themselves: “How can I not trust the Holy Fathers? They were far more experienced, and virtuous, and saintly. How can I agree to something that is nonsense? How can I tolerate someone abusing the Holy Fathers?” We must have faith in Tradition.

Nowadays, unfortunately, we notice that “European good manners” have shown up, and they strive to present a benevolent face. They try to be superior, but in the end, they head towards the worship of the two-horned devil. “Only one religion must exist” they tell you, and they flatten everything. I’ve had people come to me too, who suggested: “All of us who believe in Christ should form one religion”. I said to them: Now what you’re telling me is to take gold and copper – gold of so many carats quality – which they took so much trouble to purify, and then gather the metals and melt them into one mass. Is it right to mix them together again? Ask any goldsmith: “Should we mix inferior elements with gold?”

Well, the same trouble was taken to filter-clean the dogma. The Holy Fathers must have known something, when they forbade every association with a heretic. Nowadays they say: “We should all pray together – not only with a heretic, but also with a Buddhist and a fire-worshipper and a demon-worshipper. The Orthodox should also participate in these common prayers and conventions. It is a matter of present.”[B] What do they mean by “being present”? They strive to solve everything with logic, in order to justify the unjustifiable. The “European spirit” is convinced that spiritual matters can also be made a part of the Common Market.

Some of the rather shallow Orthodox want to project [ecumenism as] “Missionary work”, so they convene meetings with the heterodox for the sake of being heard, and they think that this is the way to advertise Orthodoxy – by mingling in the same pot with cacodoxies. [...] The heterodox on the other hand usually attend meetings, they pose as know-it-alls, they take any good spiritual material that they find with the Orthodox, they take it to their own workshop, add their own colours and brand names and they present it as something original.

http://uncutmountain.com/uncut/imageupload/Saint_Gregory_Palamas.jpg

Holy Gregory Palamas, Pillar of Orthodoxy

Today’s strange world is actually moved by such strange things, and it is eventually destroyed spiritually. But the Lord – when the time is right – will bring forth new Marks of Ephesus and the Gregorys of Palamas, who will muster all of our scandalized brethren, who will confess the Orthodox faith, consolidate the Orthodox Tradition and give great joy to our Mother the Church.

If we were living Patristically, we would all be enjoying a spiritual health that would have been the envy of all the heterodox; it would have made them abandon their sick fallacies and render them saved, without any sermons. At present, they are not moved by our holy Patristic tradition, because they are waiting to see our Patristic continuity – our true kinship with the Saints.

That which is obligatory for every Orthodox, is for them to sow the “good uneasiness” in the heterodox as well; in other words, to bring them to the realization that they are living a lie and that they should not light-heartedly relax their thoughts, for fear of depriving themselves in this life of the bounteous blessings of Orthodoxy, and in the life to come, the infinitely more and everlasting blessings of God

I was once visited by some Catholic youth who had good intentions, and were ready to acquaint themselves with Orthodoxy. “We want you to say something to us, so that we will be helped spiritually”, they told me. “Look”, I replied, “find a book on Ecclesiastic History, and you will see how we once used to be together, and then see where you wound up. This will help you immensely. Do it, and the next time, we will talk about many things.”

In times past, people used to respect something because it was their grandfather’s, and they used to safeguard it like an heirloom. I once met a very good lawyer. His house was very simply furnished, and it relaxed not only him, but his visitors also. He told me this, some time ago: “A few years ago, Father, my acquaintances made fun of me because of the old, family furniture that I had. Now they come and admire them as valuable antiques. While I make daily use of them and enjoy them because they remind me of my father, my mother, my grandparents, and I am always emotionally touched, those acquaintances now go around collecting various old pieces of furniture, to the point that they have turned their lounges into curiosity shops, in an attempt to take their minds off their problems and forget their secular stress.”

In the past, one would hold on to a tiny little coin of insignificant value as though it were a vast fortune, only because it was given to him by his mother or his grandfather. Nowadays, if someone has an expensive coin – a gold Pound for example – that was given to him by his grandfather, and that coin’s value is slightly higher than its original value, he will give it away to be sold. He will not show any respect, nor will he be concerned about any mother or father. It’s that “European spirit” that is slowly creeping in and is sweeping us all away....

http://uncutmountain.com/uncut/imageupload/icon_of_Elder_Paisios.jpg
Fresco of the Elder Paisios
in a Metochi of the Monastery
of Vatopedi, Kavala, Greece

I recall the first time that I visited the Holy Mountain – in one of the brotherhoods, the Elder was a little old man, who was very pious. Out of piety, he had preserved from generation to generation, not only the stoles of his [spiritual] grandfathers, his predecessors, but also the moulds that had been used to make the stoles. He also had several old books and various manuscripts that he kept beautifully wrapped in his book-case, which was carefully closed so that they wouldn’t collect dust. He never touched those books; he kept them wrapped up. “I am not worthy to read such books” he would say. “I will just read these simpler ones – the Sayings of the Desert Fathers (Gerontikon), the Ladder of Divine Ascent...”.

Then a young monk came along (who, in the end, left the Mountain permanently) and asked the elder: “Why do you keep all this junk here?” He made a move to take away the moulds and dispose of them – to burn them. The poor old man begged him with tears: “that was from my [spiritual] grandfather – why do you mind my keeping it? There are so many other rooms here – leave them be in a corner.” Out of the piety that he had, he not only held on to the books, the heirlooms, the stoles, but even the moulds! When there is a respect for minor things, there will be an even greater respect towards greater things. When there is no respect for the lesser, neither will there be for the greater. This is how the Fathers preserved the holy Tradition.

-- See Elder Paisios, With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man, Volume One of the Series, The Discourses of Elder Paisios, Holy Monastery of Saint John the Theologian, Souroti, Thessaloniki, Greece.


The above discourse from Elder Paisios can be found here (http://uncutmountain.com/index.php/uncutmtnjournal/P6/).

[Rick H.]

Is there some way that those mature in the faith who can much more fully recognize Christ in each other reach out to one another and do anything signifigant about healing the wounds that separate us?

Maybe I am an idealist.



Dear Celinda,

I guess it depends on how you define the word 'significant,' but I am inclined to think that there is "some way." :) And, yes, you are definitely an idealist[!]; however, as the saying goes, it takes one to know one ;)

Your fellow seeker in Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

This humility would solve an awful lot of the problems of prejudice. Humility is the doorway to love.

Second, I wonder what Church tradition says about actuating what is recognized. Is there some way that those mature in the faith who can much more fully recognize Christ in each other reach out to one another and do anything signifigant about healing the wounds that separate us?

Not being very mature in the Faith, maybe I shouldn't even comment. Be that as it may, I do agree that humility is indeed the key. It takes humility to be able to admit that everything one "knows" is wrong. It takes humility to set aside the learning of a lifetime and be willing to approach Truth with an "open" mind. I had to do that when I left Protestantism to become Orthodox.

If one person says the sun rises in the East, and another person says it rises in the West, is the truth somewhere in the middle?

DISCLAIMER: The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

[Celinda Grace]

If one person says the sun rises in the East, and another person says it rises in the West, is the truth somewhere in the middle?

If one person says the sun is in the East and another person says the sun is in the West are they contradicting one another or are they in different parts of the world, experiencing different times of day?

[Father David Moser]

Herman asked:

If one person says the sun rises in the East, and another person says it rises in the West, is the truth somewhere in the middle?

And Celinda responded with another question:

If one person says the sun is in the East and another person says the sun is in the West are they contradicting one another or are they in different parts of the world, experiencing different times of day?

This is a very important example between Truth and truths. Truth is absolute - the sun rises in the east and there is no disputing that (without either changing the laws of nature and the rotation of the earth or redefining the terms "east" and "west" to fit one's theory), this is the truth of which Herman speaks. However there are also truths which are relative - depending on perspective and situation and this is the truth of which Celinda speaks.

It is an absolute Truth that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus do we confess every day when we pray the Nicene Creed. It does not matter where you stand, what perspective you take or how you want to perceive it - this is an unchanging and absolute Truth. Since the "enlightenment" in the west, philosophy has developed the idea that there is no absolute truth, but that all truth is relative. Thus to say that the Church is here and there, depending on your perspective, is to take an absolute truth and make it relative.

There are some basic Truths that are not relative and these have been revealed to us from the beginning by Christ and that truth was preserved and taught by the Holy Apostles and by their successors, the bishops of the Church. Those things which are encoded Holy Tradition (from the unwritten teachings of Christ to the written dogmatic definitions of Ecumenical councils and those things revealed to the Holy Fathers) are absolute Truth. To make them into relative truths is to disconnect the Church from Christ and set her adrift with no sure anchor or direction.

How I respond to the Truth might be determined by my "position" and how I express the Truth might be influenced by my culture and upbringing. But the Truth is the Truth and does not change despite my perspective, and I must either embrace it or turn away from it by creating for myself a fantasy pseudo truth or rejecting it outright.

Fr David Moser

[Celinda Grace]

Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for sharing.


But certainly this is at real variance with the Patristic perspective which is that the Church is Life and separation from this is death. In this the Patristic perspective is categorical concerning the Church.

Do you have any recommendations for some of the Fathers I could read regarding this? I can tell I am not really grasping what you are saying.


But above all an understanding of the spiritual life is needed which the saints pursued. To heal the boundaries which presently separate creation and humanity from the Church, constant dying to ourselves is needed so that gradually in Christ we touch the brokenness of humanity and are not destroyed in the process. Only in this way do we begin to touch the reality of humanity and to begin to come to an understanding of what we are. Only in this way is real and not a human love for humanity found which does no violation to it. ...

We are called just as insistently by Christ to the gradual age-long healing of death by a continual death to ourselves, to a sharing with Christ in the shattered brokenness of humanity, and then through this in its gradual healing through discovering of a Christ like love.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This is so beautifully expressed and I am encouraged to hear it. As I have explored the contemplative tradition of the church over the last couple of years I have run into a prominent strain of false spirituality borrowed from the Buddhist and Hindu tradition. It mascarades with a sentimental love of all beings but at heart is simply about methods that are designed to bring a greater psychological and emotional healing for the person involved.

It is not that I believe these things are bad in themselves, just as going to the doctor is not bad. And I believe they work because in the methods is a recognition of some truths about human spirituality. But because the methods are in some measure ascetic and 'self-denying' they are touted as a Christian kenosis. It is not recognized that they deny self in order to gain something for self. It is all about regaining paradise not about 'coming down from heaven' in order to heal this fallen mess by participation in it.

I bring this up because it seems to me such a prevalent misunderstanding. The invitation to a share with Christ in the shattered brokenness of humanity, is not easily heard. And it is only by God's grace that I have started to discriminate between these two things myself and managed to escape the trap. Really it is only by God's grace that I manage anything.

PS If I tend to use 'church' in a broader sense then might be thought acceptable here please excuse me and allow that I am coming from a different mindset. However,simply through the use of the word I am not claiming anything, nor do I expect others to accept my useage.

[Father David Moser]

"For those also who believe in Me"


1.) How did the early Church define it's boundaries?
2.) How does the Church today define it's boundaries?

3.) How is Christ defining her boundaries in the above priestly prayer?



I'd like to approach this from a bit of a different angle. In His High Priestly prayer, our Lord indicated that our unity with one another and with Him is of the same nature as His unity with the Father. We know that the unity of the Trinity is one of love. And we know that God is Love. When we become one with God it is because we are so filled with His Love that we become like Him and live and move and breath in Him.

How then does this help us define the boundaries of the Church? Our Lord also said just prior to this prayer, "If you love me, Keep my commandments" (Jn 14:15) "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me, And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father and I will love him and manifest Myself to Him...If anyone loves me, He will keep my word and My Father will love him and We will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words;..." (Jn 14:21-24) "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my Love, just as I ahve kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love." (Jn 15:10) and "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" (Jn 15:14). These statements are part of our Lord's instructions to His disciples immediately before He withdrew to pray for them and thus enlighten the phrase, "that they may be one as we are".

Thus we see how it is that our Lord defines the limits of the Church - the Church is composed of those who love Him and who therefore keep His commandments.

The disciples carried this same definition into their ministry and teaching. For example, the Apostle Paul when talking about those who were called to be within the Church said, "Circumcision is nothing,and uncricumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters." (1Cor 7:19). The Holy Apostle John also tells us, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. by this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked." (1Jn 2:3-6)

From this, we can say with confidence that the "limits of the Church", those who love God and know Him, can be defined by those who obey the commandments of Christ and "who walk just as He walked" How then do we know these commandments. We know the commandments of Christ from Holy Tradition - both that which is written (Scripture) and that which is unwritten (the oral Tradition of the Church). The "walk" of Christ which we ought to follow is the "walk" of His Body, the Church. The way of life and the teaching of the Church define for us the limits of the Church. If we follow the way of life that the Church gives us, if we heed the commandments of Christ which the Church teaches us, then we are within the Church - both by the definition of Christ and of the Holy Apostles.

For some time, especially during the persecutions, there was little need for further delineation of the "limits of the Church" One was in or out and it was usually pretty clear which. But as time passed, disputes arose concerning what exactly the commandments of Christ meant. In order to resolve those disputes, following the example of the Holy Apostles, the bishops of the Church were gathered into council. They then prayed and spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance and proclaimed the truth of the matter. These proclamations were then submitted to the whole of the Church and either embraced or rejected. The Church, against whom the gates of Hades cannot prevail; the ark of salvation; the repository of the Truth, then is the final stamp of what it is our Lord has taught us. Those who did not follow the commandments of Christ were considered to be outside the Church, for they did not exemplify our Lord's instruction: "If you love me, keep my commandments" or the Apostolic instruction: "by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. by this we know that we are in Him."

The Orthodox Church has preserved the Apostolic teaching unchanged and without admixture of error throughout the centuries from Christ until now. Only in the Orthodox Church are found the commandments of Christ. Thus if we love Christ, how can we help but live according to the teachings and instructions of the Orthodox Church? And only those who love Him abide in Him and are joined to Him.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Celinda Grace wrote:




Do you have any recommendations for some of the Fathers I could read regarding this? I can tell I am not really grasping what you are saying.


Perhaps The Mind of the Orthodox Church or Orthodox Spirituality both by Hierotheos Vlachos.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear Celinda,

Thanks for the good posts today. Possibly, you already know, but in case you don't, I'll share with you regarding some of the topics that you bring up today, such as a relational ontology and the contemplative tradition of the church, much ink has been spilled on these in the American Orthodoxy? thread, and especially in the Heart of Salvation thread (from about mid Feb. through March). During this time in the HOS thread Father Raphael addresses much of what you have brought up in a most pleasing and helpful way. I've already done some serious backtracking on this ground.

And, speaking of most excellent posts, now it appears after a glance at Father David's last post above, that it is time to make a cup of the finest blend of coffee that I have on hand--in order to read his post again slowly. After a quick read this looks like a great piece to sit with and appreciate for what it is, as Father David speaks of the supreme ontological predicate via the Langauge of Love.

In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

I am finishing up the last of my milky way latte along with the last of my monachos time for this morning and while rereading some posts in this thread, I was struck by the remembrance of a quote. Through reading firstly, Herman's post, where the subject of truth is broached (once again) by our *simple* philosopher in the following:




It takes humility to set aside the learning of a lifetime and be willing to approach Truth with an "open" mind. I had to do that when I left Protestantism to become Orthodox.



and, then moving on to Father David's post about love:




In His High Priestly prayer, our Lord indicated that our unity with one another and with Him is of the same nature as His unity with the Father. We know that the unity of the Trinity is one of love. And we know that God is Love.



I was reminded of another simple quote that I would like to share now:




"We make an idol of truth itself, for truth apart from charity [love] is not god, but his image and an idol that we must not love or worship. Still less must we love or worship its opposite, which is falsehood."--Blaise Pascal



When we talk about making an idol out of dogma, or the church, or the bible (or truth) it is very easy to slip into the metaphysical and or talk in circles. But, the above Pascal quote speaks plainly to this issue. Hopefully, we are not divided about what he has said here so well. Sometimes the 'humpty dumpty' routine is funny to watch, but sometimes it is not as it relates to such things as idol making and truth together. Either way, as Herman has said so well, may we approach truth with an open mind.

In Christ,
Rick

[Chris Manaras]

Herman asked:

This is a very important example between Truth and truths. Truth is absolute - the sun rises in the east and there is no disputing that (without either changing the laws of nature and the rotation of the earth or redefining the terms "east" and "west" to fit one's theory), this is the truth of which Herman speaks. However there are also truths which are relative - depending on perspective and situation and this is the truth of which Celinda speaks.

....


How I respond to the Truth might be determined by my "position" and how I express the Truth might be influenced by my culture and upbringing. But the Truth is the Truth and does not change despite my perspective, and I must either embrace it or turn away from it by creating for myself a fantasy pseudo truth or rejecting it outright.

Fr David Moser

Bless, Father

Thank you for that. It is so true that we are only able to know relative truths due to our limited perspective.

I've been taught that the sun neither rises nor sets, and in fact, it does not move. Yet, I still comment on and take in a "sunset". Does that make me insane, of just a product of this earthly perspective? That would depend on who was to judge.