Ecclesiological dogma, east and west

[Celinda Grace]

In talking to a friend about the claims of the Orthodox church to be "The Church" and how this is percieved as exclusivist and divisive by many it struck me that there is a very different situational landscape that has led to the ecclesiological dogmas of the East and West. Matthew in this post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45123&postcount=109)has noted this problem


Moreover, these discussions often become quickly heated, primarily as those with a differing conception of ecclesiology see the Orthodox Church’s position as exclusivist and elitist in its view of ‘other churches’. But this very characterisation discloses two different paradigms at work—paradigms which don’t meet, and which indeed appear fraught to the other

and he has tried to address it but I am afraid in this case I feel like I am miles apart from his own ecclesiological paradigm or maybe I am not, maybe I am approaching the same end point but from an entirely different starting point.

In attempting to cross the gap I think I have managed maybe to dig deeper into the roots of these different paradigms and maybe this will lead to some greater understanding.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, historically the conception of ecclesiology has grown out of situations in which the unity and integrity of the Church were threatened by heresy. It is a conception that has at its root a defensive and self-protective nature. Although Matthew, Fr. Raphael and others have reinterpreted these Fathers as protecting some eternal, unlimited body of Christ what really is being protected is an institutional structure that exists in time.


We can already read of this fundamental sense of the unchanging Faith in the post-Apostolic Fathers like St Irenaeus of Lyons, St Vincent of Lerins, St Cyprian of Carthage and many others. What they addressed was a need to preserve the fundamental unity of the Faith in the face of heretical distortions of this Faith. Fr. Raphael (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=46093&postcount=144)

In the West an entirely different set of circumstances is at work underlying our ecclesiological conceptions. We live in the midst of a visible fracture among Christians and yet recognize in our heart that there is only One Church. So The ecclesiological conceptions that are developing are ones that are designed to unify what is broken.

In my tradition we talk about the invisible Church. It is something that exists outside of denominations or visible organizations, made up of those who have the seal of the Holy Spirit and are in a true relationship with Christ.


The Orthodox Church maintains the necessary union with this apostolic tradition as the very assurance of adherence to Christ rightly (orthos), rather than disparately or schismatically.

and yet apostiolic tradition has been defined as
Tradition is the Holy Spirit as manifest within the life of the Church

Is it then that the paradigms don't meet or is it simply that we approach the same understanding one from the inside and the other from the outside? Maybe it is simply that those on the inside are trying to open the door outward and those on the outside are trying to open the door inward and so we wrestle over the door. Is it maybe that some are members of what they don't see and thus say they belong to the Invisible Church and those in the Orthodox Church are members of what they do see and thus they say they are the Church?

I am beating around the bush here but when Matthew says


Certain ‘case studies’, like that of St Isaac, which has been much discussed here of late, provide a ‘way in’ to the real questions of concern that drive much of this discussion—namely, ‘Can someone be saved who is not part of the Church is its physical, temporal reality in this world?’ Isaac was not a member of the Church’s eucharistic communion in his life, yet the Orthodox Church states very strongly that his is a saint of the Church, not a saint in some para-ecclesial sense. From a denominationalist standpoint, this position either makes no sense and is self-defeating, or is the ultimate claim of trans-denominational authority.

It sounds very much like He is simply giving the OC the authority to make visible a trans-denominational actuality that is already recognized as existing in much of the Protestant world.

[Celinda Grace]

Just one more comment here. One of the problems in any discussion of ecclesiology between OC and PC is that the statement "The Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church" because of the Protestant conception of ecclesiology, is going to automatically provoke a negative reaction.

This is because it is seen as the height of egotistic vanity for any institutional group to claim such an identity. It provokes the same emotional reaction an Orthodox Christain would feel if someone walked up to them and said, "I am a saint." The very claim disqualifies them because if they were what they claimed there would be no need to say anything.

The very fact that those in the OC feel the need to make some claim about themselves shows that it is not yet what it claims to be. I have no problem with the OC claiming they have a fullness of Truth, a better way, a more complete understanding - but to claim to be something that they only have the potential to be....where is the Truth in that?

Maybe the OC ecclesiological dogma should be understood in terms of protecting an understanding of what it means to be the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church rather then in terms of being it?

[Father David Moser]

Have you read the correspondence between A.S. Khomiakov and William Palmer? Also good is Khomiakov's The Church is One These can be found on this page (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/essays.html)

Also good on this topic is the essay by Archbishop Ilarion (Troitsky), Christianity or the Church (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/sthilarion_church.aspx) If you go up from this article to its "menu" page (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_church.aspx), there are quite a few additional articles that may be of interest.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Celinda,

You wrote:



Maybe the OC ecclesiological dogma should be understood in terms of protecting an understanding of what it means to be the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church rather then in terms of being it?

But the experience is of a present reality which is that of the Body of Christ. Of course in some important sense that Body has yet to be completed. But in an essential sense the Church already is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

I really shouldn't join in this thread because I don't know much about these things. But the questions that always occur to me when non-Orthodox challenge the 'claim' of the OC to be 'The Church', etc. are these. In what sense do they think it is not what the Orthodox say it is? Is its faith in error in any way? What does it lack? What has it introduced which is novel? What is there about it which can't be supported by acceptable authority? I don't mean to come across as polemical - I just wonder . . .

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

You ask:

the questions that always occur to me when non-Orthodox challenge the 'claim' of the OC to be 'The Church', etc. are these. In what sense do they think it is not what the Orthodox say it is? Is its faith in error in any way? What does it lack? What has it introduced which is novel? What is there about it which can't be supported by acceptable authority? I don't mean to come across as polemical - I just wonder . . .

and to respond in equally unpolemical way (I hope) I suspect the question, when it is posed, is rather the other way around - what is it that other Christian denominations lack - to which, of course, there is an answer which, when framed in Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology which is bound to come out one way, but if framed in, say, Roman Catholic ecclesiology will come out another. That is the main reason, I suspect, that most such discussions end up bearing no fruit; we proceed from different ecclesiological positions and, whether meaning to or not, select the evidence that supports the tradition in which we believe.

I occasionally wonder whether one of the minor benefits of the next life will be a better perspective on this than we can have in this life? As an old Anglican priest once put it to me: 'It often occurs to me to wonder what God makes of our competing claims?' Indeed.

With best wishes,

In Christ,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

'It often occurs to me to wonder what God makes of our competing claims?'

In as much as whichever claims are untrue, I suspect He might not approve, even as our Lord said to the woman at the well: "the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him (John 4:23).

If the Church proclaims the Truth, can it, in good conscience, merely "overlook" untruth for convenience sake?

[Celinda Grace]

I really shouldn't join in this thread because I don't know much about these things. But the questions that always occur to me when non-Orthodox challenge the 'claim' of the OC to be 'The Church', etc. are these. In what sense do they think it is not what the Orthodox say it is? Is its faith in error in any way? What does it lack? What has it introduced which is novel? What is there about it which can't be supported by acceptable authority? I don't mean to come across as polemical - I just wonder . . .

What does it lack? A fullness of love, of humility, of understanding of itself etc. When Fr. Raphael says that the Body is yet to be completed we can't see this just in the sense that there are more people to be brought in. To be holy and catholic implies not just the full number of people, but that the Church as an entity -it's culture and life as lived in the present reality - be holy and catholic.


But the experience is of a present reality which is that of the Body of Christ. Of course in some important sense that Body has yet to be completed. But in an essential sense the Church already is.


Hopefully I can make this clear. Let me ask -what exactly is being experienced? The present reality of the Body of Christ yes. But the problem is not this. The problem is then identifying what is experienced with the institution that has the name Orthodox Church and a certain membership role that defines it. To me as soon as this identification is made a certain falsity has just entered in between the experience and our understanding of what that experience means. It is this falsity that nurtures a culture of pride of identity.

This institutional/cultural pride is not present in my neck of the PC and I have a problem with it in the OC. Of course that is my own lack of humility and forgiveness at work.

What I was trying to get across is that I see the institution we call the OC as having an important role in protecting a truth and and understanding that has been generally lost elsewhere. But what justification is there for identifying this institution with the Body of Christ?

[Herman Blaydoe]

But what justification is there for identifying this institution with the Body of Christ?

Um, because it is?

"so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another." (Romans 12:5). Bishop Kallistos, in his book "The Orthodox Church" states that the Church is the extension of the Incarnation, the place where the Incarnation perpetuates itself....The Church is Christ with us. Another Father says that Jesus Christ, having ascended in the flesh, has passed on into the Sacraments. In short the Church is the place where real visceral encounter with Christ Jesus happens in Spirit and in Truth, not mere intellectual acknowledgement.

St. John of Kronstadt says:

"The Church is one and the same with the Lord - His Body, of His flesh and of His bones. The Church is the living vine, nourished by Him and growing in Him. Never think of the Church apart for the Lord Jesus Christ, from the Father and Holy Spirit"

[Celinda Grace]

Herman,

This is exactly the kind of thinking that I am protesting against. Listen to yourself


In short the Church is the place where real visceral encounter with Christ Jesus happens in Spirit and in Truth, not mere intellectual acknowledgement.

If the OC institution= the Church then outside the OC there is nothing but mere intellectual acknowledgement of Christ. Do you really believe this? I can vouch that I know many outside the OC who have had real visceral encounters with Christ Jesus at some level or another, or try reading Oswald Chamber's works and deny His real and living encounter with Christ. And certainly the Catholic saints have had real encounters with Christ. Now then by your very definition of the Church you admit that it exists outside the institutional membership of the OC.

Just so that I don't leave this on a negative note, I will go back to what Fr. Raphael has said about experience and Matthew has said about the chalice in the Nature of the Church thread.

I can accept that in the participation in sacraments of the institutional OC the whole fullness of the Body of Christ is experienced, is participated in, which is not the case outside the OC, but again what is experienced and participated in is greater then the institution of the OC.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I suppose we can discuss ad nauseum what "real encounter" is. Khalil Gibran has published some really evocative works about encounter, and of course Lord Siddhartha Buddha seems to write with inspiration based on personal experience about encounter of some kind. I have to wonder if it was with Christ.

You have a point that the argument is rather circular, but I am not an Orthodox Christian in a Protestant forum telling them that they do not encounter Christ. I am an Orthodox Christian in an Orthodox forum trying to explain why the Church makes the claim that it is the Body of Christ. You are free to accept it or reject it as you see fit. I also had a lot of serious emotional investment that had to be set aside before I "got it" too.

You are right, I do not know Oswald Chambers. I don't know what the Catholic saints encountered, but I do have serious doubts in certain cases, and will simply choose to remain agnostic on that count. So I do not see where I admit any such thing, not that it really matters, in that the impression I get is that the Orthodox Church is not entirely "of a mind" on the subject.

I can only add the words of Bishop Kallistos from "The Orthodox Church":

Orthodoxy, believing that the Church on earth has remained and must remain visibly one, naturally also believes itself to be that one visible Church. This is a bold claim, and to many it will seem an arrogant one; but this is to misunderstand the spirit in which it is made. Orthodox believe that they are the true Church, not on account of any personal merit, but by the grace of God. They say with St. Paul, 'We are no better than pots of eathenware to contain this treasure; the sovereign power comes from God and not from us' (2 Corinthians 4:7). But while claiming no credit for themselves, Orthodox are in all humility convinced that they have received a precious and unique gift from God; and if they pretended to others that they did not possess this gift, they would be guilty of an act of betrayal in the sight of heaven." (Pg 246).

He goes on to say: "...yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must be in some sense a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say." (Pg 248).

Therefore I cannot say that a sincere Methodist cannot be in some unknown sense a member of the Church, I can in no wise say that Methodists are in no uncertain terms, members of the Church. How you choose to interpret that I leave to your own conscience.

Beyond that, expect Orthodox reasoning from Orthodox members of Orthodox forums. And if I have spoken out of line or departed from Orthodox teaching on the subject, I look forward to correction.

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. 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 contexts 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.

[John Charmley]

I suspect no one really minds if members of any Church choose to read history and define terms in a way that satisfies themselves that they are the Church; it's human nature. It's just the assumption that sometimes goes with these things - that others should accept what your group thinks as objectively true - that grates with some folks - but usually only those folks who on their sites believe that it is their Church which is the only one.

This is a Chalcedonian site and anyone who expects an Orthodox believer not to believe that the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches are the Church (with nothing being said about the others) has blundered in here by mistake. Of course what Herman and others say is what they believe, and that is to be respected, even if one does not agree; this isn't the place to do that, it is a Chalcedonian Orthodox space, and those of us who are guests here know that.

Some might think it fortunate that nowadays only small parts of the great Christian family get hung up on this sort of thing, and that in most parts of the world no one beats up on anyone over it; others might feel it a terrible decline from a better world in the past.

Western definitions of tolerance sometimes get a bad rap - but occasionally there may be something to be said for them - but that's a pretty western viewpoint, and what someone grounded in modern western thinking would think - and so the circle goes round.

INXC,

John

[Michael Stickles]

There are a couple of distinctives that I think might help to bring this discussion back on track:


The Church visible, or upon earth, lives in complete communion and unity with the whole body of the Church, of which Christ is the Head. She has abiding within her Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit in all their living fulness, but not in the fulness of their manifestation, for she acts and knows not fully, but only so far as it pleases God.
- Alexei Khomiakov, "The Church Is One"

The problem being put forth in this thread seems to be not primarily one of doctrine, but of understanding and communication. Khomiakov (thanks for pointing his essay out, Fr. David) in this particular quote is making two distinctives. First, the visible Church is in complete unity with the whole body of the Church (i.e., the Body of Christ), but this is not an identity in the mathematical sense. As he says further down in the essay:


...the earthly and visible Church is not the fulness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation ... The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day.

Now, if an Orthodox says to a Protestant that the Orthodox Church is "the true Church", he may be speaking truth as he knows it and in accordance with Orthodox doctrine, but what the Protestant hears is false even according to an Orthodox understanding of the church. The Protestant, as a consequence of living in a fractured communion, is used to thinking about the Church as an invisible, trans-institutional entity, with no single institutional locus; therefore, he interprets the statement as meaning that the whole Church is a visible institution rather than an invisible entity; to accept this claim as he hears it is to deny his own salvation, because it locates him outside the Body of Christ. That is a freight-load of negative first impression to overcome.

The second distinctive is in the nature of the fulness which is present in the visible Church. The "living fulness" that Khomiakov speaks of is not visibly evident from the outside; so, if one who is not Orthodox is told that the "fulness of Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit" can be found in the Orthodox Church, he will naturally look to see if that fulness is there in manifestation -- precisely the way that Khomiakov says it is not present. Again, what is said is true according to Orthodox belief, but what is heard is not.

Now, it is probably not possible for an Orthodox understanding of the Church to be explained to an "average" Protestant without that person believing it to be wrong, at least initially. But, is there a way to present it so that what the Protestant hears and understands is, at least, the actual Orthodox understanding, rather than a caricature of it? Bonus points if the presentation is such that, if another Orthodox overhears it, he won't automatically think the presenter has become a heretic.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mike Stickles wrote:



But, is there a way to present it so that what the Protestant hears and understands is, at least, the actual Orthodox understanding, rather than a caricature of it? Bonus points if the presentation is such that, if another Orthodox overhears it, he won't automatically think the presenter has become a heretic.

I was going to put this off until tomorrow but seeing your question put this way Mike I thought I would step in with thoughts I had from the previous posts.

In fact the exclusivity of the Church of Christ should apply to all Christians unless their ecclesiology is such that they believe that literally all things are the Church.

Thus, the questions you pose are actually what have been central to our calling since the time of the Old Israel with its call to be a people set apart from the nations. Of course we know that all were called eventually to be within the fold of the people of God. But the point remains nevertheless that in an essential sense the calling of Israel was exclusive. Of course all of this was based on the central point of God's calling to His people that they be holy as He is holy.

This in turn was what was passed onto the Church. The Church as the New Israel has been called to be a lump of leaven unto all peoples. But this puts the Church into an situation of tension in terms of these people. On the one hand the Church absolutely must be exclusive in terms of its sense of holiness, of being apostles of Christ- otherwise it lacks the salt to account for what it is by nature. On the other hand the Church's exclusivity cannot be an end to itself. It is only the result of our calling to apostolic holiness in the face of the falleness of the world. The purpose of this exclusivity then must be so as to be a light to the nations. Without this too the Church denies its calling.

So all responsible Christians should in fact have this same tension as a challenge before them. In no way should it be exclusive to Orthodoxy. If you as a Christian can understand the Church as apart from the world and yet called to minister to it, then you can to a degree understand the Orthodox Church's understanding of Herself. Look to what your own attitudes should be and you will understand us better.

As to not being thought a possible heretic due to my explanation, every Orthodox Christian knows that's not allowed before the Second Coming. :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

First, the visible Church is in complete unity with the whole body of the Church (i.e., the Body of Christ), but this is not an identity in the mathematical sense. ... The Protestant, as a consequence of living in a fractured communion, is used to thinking about the Church as an invisible, trans-institutional entity, with no single institutional locus; therefore, he interprets the statement as meaning that the whole Church is a visible institution rather than an invisible entity; to accept this claim as he hears it is to deny his own salvation, because it locates him outside the Body of Christ.

Perhaps it would help if I were bold enough to restate the idea that Khomiakov is expressing here. The Orthodox Church as we see her here on earth is the unique and only visible manifestation in the world of the Body of Christ - that is the "whole body of the Church". There are no other "manifestations" of the Body of Christ which are given to us in this life and in this world. It is certainly possible that there are some who are Orthodox in spirit but not visibly united to the Orthodox Church in this world, but they will, in the Kingdom of God, be united to the Church. Its not a bet I would want to make for eternity (to snub the visible manifestation of the Church in hopes that somehow I'll be united to it in the next life) but in the end, it's God who makes that decision, not you or I (especially not I!)


Now, it is probably not possible for an Orthodox understanding of the Church to be explained to an "average" Protestant without that person believing it to be wrong, at least initially.

I don't necessarily agree with that - since I was in fact an "average protestant" and the only reason that I believed it was "wrong" was because of my own pride. Well now having said that, I guess I can backtrack and say that it's not the explanation that is deficient but rather the pride of the hearer that rejects any Truth that requires humility to accept.

Fr David Moser

[Celinda Grace]

I think that if I had posted this in the evangelism thread I would have prevented much of the misunderstanding that is going around here. Admittedly I started out comparing where the differing conceptions of ecclesiology came from but I think Mike, who knows me so well stated, my real desire is to find some way to communicate the Orthodox understanding of herself in a loving manner. The Bible tells us to speak the truth in love.


Now, if an Orthodox says to a Protestant that the Orthodox Church is "the true Church", he may be speaking truth as he knows it and in accordance with Orthodox doctrine, but what the Protestant hears is false even according to an Orthodox understanding of the church.

This issue of miscommunication is the main thing I am trying to find a way around.

If those who are Orthodox on the board will for the moment accept that both Mike and I accept the unique claims of Orhtodoxy for herself even if we do not understand the full nature of those claims (which I do not think the rest of you do either so we are in good company) maybe we can have some fruitful discussion about how to communicate those claims to a Protestant so that they don't provoke an immediate defensive reaction.

As I have said before. Love comes down. It is the responsibility of those older and wiser to adjust their language to be understood by those less experienced, and if they say things in such a way as to immediately turn off their listener, then the issue is not the pride of the listener but the pride of the speaker in failing to think about how he is being heard.

I like Fr. Raphael's tiered approach. In saying that the term Church of Christ be applied to all Christians he is affirming that a conscious loyalty given to Christ means something even when there is not a full understanding.
Also using the term Church of Christ avoids bringing in discussion of the Body of Christ which I think because of the Incarnational claims of the OC can in a unique sense be applied to the OC.

Herman,
The attitude that you seem to be promoting and that I have experienced from others that puts Protestants and Catholics on level with Buddhists and Hindus is an attitude that fails to recognize that our conscious dogma has any value at all. Neither does submitting to scripture's authority have any value, neither does living one's life in the name of Christ. This seems to me to deny some level of truth.

[Nina]

Well now having said that, I guess I can backtrack and say that it's not the explanation that is deficient but rather the pride of the hearer that rejects any Truth that requires humility to accept.
Fr David Moser

Exactly, dear Father. I have found out that in my life as an Orthodox sometime reality (truth) is not so sweet and it can be very inconvenient and hurtful for my egocentricity. I used to use and love miniskirts for example and wear them without discretion everywhere. A very dear and righteous Orthodox priest (not my spiritual father) advised me in a loving, fatherly manner that the church was not the place to wear miniskirts. Oh what happened to my pride (!) and I would not listen even if the words were said with love. My pride closed my eyes and ears - I guess that this is a reason why Christ said 'he who has ears let him hear'. And to think that I loved and respected that priest extremely! To make the contrast even stronger I have to divulge that he was a priest who had tomatoes thrown at him (literally) because he would walk in the streets of the city with his rasa on. He endured the tomatoes, the laughter, the ridicule... His pride = 0. Truth is adopted by humble souls and upheld at any cost by the same souls.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The attitude that you seem to be promoting and that I have experienced from others that puts Protestants and Catholics on level with Buddhists and Hindus is an attitude that fails to recognize that our conscious dogma has any value at all.

Actually, I have a great deal of respect for Buddhists and Hindus and I don't think in terms of "levels" so much. A Hindu can have a much better grasp of what "Holy" means than a Protestant, regardless of his ignorance of dogma.

I do ask forgiveness for my "attitude". I must admit I have been removed from the Protestant scene for almost 30 years now and I probably need to remind myself that the word "Protestant" is not very helpful in that it covers such a wide gamut of belief systems, some of which are even religious in nature. Perhaps I need a smaller brush, no doubt.

Let's face it, we all have to draw a line somewhere. You have drawn yours and I have drawn mine. For me, personally, the boundaries of the Church are pretty well drawn. I have wandered along the borders into some very strange places in my life and I have established my comfort zone. Yours may be a bit broader at the moment than mine, but in a sense they are still somewhat arbitrary. I don't think I have said that Catholics or Evangelicals are bound for hell and bereft of God. I have only stated what I believe the Church teaches. We can hem and haw about it, and perhaps put it in more "diplomatic" language to make it a less bitter pill to swallow, but it is what it is and at some point we do have to deal with it.

Or you can write me off as simply a foolish old man, which is probably the wisest thing to do. God grant you peace and understanding, at any rate.

Your servant,
Herman

[Celinda Grace]

May God grant us to never settle into any 'comfort zone' but to manage to pick ourselves up and continue the journey. When we stop asking questions and stop striving, when we stop being engaged with trying to find the truth, then we in some sense start to die.

But maybe you are simply going about your pursuit of truth differently, and probably more productively then I am with my debates and intellectual search. Then may God teach me better.

[Nina]

May God grant us to never settle into any 'comfort zone' but to manage to pick ourselves up and continue the journey.

Celinda,

Herman is not speaking about the same comfort zone that you talk about. And I am sure you can understand it.

[Rick H.]

May God grant us to never settle into any 'comfort zone' but to manage to pick ourselves up and continue the journey. When we stop asking questions and stop striving, when we stop being engaged with trying to find the truth, then we in some sense start to die.

But maybe you are *simply* going about your pursuit of truth differently . . .






http://www.monachos.net/forum/image.php?u=4762&dateline=1180097182&type=profile



RICK'S 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. 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 contexts 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.

[Michael Stickles]

Fr. Moser,

Sorry for the delay in addressing this; there was a lot here and I needed to get my thoughts straight first.


Perhaps it would help if I were bold enough to restate the idea that Khomiakov is expressing here. The Orthodox Church as we see her here on earth is the unique and only visible manifestation in the world of the Body of Christ - that is the "whole body of the Church". There are no other "manifestations" of the Body of Christ which are given to us in this life and in this world.

And that is probably going to be the first point of misunderstanding. Protestants (at least in my circles) are not accustomed to thinking in terms of a "visible manifestation" of the Body of Christ. The mindset is not incarnational. They will look for visible manifestation of the Spirit of God at the individual or perhaps even congregational level, but not the institutional. If they think at all of a "visible manifestation of the Body of Christ," it would be as the aggregation of all those individuals and congregations who have manifested the Spirit of God; in other words, to them, the visible portions of an invisible Body.

So the bet that you would not want to make:


(to snub the visible manifestation of the Church in hopes that somehow I'll be united to it in the next life)

for them would be - at least initially - a nonsense proposition. Before it could make sense, they would have to first accept that the Body of Christ can be visibly manifested within a given institution, and secondly accept that the Orthodox Church is indeed that institution.

This is not just a small mental shift. In the Protestant circles I've been in, the desire to have unity among those "visible portions of the invisible body" has led to a humbling that says "we are not and cannot be the one true church." Now, going along with it is a conviction that "none of them are or can be the one true church either." For them to form any kind of unified us, this is vital. To accept that there is an institution that is the one true visible manifestation of the Body of Christ requires, not just a paradigm shift, but an abandonment of the only way of thinking which has allowed any kind of unity to exist between disparate congregations of God-fearing Protestants. So, it does not get abandoned lightly.

So I would say that, if applied to those I've fellowshipped with, your final statement:


I guess I can backtrack and say that it's not the explanation that is deficient but rather the pride of the hearer that rejects any Truth that requires humility to accept.

is both wrong and right. Wrong in that, in fact, the explanation is often deficient because it makes no allowance for where the hearer is coming from, and no attempt to help him or her overcome the inevitable misconceptions. Right in that, once those misconceptions have been overcome, that which was a stance of humility ("none of us are the one true church") easily turns to pride ("if WE aren't, YOU can't be either because you're not better than us!").

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A few words here just to prevent misunderstanding. We do not normally think of the Church as an institution in the way this is thought of in the west. We are not a religious institution; ie an identifiable group held together by an adminstration trying to follow the teachings of Christ. Rather what we are part of is the living Body of Christ which is the Church.

The Church then is a given, organic reality; it is participated in by humans but it is not a human construction. It is the sacramental & grace filled Body of Christ of which humanity is called to graft itself into.

For us this is extremely important because we actually think of the Church we are part of in a different way from other Christians. Yes we are part of Patriarchates & jurisdictions, etc. But these are for us the means by which the Church on the local level is guided in faithfulness & obedience. They are not an institution.

Thus for us the Church is fully found within each parish & monastery as held together in unity of Faith. In turn a parish or monastery may separate itself from the Faith. But then for us it has pulled itself away from the Church. The same may happen on the individual or even at times on the 'church-wide' level as with Roman Catholicism.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear Father Raphael, Dear Mike,

I appreciate Father Raphael's words in the following very much, this is one big reason why I was attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy to begin with (as well as the opportunity to work openly from this framework):




The Church then is a given, organic reality; it is participated in by humans but it is not a human construction. It is the sacramental & grace filled Body of Christ of which humanity is called to graft itself into.



And, as we consider the meaning of the word 'institution' I would hope that we can still hear clearly what Mike has said as it relates to a claim of an exclusive 'manifestation' of the Body of Christ. Because, regardless of the individual wording chosen or means of expression, just as Mike has said above, this is a nonsensical proposition that is not abandoned lightly by many who would be accused of promoting an individual faith above a communal faith. If we miss this one point, we miss everything . . . and there is no communication taking place, but only misunderstanding (viz. the spirit of confusion).

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

The Church is an icon of Christ. It is therefore representative of something beyond itself. Just as an icon is not the thing in itself. The Church also is representative of all mankind. And the liturgy is the meeting place in-between world and heaven, God and man, just as the Feast of the Meeting represents that realm in-between the Old Testament and the New. Being a Christian means that we have entered into an intermediate realm between Heaven and Earth, between God and the carnal man, and we become icons. Terms like inclusivity and exclusivity are an adoption of a modern, ontological mindset that muddies the waters.

[Rick H.]

Terms like inclusivity and exclusivity are an adoption of a modern, ontological mindset that muddies the waters.



Dear Owen,

I really do value your contributions to this site very much! And, I can see that you feel strongly about the above assertion. You have made this point repeatedly; however, you have not developed this as far as I know. I wonder if you might have time sometime to develop what you are saying here.

I have stated elsewhere that I strongly disagree with this, and possibly you know that I am one to widen and not narrow a conversation such as this. But, I wonder if you would have time to engage on this one. From past experience, I know that you do not say things without a good reason, but why rule out a 'method' that says what something is, as well as what something is not? This is a method that is used in the scriptures and by the fathers/saints. Basil said sometimes prepositions get in the way, in a discussion of the Spirit of Life (On the Holy Spirit), but he demonstrated that he was the master of the preposition as he used them to refute those whom he disagreed with regarding the Spirit of Life.

I know chances are this will go unanswered, but I am holding out for the possibility of one here. What do you say partner?

In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mike Stickles wrote:


So I would say that, if applied to those I've fellowshipped with, your final statement:


Originally Posted by Father David Moser V
I guess I can backtrack and say that it's not the explanation that is deficient but rather the pride of the hearer that rejects any Truth that requires humility to accept.

is both wrong and right. Wrong in that, in fact, the explanation is often deficient because it makes no allowance for where the hearer is coming from, and no attempt to help him or her overcome the inevitable misconceptions. Right in that, once those misconceptions have been overcome, that which was a stance of humility ("none of us are the one true church") easily turns to pride ("if WE aren't, YOU can't be either because you're not better than us!").


I've been thinking about this for the past day or so and I have to say that I would say something similar to Fr David. To approach the Church now is not radically different from the time of Christ. Conversion requires an abasement of one's self-will not comparable with any other previous experience. For many this brings out fear or resistance on the deepest level of ones being. And at this point there are those who turn away.

For the Church what the fear and resistance are touching is self-will & pride. Thus to convert is always to die to oneself, to begin a new way of life in which we find our resurrection by first learning to take up the crucifixion of our self-will. But for most, including past Christians, this is a radically new experience compared to what came before. Now one will have to learn not just to do self-sacrificial things but to actively and in love to die to oneself in order to go forward- something which admits of absolutely no planning on one's part or bringing security blankets from ones past along for the ride. Here a new way of life of obedience to Christ has to be engaged in from the beginning. And to remain in the Church one has to keep this at going until and probably past the very end.

So yes, we must confront that this is very difficult to hear. If it isn't how can we even think of it as the true call of Christ? What does it mean if we are saying that we will listen if it's not difficult to hear? Haven't we deformed Christ's call into something more human more along something we want to listen to? Here we are no longer talking about Christ or the Church anymore but rather a self-created edifice of our own making. And this is as much of an ongoing temptation for those who have entered the Church as for those considering entering it.

As difficult as this is to hear, humility in terms of commitment to a death to ones cherished self is central to our calling by Christ. Our total call will stand or fall on this. And the only way to hear the message of humility is by being humble; there can be no authentic intellectual getting around this mark.

I understand that this seems to create a pressure cooker effect for the world. For the majority of humanity not in the Orthodox Church a dire condemnation seems involved. The answer to this however is that in fact not all are called at the present moment. There is no solid agreement about this but most Orthodox see that at this time many do not know about Orthodoxy through no fault of their own. Circumstances also come into play that for the sake of charity need to be taken into account. You'll get disagreement on this one from us but I would say that not all are called at the present time. A light is still a light even if it is not time for the entire world to adopt this light as its conscious way of life. As I've said here many times, that awaits a future time.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

When you write:

We are not a religious institution; ie an identifiable group held together by an administration trying to follow the teachings of Christ. Rather what we are part of is the living Body of Christ which is the Church.
this is an idea not unknown in other denominations, so clearly there is much more here than the point you are dealing with.

I don't want to get into anything comparative that contradicts the TOU, but I would not mind being able to explore something that increasingly puzzles me; this is not really aimed specifically at you, Father, but since it arises out of your most interesting remarks, I would ask a little indulgence on this one; it is a genuine puzzle, so I am not asking this in any polemical sense.

There is, we agree, no salvation outside the Church, and we have sometimes agreed that we, as humans, cannot always say where the Church is. For the sake of this question I am happy to accept the ecclesiology of this forum, but I wonder where it leaves millions who would call themselves Christian and have lived and died believing themselves to be part of something they called the Church; some of whom would have agreed with the quotation highlighted above?

Are we really saying that post 1054 there was nothing in the West that could be called 'the Church'? That despite the fact that just about no one in 'the west' had a chance to join either an Eastern or (to include my own tradition for the sake of completeness) Oriental Orthodox Church, and despite the fact that neither tradition did anything about rectifying this situation, and that therefore countless millions of men and women in 'the west' for many centuries were outside anything that could be linked to the Apostolic tradition, the undivided Church and Orthodox teaching? If we are, and I think we must be, this is indeed a great and puzzling mystery - that the Lord God would leave so many without the chief means of salvation for so long. Of course, as we have said before, no human can say who will and will not be saved, but that so many should have professed Christ but have been without what His Church offers, that is a little frightening.

I am sure I must be misreading or over-simplifying, but the question has been nagging away at me for some time.

In Christ,

John


CAVEATS APPLY: If it appears as though these ideas are antithetic to those with which you are familiar, that is normal, so do not adjust your mindset. If you find them objectionable, consult a reputable spiritual advisor – they charge less than lawyers. Should you suffer a sense of humour failure, you may want to keep it to yourself rather than complain; resisting the impulse counts towards your daily does of self-denial. Please bear in mind that English irony does not always translate into American. That the opinions of the poster may be qualified should not be taken to mean he is; should a rush of blood to the head occur do not worry; that is normal too. Should you find it objectionable, stop reading at once.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John,

I have to say that I do think the questions here are needlessly rhetorical; ie we already know the answers to be given. It's just that it is a challenge to accept them.

In any case for those who are new here I will repeat that yes I do hold with the rest of my Church, the Church past, the Church present, and the Church to come, that She is the true Body of Christ.

We who come increasingly from non-Orthodox backgrounds (just to show there isn't an ingrown bias- ie we are you in a sense) know this to be so not just because we have been told so. Far beyond this we know it because we daily experience it. Since this involves not anything along the lines of a moral or, God forbid, political choice, but of reaching out for and trying to cling to life as against death our understanding is like that of a man who has and is being saved from death and then shown a different and radiant life. To deny this and its difference would be a betrayal that would amount to rejecting the One Who saves us... and then saying that death is just a good as life. Maybe something personal is involved in this.

In any case the post-1054 situation (along with many other situations) has also been discussed here many times in the past. This is an ongoing discussion of great merit which basically comes down to how the Church relates to what is not the Church. We already have provided for us a pattern Christ spoke of concerning the world. Then there are the various heresies and schisms the Fathers have referred to during the past 2000 years as a precedent.

The above already was very subtle and mysterious ground for the Church with no black & white answers. So much more the modern situation where to a great extent we do not have conscious schism or heresy in terms of the Church but more people to greater & lesser extent being faithful or not to what they have been taught Christ and the Church is. Many of these teachings are not at all apostolic; some are barely; and some come close to something we could almost accept. So by our account amidst Christianity outside of Orthodoxy we have a lot of tares mixed in with something which could transform itself into something good. To my mind there is no way to make real sense out of this except to say that this is not the Church even though it may end up there in one fashion or another.

Good intention is good intention- truly it may end up at some point in the Church, and we can and must work with this in a god pleasing manner. But for us at least it is crucial to see that this is not the Church. If it is then it already is complete in a fundamental sense. But to misinterpret in this fashion is a fundamental betrayal not only of the Church in terms not only of what it is, its teachings etc. In some fundamental way it is a betrayal of the Church's calling which points to how what is not of the Church is not yet complete. In a sense the betrayal here is analogous (but even deeper as the whole world is involved) to a doctor informing a terminally ill patient that everything's fine.

Somewhat along the lines of a post I made earlier today it's no fun to hear it be told to you that the life you're leading is leading you towards a terminal cancer. Much more than illness and doctors a Christian life always involves choices which touch the closest part of how we think of ourselves- to have these choices questioned is difficult.

But that's part of the price of being in an Orthodox forum.

In Christ- Fr Raphael





Dear Fr. Raphael,

When you write:
this is an idea not unknown in other denominations, so clearly there is much more here than the point you are dealing with.

I don't want to get into anything comparative that contradicts the TOU, but I would not mind being able to explore something that increasingly puzzles me; this is not really aimed specifically at you, Father, but since it arises out of your most interesting remarks, I would ask a little indulgence on this one; it is a genuine puzzle, so I am not asking this in any polemical sense.

There is, we agree, no salvation outside the Church, and we have sometimes agreed that we, as humans, cannot always say where the Church is. For the sake of this question I am happy to accept the ecclesiology of this forum, but I wonder where it leaves millions who would call themselves Christian and have lived and died believing themselves to be part of something they called the Church; some of whom would have agreed with the quotation highlighted above?

Are we really saying that post 1054 there was nothing in the West that could be called 'the Church'? That despite the fact that just about no one in 'the west' had a chance to join either an Eastern or (to include my own tradition for the sake of completeness) Oriental Orthodox Church, and despite the fact that neither tradition did anything about rectifying this situation, and that therefore countless millions of men and women in 'the west' for many centuries were outside anything that could be linked to the Apostolic tradition, the undivided Church and Orthodox teaching? If we are, and I think we must be, this is indeed a great and puzzling mystery - that the Lord God would leave so many without the chief means of salvation for so long. Of course, as we have said before, no human can say who will and will not be saved, but that so many should have professed Christ but have been without what His Church offers, that is a little frightening.

I am sure I must be misreading or over-simplifying, but the question has been nagging away at me for some time.

In Christ,

John


CAVEATS APPLY: If it appears as though these ideas are antithetic to those with which you are familiar, that is normal, so do not adjust your mindset. If you find them objectionable, consult a reputable spiritual advisor – they charge less than lawyers. Should you suffer a sense of humour failure, you may want to keep it to yourself rather than complain; resisting the impulse counts towards your daily does of self-denial. Please bear in mind that English irony does not always translate into American. That the opinions of the poster may be qualified should not be taken to mean he is; should a rush of blood to the head occur do not worry; that is normal too. Should you find it objectionable, stop reading at once.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Are we really saying that post 1054 there was nothing in the West that could be called 'the Church'?

Absolutely not. Relations between the east and west went on after 1054 in different places and times. The rift was not clear cut and sudden, it took centuries to fester. 1054 is often picked as a date for convenience sake, but the rift has certainly been growing wider since then, not closer. At what point does "church" end? I freely admit I don't know. But differences must be acknowledged and error must be pointed out, Truth must be proclaimed, even as the Apostle Paul tells us: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

[Michael Stickles]

Fr. Raphael,

I was planning to reply in depth to some points in your posts, but upon reflection, I really don't think we are actually disagreeing, at least not in any important sense. I think instead that you are speaking to different aspects of the issue, aspects that run a bit deeper than I was originally looking.


The above already was very subtle and mysterious ground for the Church with no black & white answers. So much more the modern situation where to a great extent we do not have conscious schism or heresy in terms of the Church but more people to greater & lesser extent being faithful or not to what they have been taught Christ and the Church is.

Perhaps trying to find a "black and white" answer (or even set of answers) to the issue of communicating an Orthodox understanding of the Church to Protestants is not really a profitable exercise. As you mentioned in the earlier post:


The answer to this however is that in fact not all are called at the present moment. There is no solid agreement about this but most Orthodox see that at this time many do not know about Orthodoxy through no fault of their own. Circumstances also come into play that for the sake of charity need to be taken into account. You'll get disagreement on this one from us but I would say that not all are called at the present time. A light is still a light even if it is not time for the entire world to adopt this light as its conscious way of life. As I've said here many times, that awaits a future time.

Perhaps, for those who are called, misunderstanding and miscommunication will not be a barrier (at least, not for long, unless the call itself is resisted rather than the misunderstandings); for those who are not called, even effective communication without misunderstanding will not bring them through a door they feel no call to enter. So maybe the answer I was trying to find has less to do with any reasoned approach to doctrine, and more with sensitivity to the specific individual being spoken to, especially in regards to their calling and level of understanding. I think that this kind of sensitivity would necessitate the speaker not just saying what he or she means, but also being clear as to what he or she does not mean; beyond that, I'm not sure.

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

I am grateful to you for taking the time to respond to my last post.

The puzzle, of course, remains, but there are many such about the Faith, and the Triune God is unknowable and His ways not ours to question.

What you write here:

So much more the modern situation where to a great extent we do not have conscious schism or heresy in terms of the Church but more people to greater & lesser extent being faithful or not to what they have been taught Christ and the Church is. Many of these teachings are not at all apostolic; some are barely; and some come close to something we could almost accepthas, I suspect, always been the case. How many of us if pressed could actually articulate the way in which the OO and EO understanding of Christology is really different? (and I'm mindful holier and brighter men than I think it is not and has not been for the longest time). How many of us could do what Matthew did elsewhere here and articulate the idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit in a way that shows that the Catholic way of understanding it is not necessarily different from the Orthodox one (although it usually is)?

And yet, on these issues it can be said that Orthodoxy ceased in the west (and the Middle East), and that millions were left without that salvation which is found only in the Church. A mystery indeed.

In Christ,

John

CAVEATS APPLY: If it appears as though these ideas are antithetic to those with which you are familiar, that is normal, so do not adjust your mindset. If you find them objectionable, consult a reputable spiritual advisor – they charge less than lawyers. Should you suffer a sense of humour failure, you may want to keep it to yourself rather than complain; resisting the impulse counts towards your daily does of self-denial. Please bear in mind that English irony does not always translate into American. That the opinions of the poster may be qualified should not be taken to mean he is; should a rush of blood to the head occur do not worry; that is normal too. Should you find it objectionable, stop reading at once.

[Celinda Grace]

I was not going to bother with this thread anymore since I feel like I have reached the point where I am simply traveling in circles on this issue without really gaining any new understanding. However, I could not quite let John's statements go because I think that he is stuck in a common misunderstanding when it comes to soteriology.


There is, we agree, no salvation outside the Church


And yet, on these issues it can be said that Orthodoxy ceased in the west (and the Middle East), and that millions were left without that salvation

To say that there is no salvation outside the church is not the same thing as saying that individuals who live outside the confines of Orthodox membership at a given period in time can't be saved. Therefore despite the first quote above the second is still false.

Maybe it would be better to reword the first statement to say that there is no salvation except through the Church. In the first quote above I believe we can take salvation to mean the universal salvation of mankind, but this does not necessarily have a direct correspondance to any given individual's situation. It is through the Church that the Incarnation becomes possible, it is in through the Church, through the teachings and relational heritage* of the Fathers, that the power needed to redeem and transform humanity is made available. However the work of the Church is such that its power to heal and save is not confined within its own 'membership' at any given point in time.

If humanity is being saved, it is saved through the prayers of the saints who by fighting the powers of darkness in the eternal, effect a change for the Whole Adam not just the Church as it currently exists in time.

Just to try to sum up - humanity as a whole cannot be saved outside the Church, therefore no individual can ultimately be completely saved outside the Church, but just as salvation for the individual is a process that works itself out over a lifetime, so salvation for the human race is a process that is working itself out in the history of mankind. Whatever of that salvation is in fact already accomplished in history is available to individuals outside the current temporal church but these individuals are not being saved outside the church.

In a sense I think we can come down to the fact that what the Church has done it has done for the world and in this gives Christ, the Bread of Life, to the world. Whoever outside the church 'eats' this Bread, taking it into themselves, participates then in this salvation and thus at some level participates in the Church. However, it is not enough to simply have Christ in us, if we wish to produce fruit we must also abide in Christ who is the Church.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mike Stickles wrote:




Perhaps, for those who are called, misunderstanding and miscommunication will not be a barrier (at least, not for long, unless the call itself is resisted rather than the misunderstandings); for those who are not called, even effective communication without misunderstanding will not bring them through a door they feel no call to enter. So maybe the answer I was trying to find has less to do with any reasoned approach to doctrine, and more with sensitivity to the specific individual being spoken to, especially in regards to their calling and level of understanding. I think that this kind of sensitivity would necessitate the speaker not just saying what he or she means, but also being clear as to what he or she does not mean; beyond that, I'm not sure.

Yes this surely is a challenge for all involved. Many of us do in fact come from backgrounds in Protestantism, Catholicism, etc. But within Orthodoxy we enter a very different world which uses many of the same words and phrases but with such a different meaning.

Because of its particular nature Orthodoxy tends to be- very much counter to its outward appearance- very much an all inclusive world. That is, virtually everything can be included or related to in the world in one way or another through being Orthodox (like spiritual Borg). But then it is given a different meaning and often with, as said above, with the very same words everyone else uses. We get used to this and forget it at times.

This strikes me especially when I read the posts here coming from a different world with a different vocabulary. I realize I really don't understand what certain phrases mean which others may take for granted. It takes time to get a clearer understanding of what is meant since of course these words refer to another lived experience. It's hard to understand unless you share this experience. I guess the same goes about us!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

As Father Raphael has just said, at times, it does take time to get a clearer understanding, especially, with this conversation, I do not think it is a short conversation by any stretch of the imagination.

And, in this light, I would like to begin by contributing two quotes here. The first one is from Father Raphael from above, and the second is from Owen where he argues there is no such thing as an Orthodox ontology (in the Orthodox ontology thread).





But for us at least it is crucial to see that this is not the Church.








All is lost when we begin thinking that way.




And, when I read these (as well as other similar statements that have been made in other threads that deal with such questions as 'Who is the Church?' and, 'who is not the Church?'), it occurs to me that there is an element of despair in what is being presented in the sense that everything will turn out badly, or there is no hope if we even 'go there.' I am reminded of the sign that hangs over Dante's hell:



"Abandon hope, ye who enter here"


Since, I have been officially inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy for the past three years, and since I have officially become Eastern Orthodox about 1.5 years ago, I have learned that there are three main schools of thought on this issue in both the East and the West. As it relates to Christian churches outside of Eastern Orthodoxy these three views are:


1.) They are not the Church--they are not in the Body of Christ presently.

2.) I don't know.

3.) Of course some of them are in the Church/the Body of Christ.


And, I have read and listened to the arguments for the first and third positions from those who see through eastern eyes, as well as from those who think with western minds. Celinda has provided a tour de force for us in her earlier posts.

However, I would honestly like to understand why, there is a movement bordering on desparation/anxiety in the first position above?

The second and third positions are characterized more by hope and peace.

There is more to say here on this, but, for now, I wonder if anyone could possibly address my question here. I am not asking for the reader's view of which view you hold (actually, based on the writing in the archives, for most of us here it is very obvious which view we hold), so I am not asking this.

I am asking, why is it that each time this topic comes up, there is characteristically more of a 'theology of anxiety/despair' expressed in the first position; but, characeristically more of a 'theology of hope/peace' in the second and third positions?



In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote:


And yet, on these issues it can be said that Orthodoxy ceased in the west (and the Middle East), and that millions were left without that salvation which is found only in the Church. A mystery indeed.

And yet, (in agreement I think with the intention of your posts) what I am getting at is that Orthodox ecclesiology precisely is aimed at the salvation of the world. But it does so through the paradox of how the world is not yet complete. A paradox because in order to save the world the Church recognizes how it is not of the world.

This pattern of God's providence I think we already see in the Old Israel. It is very peculiar that God should have called Israel to be a light to the nations by so fiercely insisting that Israel be apart from the nations. If I recall correctly it was when this command was disobeyed that the punishment from God was most swift and severe. So the lesson evidently was for Israel to hold a balance between a kind of 'no tolerance' of the nations while at the same time holding her heart open to the nations. Quite a pattern to follow! As God was to show, only through the image of the suffering servant ( prophecy of Isaiah) could this be accomplished.

The New Israel as the Church has inherited a like role through Christ. The Church must be a light for the whole world of all time and people. But it can only do so by being apart, otherwise it betrays its fundamental calling.

The Church recognizes the light wherever it may be. But it can't just leave others to themselves in tolerant acceptance. It has to challenge others to come towards itself so as to attain fullness in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Celinda Grace]

However, I would honestly like to understand why, there is a movement bordering on desparation/anxiety in the first position above?

Anytime something forces us to confront our brokenness, our enslavement to sin and its power over us, there is a tendency to despair. Because ecclesiology is linked with soteriology -- 1.) They are not the Church--they are not in the Body of Christ presently-- means that there is some sense in which causes us to recognize that those outside the Church are not saved. In this we are brought much more forcefully face to face with the power of sin and death at work in the world and we pray for those outside the Church.

Therefore let us keep our minds in hell....but despair not for we know that God's love is for the whole world.

[Antonios]

In a sense I think we can come down to the fact that what the Church has done it has done for the world and in this gives Christ, the Bread of Life, to the world. Whoever outside the church 'eats' this Bread, taking it into themselves, participates then in this salvation and thus at some level participates in the Church. However, it is not enough to simply have Christ in us, if we wish to produce fruit we must also abide in Christ who is the Church.

Dear Celinda,

Thank you for your input into this important thread. I do not wish to hinder this discussion, but after reading your above post, I felt compelled to.

We are all searching. Thank God above who loves us and is true to His word! We ask, we seek, we knock. The Lord is there, always, with every breath we take, waiting for us to come to His open arms in true love and devotion to Him. “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is here!” The good news is that our Father loves us, and His love is Life. Not is some transcendental way, but in a real way. In the only true way- the complete way. (think Incarnation… think Resurrection…)

The Lord tells us that we are to worship in “Spirit and truth”. Not in Spirit only, but in Spirit and Truth. What is Truth if it does not include hunger or thirst or sorrow or pain? Are these not truths? Are these not our realities? Is anyone exempt? Our realities are now, this very moment, in what my mind perceives, my senses experience, and my heart abides in. God makes everything beautiful, and only in God is everything beautiful. It is when we make our mind our idol, or our senses our god, when we leave the Light and enter into the Darkness, where there is no beauty nor life.

It must never leave our minds that it is we who fell. It is in fact more than that. It is I who fell.

Such faith is what saved the publican. This was the conviction of the prodigal son.

Salvation depends upon our obedience and submission to Christ, His teachings and His promises. We must first trust in God’s Word, Who offered Himself completely so that we may have life, and life more abundantly. He is the manna from Heaven. He is our Daily Bread. He is the Vine which feeds, the Source of Life, completely giving complete life.

This inevitably leads to the chalice, that precious vessel which contains within itself the Uncontainable. The very Food of Life. The life-sustaining Word of God! Who even while knowing our folly and knowing that we are only dust, humbled Himself in the manger, in the Praetorium, on the Cross, and in the chalice, so that He may feed us, completely, with Life. In Spirit and Truth.

Not simply in some ‘degree of fullness’, but in Truth.

***

Do we repent? This is what we should be asking of ourselves.
As for everything else, God will judge.

[John Charmley]

Rereading this interesting discussion it seems, ironically, typically 'Western 'that even the definition of the 'East' is a European one, with no mention of the lands where Christ walked in His earthly life, and where Churches that were Orthodox from Apostolic times still profess the Faith once handed down. But the great spiritual riches preserved by those Churches are, themselves, little known in our Eurocentric culture. There are occasional 'borrowings' from Copts such as Matta el Meskeen, but usually divorced from an understanding of the tradition which produced him. I wonder sometimes how far the view that the Oriental Orthodox are not in some way properly Orthodox is simply another part of this Eurocentrism?

A discussion of European/American ecclesiological dogma, perhaps, but hardly one that includes the 'East'. There are moments when I suspect Professor Said had a point in his book Orientalism.

In Christ,


John
CAVEATS APPLY: If it appears as though these ideas are antithetic to those with which you are familiar, that is normal, so do not adjust your mindset. If you find them objectionable, consult a reputable spiritual advisor – they charge less than lawyers. Should you suffer a sense of humour failure, you may want to keep it to yourself rather than complain; resisting the impulse counts towards your daily does of self-denial. Please bear in mind that English irony does not always translate into American. That the opinions of the poster may be qualified should not be taken to mean he is; should a rush of blood to the head occur do not worry; that is normal too. Should you find it objectionable, stop reading at once.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote:



Rereading this interesting discussion it seems, ironically, typically 'Western 'that even the definition of the 'East' is a European one, with no mention of the lands where Christ walked in His earthly life, and where Churches that were Orthodox from Apostolic times still profess the Faith once handed down. But the great spiritual riches preserved by those Churches are, themselves, little known in our Eurocentric culture. There are occasional 'borrowings' from Copts such as Matta el Meskeen, but usually divorced from an understanding of the tradition which produced him. I wonder sometimes how far the view that the Oriental Orthodox are not in some way properly Orthodox is simply another part of this Eurocentrism?

A discussion of European/American ecclesiological dogma, perhaps, but hardly one that includes the 'East'. There are moments when I suspect Professor Said had a point in his book Orientalism.

There is something very interesting in this. I remember a few months ago when the Orthodoxy in America discussion was going on thinking how most Christians would find even those posting for a more indigenous Orthodoxy 'different' and 'eastern'. We live in a certain spiritual space so much of the time we don't recognize just how different our way of thinking about the Church is.

I really think that in our time 'eastern' has become a short-hand expression for this difference. Quite literally an Orthodox convert in Tennessee can be closer in mentality to St Alexander Nevsky than a modern contemporary Russian in Russia is. In a different way a newly churched Russian can find ties with a new Orthodox convert in this 'new world' that neither has to the same extent with their own fellow country men. So again 'eastern' is short-hand for these ties within the larger Church that stand out from within our own cultures.

These ties in many ways take us beyond our cultures in a way unique to Orthodoxy. It is not that we are against our cultures but rather that as Orthodox we stand in a positively critical relationship to our cultures. Positive because we recognize that criticism for its own sake is purely destructive and a form of pride. Positive because our critical attitude most often relies on a set of underlying beliefs about what our culture 'really is'.

This way of looking at the world ties us together with the Slavophiles of 19thc Russia in many ways for the underlying assumption is that there is in fact a Christian spiritual/moral underpinning to our culture which even if faint to see is its actual reality. Without this underpinning there is nothing.

In terms of this thread then what I wonder is whether there is something particular to Orthodox ecclesiology which gives us this perspective. Is this way of seeing affected by the way we see the Church?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for a very interesting and thought-provoking post.

I suspect there is something, perhaps very much this:

what I wonder is whether there is something particular to Orthodox ecclesiology which gives us this perspective. Is this way of seeing affected by the way we see the Church?

It was the observation of some Coptic friends of mine which prompted my last post. Born as they were, into a Church which traces its lineage back to St. Mark, and which was persecuted by the Romans (indeed, the Copts date their calendar from the persecution of Diocletian, the Melkites and then the Muslims, and which holds onto the Faith despite constant low-level (and at times high level) persecution of a sort which we in the west have not known for many a long year, they tend to adopt an amused tone to earnest westerners (as they would term all Europeans and Americans) who wish to 'convert' them to Christianity. I am sure that their view of the Church is heavily influenced by their history; never having been a 'state Church' or an imperial one, indeed, having suffered rather a lot from the state, they tend to steer clear of any engagement with it and prefer to concentrate on spiritual growth. There is an impressive growth of Coptic monasticism in the past 25 years, with the greater part of those seeking a vocation coming from the highly-educated groups who have had most contact with the West.

I asked one of my friends why he thought this was, and he said he thought that for an Egyptian, seeing that material well-being was not in any way linked to spiritual well-being - but quite the opposite - was a good inoculation against western materialism. Being a great admirer of Athonite monasticism, he also wondered whether, comparing it with Coptic monasticism, the 'eastern' mindset might not incorporate more than we Europeans knew.

In Christ,

John

CAVEATS APPLY: If it appears as though these ideas are antithetic to those with which you are familiar, that is normal, so do not adjust your mindset. If you find them objectionable, consult a reputable spiritual advisor – they charge less than lawyers. Should you suffer a sense of humour failure, you may want to keep it to yourself rather than complain; resisting the impulse counts towards your daily does of self-denial. Please bear in mind that English irony does not always translate into American. That the opinions of the poster may be qualified should not be taken to mean he is; should a rush of blood to the head occur do not worry; that is normal too. Should you find it objectionable, stop reading at once.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I'm hard-pressed to see any real defining power to a Eurocentrism vis-a-vis what is understood by 'eastern' in a theological sense - and rather sense in it a temptingly misleading idea. Whatever geographical meaning it may once have had (and using 'eastern' and 'western' in ecclesiastical discussion seems, so far as I can see, to have originated specifically with reference to the two loci of Rome and Constantinople, one being - dare I say the obvious - to the west of the other), such a geographical focus has long since ceased to have such a value. Even in its early / original usage, it was geographically amorphous, and indicated above all adherance to the traditions of Rome and Constantinople (i.e. 'West' and 'East'), not a particular geography - as the Latinate northern African region readily attests, given its primarily 'western' culture despite being every bit as geographically eastern as Constantinople itself.

The Holy Lands are another case in point. The fact that they are geographically east of both Rome and Constantinople has never stopped them from being ecclesiastically significant and 'central' to both. While Jerusalem itself was well nigh forgot by Christians until the early fourth century, it was thereafter perceived as largely 'eastern' primarily because it was restored to Christian significance in large part through the zeal of the emperor Constantine. But the Church of Rome in later centuries would never view it as 'eastern' in an ecclesiastical sense.

In any case, the impossible geography of 'east' and 'west' in even earliest ecclesiastical discussion, only heightens the point that geography, if it ever really had more to do with things than noting that the sun rises first over Constantinople than Rome given the spin of the globe, it surely did not have great significance thereafter. What was 'eastern' was that taking its heritage from and in the tradition of the Church known in that great locus of Constantinople; 'western' from Rome.

Similarly today, the fact that two chaps who live on the same close in London might the one describe himself as 'eastern' and the other as 'western', likely has little to do with some view of the globe - Eurocentric or otherwise. Far more to do with the culture of Christianity known to them.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

Eurocentric in an Orientalist way I think, rather than a geographical one. Said rather thought that 'westerners' wrote about the real 'East' in a way that reduced it to passivity and, effectively, colonised it intellectually as a prelude to doing so in fact. As an historian I have, as my next book will show, real issues with both Said's definition and his use of history, but it is hard to deny that the way in which westerners have tended to treat the Middle Eastern cultures has not had about it something of what Said groped to describe - and I remain unconvinced, having read a good deal of Anglican, Roman and some Russian material from the nineteenth century about the encounters with the Copts and 'Jacobites', that there was not a large element of this cultural condescension in the renewal of their encounter with the ancient Christian Churches of the cradle of Christianity.

An imperialist mindset takes longer to describe than it does to recognise, but whether Anglican (British Empire), Roman Catholic (Papal claims) or Russian Orthodox (Russian Empire), all three regarded what they had 'discovered' (itself a revealing word) as 'primitive' - and not as in 'primitive and Apostolic'. It us unclear to me that Christians from these traditions have not inherited something of this tone from their ancestors. How this cultural baggage translates into theological realms is another, but possibly interesting, topic.

In Christ,

John

CAVEATS APPLY: If it appears as though these ideas are antithetic to those with which you are familiar, that is normal, so do not adjust your mindset. If you find them objectionable, consult a reputable spiritual advisor – they charge less than lawyers. Should you suffer a sense of humour failure, you may want to keep it to yourself rather than complain; resisting the impulse counts towards your daily does of self-denial. Please bear in mind that English irony does not always translate into American. That the opinions of the poster may be qualified should not be taken to mean he is; should a rush of blood to the head occur do not worry; that is normal too. Should you find it objectionable, stop reading at once.

[Michael Stickles]

These ties in many ways take us beyond our cultures in a way unique to Orthodoxy. It is not that we are against our cultures but rather that as Orthodox we stand in a positively critical relationship to our cultures. Positive because we recognize that criticism for its own sake is purely destructive and a form of pride. Positive because our critical attitude most often relies on a set of underlying beliefs about what our culture 'really is'.
...
In terms of this thread then what I wonder is whether there is something particular to Orthodox ecclesiology which gives us this perspective. Is this way of seeing affected by the way we see the Church?

That seems very likely. I know that the way you described the Orthodox relationship to culture is one that Protestants from my circles would say applies equally to them. Yet there is definitely a difference. Looking back on my experience, the American Protestant relationship to modern culture reminds me of a statement by C.S. Lewis in his essay On the Reading of Old Books:


All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth.

Despite your statement in an earlier post that "We do not normally think of the Church as an institution in the way this is thought of in the west," there remains the fact that for Orthodox, there is a greater identification of the Church with a visible institution than we see in Protestantism. That institution, in addition to providing a visible boundary, has its own culture, which, being informed by a different era, is better able to avoid falling into "untroubled agreement" with modern culture (to use Lewis' terms). Protestants (of whatever grouping) do develop subcultures, but since there is no distinct separate culture, and since they see the "boundaries" of the Church as invisible relative to the world around them, they are less protected from the encroachments of modern culture because they have less reason to see it as "foreign" to the Church (unless, of course, it comes in a form obviously contrary to Scripture). Oversimplification, obviously, but I think there's truth to it.

Your comments here have also made something much clearer to me with regards to some of my personal struggles so far with Orthodoxy. Certain Orthodox doctrines seemed to provoke an extreme visceral reaction, almost like the "fight or flight" response, when I so much as thought about whether or not I could accept them. Yet I saw no logical reason for it; none of those doctrines seemed that far out, even to an American Protestant view of Scripture that ignored the Fathers. Some even seemed at least as reasonable as the views I already held. So I couldn't figure out why my "gut" was in an uproar.

Looking back, I think that the problem was not really with those specific doctrinal issues. Rather, I think that in those areas my theology was influenced by my "Western rationalist" cultural background, especially along the lines of egalitarianism and individualism. I was consciously ignoring that cultural background when evaluating the doctrines, but it wasn't ignoring me or my search. And you could say that, in a sense, that background was reacting to a "threat" to its domain. I know I'm anthropomorphizing it, but it seems appropriate; perhaps what I'm really referring to is either a sub-conscious part of myself which was rebelling, or a demonic force/being that had been deceiving me, or even both.

[John Charmley]

Dear Mike,

Interesting thoughts here. One thing I notice at times and in some places is what in other contexts I would call a romantic nostalgia for a mythical past; from the beginning of industrialisation in the west this has been in the culture: Newman's was one reaction to it, but so too was that of William Morris and those Englishmen who looked to their version of the medieval past as a reaction against a materialistic and utilitarian present which lacked the spiritual dimension they thought they perceived in that remoter past when things were more Godly; I daresay that those with their temperament who were alive in the eleventh century looked back to Bede's time as one when things were more Godly.

However much we think we can think ourselves into the mindset of the Fathers, is this possible; can we actually reconstruct that mindset? Is our challenge not the same as the one they faced - namely how we live the Christian life against the challenges of the place in which we find ourselves? We can think that we have more in common with some previous age, but that often involves a complex and selective rereading of that age through our own concerns; it is how Macaulay managed to read Magna Carta as the origin of English liberties and to see the barons as the progenitors of the Whigs of his own era.

Living the Christian life in this western, materialistic culture is something we have to do however much we are rejecting large aspects of that culture; it shapes the the world in which we live - even as Christ and His Church shape our reaction to it; in that complex interaction is our challenge - and the Devil is as active as he has always been.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

This is a very good thread, one that I find myself coming back to read over and over. I think there are a couple of conversations going on here; however, as I reread this thread I see more than not a pitting of what is considered by some to be those with more of a western scholarly bent with those of a more eastern contemplative bent. But, I wonder if any have noticed what seems to be a growing 'convert community,' which provides emphasis to an existing school of thought within Orthodoxy, in which regardless of where one lives geographically, there is a way of thinking that embraces both a western scholarly way and an eastern contemplative way. Neither are rejected, both are embraced, and the End result is that in many cases there is a transcending of both affirmations and negations. For example in Fr. David's last post in the "Mystery of the Eucharist' thread a hypothetical situation is presented whereby there is a conclusion that an answer involves a tandem truth, or a dialectic whereby the answer is 'both are right.'

Mike, if you are reading this, I think your experience is pretty close to my experience not long ago, and I appreciate your heartfelt writing and thinking. I and I would guess more than a few others here can really relate to what you are sharing in a real way. But, for example, here in this thread, when it comes to the Eucharist as sacrament and symbol, and as a "visible means of invisible Grace," I have come to the conclusion that just as Fr. D. presents in his case scenario "both are right." And, I still can't believe I landed there. I thought we would have to affirm one and deny the other initially (symbol or memorial), I thought that to be academically honest we would have to go one way or the other. Actually, I thought initially too that if I had to go 100% realism then this would be a deal breaker. But, in the End, based on my experience (my personal mini-narrative) and my academic approach to this subject, I ended up concluding that the bread and the wine, the Body and the Blood are a "symbolic realism and a realistic symbolism." I told people during this time that I was quoting Schmemman with this expression; but, just now as I went for a page reference for this, I could not find this quote in his books that I was reading at the time (For the Life of the World, and The Eucharist). So it is possible that I made this expression up. But, in any case this is a good example here for this thread I think because it demonstrates something that I am not sure is recognized here or within Orthodoxy period.

This meeting place, of East and West, so to say, this middle ground which includes all/both does not reject either the western mindset or the eastern mindset, and it is a place whereby a genuine position can be taken which yields a completely Orthodox Way of thinking! As it relates back to Fr. D's post in the other thread, when I say in my view the Eucharist is BOTH 'a symbolic realism and a realistic symbolism' and this is based on both my experience and my rational thought processes, I am agreeing with the man in the case study who says "it's both" and when pressed to say why, I am really saying "because it just is" . . . but here's the real kicker, so to say, in the End, I am really saying "I don't know!" I am saying this is a mystery.

But, this is not because I am a babbling idiot or I am just going along with the flow because I am lazy, or this is the easiest way to get by or get along. This position is one that I hold with full integrity and believe to be true--it's both, because it is, and other than that it's a mystery.

But, now we have left a classic dualistic way of knowing here haven't we? And, while we are in a good position right now to consider the Doctrine of the Trinity, this thread is about ecclesiolgy. Which leads me to hope that one day just as we deal with the mystery of the Eucharist, we could deal with the mystery of the Church! But, possibly there is a movement afoot at the present. As Fr. D. says about the mystery of the Eucharist:




Sometimes I think we would benefit from thinking about these things less, stop trying to define them and fathom the depth of the Mystery . . .



I would say of the defining and limiting of the great mystery of the Church/the Body of Christ the same thing.

But, I wonder if it is possible that just as the bread and the wine is the Body and the Blood, we may find in the End that the East is in the West, and the West is in the East. And, admittedly, there are those who try to promote a polarization and will be successful with some, but on an increasing basis there seems to be those who are turning from these traditional polarities, and the ones who promote such places. But, God willing, there will be a consideration of this middle ground from where we are not afraid to say "both are right" more often than we do. And, from this middle way we are also not afraid to say, "I honestly don't know" more than we do. I wonder if it is possible that God has *determined* that there is/will be a place where East meets West, and in this place of overlap, for those who recognize this, a genuine Orthodox Way--'A Generous Orthodoxy' in the present day, just as in the beginning.

In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mike Stickles wrote:




Despite your statement in an earlier post that "We do not normally think of the Church as an institution in the way this is thought of in the west," there remains the fact that for Orthodox, there is a greater identification of the Church with a visible institution than we see in Protestantism. That institution, in addition to providing a visible boundary, has its own culture, which, being informed by a different era, is better able to avoid falling into "untroubled agreement" with modern culture (to use Lewis' terms).

Maybe this is where I have my visceral response but I'm not sure that institution is the right term for the point here. When I think of an institution I think of some sort of administration or organization. Certainly within the Orthodox Church you find this. But yet the relationship of these things to the Church is often very tenuous or beyond measure. Thus, to take the 'highest level' of the Church as an example (and even the ambiguous nature of this term illustrates the point): the head of the Church (humanly I mean) meets with the other bishops. Rulings result which then are transmitted to the whole Church.

At this point however something mysterious begins to happen. Far from moving in lock step, accomplishing the same actions from one end of the church to the other, the actual result is more tenuous as the living Church interprets what it hears. Often this is a matter of different dioceses having almost different cultures; within each diocese each parish and monastery has its own distinctive measure; and each person within the Church also has their distinct measure.

So between the administrative structure of the Church & the life of the Church the level of priority almost seems the reverse of how we normally think of this. So much the more when you realize that administrative measures within the Church don't simply drop out of the ether fully formed. Rather they are the attempts by those given this God given responsibility to put in cogent form what already concerns the life of the Church they are part of. That's why rather than being 'top down' the structure of the Church is more circular with each continually informing & affecting each no matter their position. In all of this one has a hard time keeping track of cause & effect. What one ends up with at any given point in this process is what is 'right' in terms of the Church. So for my part at least I like to just call it The Church and know it as unique.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Stickles]

When I think of an institution I think of some sort of administration or organization.

I do think of an organization (as in, a group of people with a defined structure and/or purpose) when I use the word "institution", but not an administration (probably because I've rarely had to deal much with administrations). I've been using "institution" as it's been used in my circles of acquaintance, as a kind of shorthand for "a pretty easily definable group that's not too small, and has either been around awhile or is likely to stay around awhile". You're right, it's probably not the best word (given the extra baggage it seems to carry), but I'm not sure what to replace it with that would have the best chance of conveying the right sense to a Protestant (which has been the mindset I've been trying to stick with in this thread).

In Christ,
Mike

[Herman Blaydoe]

...we may find in the End that the East is in the West, and the West is in the East.

"OH, East is East, and West is West,
And never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently
At God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West,
Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two brave men stand face to face,
Tho’ they come from the ends of the Earth!"

Rudyard Kipling The Ballad of East and West

[Nina]

At God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West,


Rudyard Kipling The Ballad of East and West


While I have no objection about the discussion here, I have some discomfort about East - West talks as relating to Orthodoxy of our times (?!). If we are Orthodox we are Orthodox. Also I have no idea who coined in English the title Eastern Orthodox, but it was a moment of 'ok, what is this? what is this supposed to mean?' when I was told that first here.

I agree with Mathew's and Herman's (Kipling's verses) posts. And in Orthodoxy we do not need EO, or WO. This is a division. We are simply Orthodox.

If I am an Orthodox in Hawaii, East is the mainland on the east of Hawaii. Even in a city there is a West-end and an East-end. That might mean something to the fans of Pet Shop Boys; that might mean something to a GPS, or city planner, but it does not mean anything in Orthodoxy as long as one is Orthodox. And since I am not a fan of Pet Shop Boys, I do not have to 'Go West', or go East, or even find a middle ground. What is Orthodox, is Orthodox. I am an Orthodox and my path is upward, is Heaven. When we read lives of Saints we do not say 'oh wait a second, was he from South, or from the island, or from the peninsula? If not I will not read about the way he reached Heaven.'

P.S Tomorrow we celebrate a great feast, that of the glorification of St. Herman of Alaska. Happy nameday and many God-pleasing years to Herman and us all! Here are some words written by St.Herman speaking about our 'heavenly homeland':

"The empty years of these desires separate us from our heavenly homeland, and our Love for these desires and our habits clothe us, as it were, in an odious dress; it is called by the Apostle 'the external (earthy) man.' (I Cor. 15:47). We who are wanderers in the journey of this life call to God for aid. We must divest ourselves of this repulsiveness, and put on new desires, and a new love for the coming age. Thus, through this we will know either an attraction or a repulsion for the heavenly homeland. It is possible to do this quickly, but we must follow the example of the sick, who wishing for desired health, do not stop searching for means of curing themselves. But I am not speaking clearly."

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I do think of an organization (as in, a group of people with a defined structure and/or purpose) when I use the word "institution", but not an administration (probably because I've rarely had to deal much with administrations). I've been using "institution" as it's been used in my circles of acquaintance, as a kind of shorthand for "a pretty easily definable group that's not too small, and has either been around awhile or is likely to stay around awhile". You're right, it's probably not the best word (given the extra baggage it seems to carry), but I'm not sure what to replace it with that would have the best chance of conveying the right sense to a Protestant (which has been the mindset I've been trying to stick with in this thread).

In Christ,
Mike

Yes, to labour the point too much about this one word would be petty.

Connected to the theme of this thread however a very good book by Archbishop Hilarion Troitsky called Christianity or The Church comes to mind. I just began reading it again yesterday mainly because of what we have been discussing here. It's very good.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Celinda Grace]

Is our challenge not the same as the one they faced - namely how we live the Christian life against the challenges of the place in which we find ourselves? We can think that we have more in common with some previous age, but that often involves a complex and selective rereading of that age through our own concerns;


All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth.


At this point however something mysterious begins to happen. Far from moving in lock step, accomplishing the same actions from one end of the church to the other, the actual result is more tenuous as the living Church interprets what it hears. Often this is a matter of different dioceses having almost different cultures; within each diocese each parish and monastery has its own distinctive measure; and each person within the Church also has their distinct measure.

I think I see an interesting point developing here. As John notes and Lewis also, we act and think and interact with Christ through the cultural lens that we have developed, but as Fr. Raphael states, as that interaction happens within the multiculturalism of the Church something begins to happen. The Eternal that exists within all these cultures starts to become more visible as we look across time and culture and see what is common to all. The interaction within the Church of different cultures stips away what is merely common to the culture and leaves The Way, the Truth and the Life visible.

[Michael Stickles]

Connected to the theme of this thread however a very good book by Archbishop Hilarion Troitsky called Christianity or The Church comes to mind. I just began reading it again yesterday mainly because of what we have been discussing here. It's very good.

Is that a full book, or a booklet? The orthodoxinfo.com website has an article by St. Ilarion Troitsky (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/sthilarion_church.aspx) with that same title, and it's fairly long for an article; I was wondering if it's the same thing you're referring to.

In Christ,
Mike

[Father David Moser]

The orthodoxinfo.com website has an article by St. Ilarion Troitsky (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/sthilarion_church.aspx) with that same title, and it's fairly long for an article; I was wondering if it's the same thing you're referring to.


Yes, they are one and the same.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Yes, they are one and the same.

Fr David Moser

I've just taken a fast look comparing the online and the 1971 English version I have. There are small differences in translation & certain words italicized for emphasis. There are also no descriptive chapter headings as in the online version but rather a three part division in the article which occurs at a difference place in the article/booklet.

As Fr David says though the two are substantially the same and shouldn't I think make a fundamental difference.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

I am reminded of something in the writings of St. Jerome, who tells us of the tradition that when, through old age Saint John was too feeble to preach, he had to be carried into the church in Ephesus in the arms of his disciples. At these meetings, he was accustomed to say no more than, “Little children, love one another!” After a time, the disciples wearied at always hearing the same words, asked, “Master, why do you always say this?” “It is the Lord's command,” was his reply. “And if this alone be done, it is enough!”

In Christ,

John

[Kieran P.]

Nice story, John, and a timely reminder!

I was on retreat at a Cistercian monastery at the weekend and such simplicity of spirit and words were evident and brought joy to my heart - and reminded me of the necessity of uncomplicating my faith.

God bless :)

[John Charmley]

On the thread on 'Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' there was an interesting side debate developing in the discussion between Owen and Kornelius about what the Church was.

In his post on 29th, Kornelius writes:

As orthodox you must know that we do have it in our Orthodox Church. St. Cyprian says: “No one can take God as his Father unless he takes the Church as his mother.” This confirms what St. Ignatius Brianchaninov was saying regarding the true faith as an absolutely must have criterion for salvation.
This, I take it, would be same St. Cyprian who wrote:

Upon him [Peter], being one, He built His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone....', that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one [Peter]. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.
--"On the Unity of the Catholic Church", chpt 4.

So, I read OC and RCC both using the same arguments, with a few different selections form the Fathers to prove the same point - which is that the 'fullness of the Faith' rests with them. Since most seem to be agreeing that we are not saying that salvation can be found only within the OC or the RCC, is there much point in these discussions, especially when, on both sides, pious, well-intentioned and utterly sincere Christians argue their position with such skill and vigour?

I read such firm pronouncements on RCC sites about what the OC believes, and vice versa and am constantly struck by two thoughts: one is how little of the full tradition of the other side many commentators actually have; the other is that all quotations from the Fathers before 451 A.D. refer to the undivided Church, which both RCC and OC ecclesiological dogma insists is to be found solely within the RCC/OC (according to belief).

Just a thought?

In Him,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Western ecclesiology: a car, a child's wagon with 3 wheels, a pumpkin on wheels; they're all vehicles, thus all the same; to ride in any of these three is all the same.

Patristic ecclesiology: a car, a child's wagon with 3 wheels, a pumpkin on wheels; a car is the most perfect expression of movement available among the three in this present time; better to ride in the car.

The first is based on an abstraction about good which avoids committing to a choice about the good before oneself.

The second is based on committing to good while not denying that children's wagons & pumpkins on wheels may end up somewhere or other.

Patristically, choice is not about choosing an abstract good which pervades all things. It is about choosing concrete good as found within the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you, both for a most amusing and instructive reply, and for demonstrating my point about how little we often know about what others teach. The Roman Catholic Church, which of course accepts all 7 Councils (and a few more besides) would actually agree with what you call an 'eastern' ecclesiology, as can be seen from the recent statement from the recent CDF document to be found here
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html


Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.

....
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church


I quote this not to engage in any comparative argument, but simply to show that the RCC believes about itself exactly what the OC does.

Indeed, I guess if one continued your analogy it would be:

OCC Ecclesiology there is one car and many passengers saying which is the best road

RCC ecclesiology there is one really good car, and that is the one where the driver can say which way it should be going.

As I said in the earlier post, I am unsure whether there is much point in such discussions since, certainly between RCC and OC they are the same set of arguments, just designed to prove that one is right and the other is not. I doubt anyone not wanting to be persuaded is ever persuaded, and suspect that however much the informed participants deny particularism, to the large outside audience, that is more or less what it looks like.

Still, I am sure the analogies will keep us going for a while.

In Him,

John

[Tim Grass]

Well, here we go again..........

I pretty much believe that the more obsessed people are with talking about "where the church is," the more they're usually worried about validating the groups they belong to.

--tim

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Except when those "obssessed" persons happen to be Eastern Orthodox Christians.......in such cases they are usually worried about validating the groups their friends belong to.............right, Tim......? ;)

....In IC XC
Athanasius

[John Charmley]

Well, here we go again..........

I pretty much believe that the more obsessed people are with talking about "where the church is," the more they're usually worried about validating the groups they belong to.

--tim

Dear Tim,

In my last post I wrote:

I am unsure whether there is much point in such discussions
but if one is attributing motives, then my unsureness crystallises into an absolute certainty that there is no point whatsoever.

It really rather underlines my original point. In fact the RC document does not deny the validity of the OC; is there an OC document speaking in authoritative terms on that issue which would hold the same view of the RC?


In Him,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Just to clarify things here. I wasn't referring to either a Protestant or to a Roman Catholic sense or definition of the Church. These things we have already known about for the past few centuries. We disagree on where and how the Church is. But at this point in history there can be basic respect for those who believe firmly there is a living and quite distinct reality to the Body of Christ; ie the Church.

What I was referring to rather is a recent phenomenon that does not believe there is a distinct Church. To not complicate matters I thought it best to speak as it were with its own voice but instead of focusing on its words to pay attention to its actual motivations. That is: "wherever 'good' in the abstract is found there is 'the Church'".

Such an understanding of the Church has a potential place here in discussion because in fact it is this sense of the Church which we are most likely to face nowadays. Compared to a Protestant or Roman Catholic Christian who seriously believes that the Church is the unique and life-saving Body of Christ the view that the Church is everything and everywhere where 'good' is found influences Christianity in a way that precisely denies distinct belief. Thus its unique power in this modern age.

The recent understanding of Orthodoxy concerning the dangers of ecumenism is something that can now be shared with all Christians. This seems self-contradictory until we keep in mind that something much more fundamental is at work here: a modern mind-set that precisely denies that good refers to Someone Unique. Or to adopt the voice of this sense of things: Christ Himself is defined by our sense of good. Thus the acute danger here and why these things need discussion is in how the whole purpose of the Church is reversed. In place of Christ is put self: but this is disguised by speaking of abstract 'good'. I think that looked at soberly anyone can see the serious danger here when 'good' becomes the vehicle for what actually is selfishness.

The salvation which Christ witnesses to has always been inextricably linked to the uniqueness of the Church. This has continued to be central to the Patristic vision up until our own times. Uniqueness of life as offered by Christ only comes through His Body the Church.

A last point here is that if serious Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox each hold that they express through themselves the uniqueness of the Body this does not add up to all of them being expressions of the One Body. This would be to overlook the fundamental point- that each seeks through their understanding of correct belief & practice to be the unique Body of Christ. Thus the idea of an overarching super-church held together by an abstract sense of what holds all Christians together ends up denying the most fundamental point of Christian belief- the uniqueness of the Church.

So what we end up with in reality is what the Fathers always spoke of in the first place: a fundamental divide caused by division in belief & practice. The solution to this is not belief in a super church which ends up denying the fundamentals of what each church actually believes. The solution is to discern and then commit to that which by its very nature achieves unity only through a kind of separation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for the clarification.

At least thus far in this thread we have not, thank goodness, been dealing with that modern definition to which you refer; I am unclear and so will not pronounce on what the various Protestants hold on this issue; indeed it is probably impossible to talk of a Protestant position as such.

The Catholic position seems identical with the Orthodox one, but I was unclear whether this was so, since whilst it is possible to find (as cited) a definitive Catholic statement about how it regards the Orthodox Church(es), I was unaware of whether there was a definitive Orthodox statement or statements.

In Him,

John

[Anthony]

Indeed, I guess if one continued your analogy it would be:

OCC Ecclesiology there is one car and many passengers saying which is the best road

RCC ecclesiology there is one really good car, and that is the one where the driver can say which way it should be going.




Not at all. The nearest traditional image I can think of is that of a ship, with Christ at the helm and the bishops as the ship's officers. The problem with RC ecclesiology, at least as commonly understood, is that the first mate seems to have the bridge all to himself.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John,

The Church is not some institution that one can look at and understand things by reading documents.

Sure, there is a definitive Orthodox statement or statements within the living tradition of the Orthodox Church.

We are not in communion with the papal sect whose leader, the Bishop of Rome thinks himself and teaches those in communion with him that he is the "Successor of Christ".

Such a definitive Orthodox statement not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome is wise as it must be. We know that Judas also left Christ and the disciples and issued definitive statements, betraying his Master with a kiss.

Do you think that one who thinks himself to be the "Successor of Christ" can be reconciled with Christ and His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? Who will prevail, Christ the way and the Truth and the life or definitive statements coming from the papal sect about how it views Christs' One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Can you tell the difference, it seems very basic to me, follow the "Sucessor of Christ" vision and see where one would end up.

The ecumenist would do well to rather embrace a person that thinks himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte, for such a one might be insane but not blasphemous. Those ecumenist that embrace the Bishop of Rome actually make him and his sect seem somewhat acceptable. They are wrong very wrong. Those in the papal sect with its greatly fallen leader the bishop of Rome do not find the "Successor of Christ" title at all disturbing but rather acceptable which is also a definitive statement. A statement that must seperate us.

Perhaps others here would like to comment on why and what a "Successor of Christ" is from the perspective of Orthodox theology? Would not such a one be different than the rest of us?

The Blessed Theophylact who is said to express the mind of the Church well, comments on the Gospel of St. Matthew saying:

"And Jesus answered them and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Many, He says, will come declaring themselves to be Christ's. For Dositheus the Samaritan said, “I am that prophet foretold by Moses, “ Dt. 18:18 and Simon the Samaritan called himself the great power of God. Simon Magus Acts 8:9 ff."

The position of the papal sect may seem identical with the Orthodox to you John and your perspective but it does not seem that way to us here.

Here are some very recent comments about how many in the papal sect see things, they often puff the man up, it is a fallen humanistic sect. No they do not belong to the Church that Christ established irrespective of what they say, shine a apple with worms inside if you will but not everybody will eat.


Published: September 6, 2007

Pope Benedict, another John the Baptist
Vatican II affirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, says San Bernardino bishop.



In issuing the June 29 statement reaffirming that “we [in the Catholic Church] are the one, true Christian church,” Pope Benedict XVI was giving a “pep talk” to Catholics who live “in a modern world plagued increasingly by relativism," wrote San Bernardino’s Bishop Gerald Barnes in the Sept. 2007 Bulletin, the diocese’s newspaper

Like John the Baptist, who caused “a public stir” by preaching repentance and conversion, Pope Benedict, in issuing “Responses to Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church,” has created some controversy, said Bishop Barnes. Some Catholics have taken the pope’s words “as a positive affirmation of their faith and the fact that they belong to the church established by our Lord himself,” while other Catholics and non-Catholic Christians “have been concerned by the statement,” fearing “it will create division and erode the significant common ground that we share.”

But, said Barnes, “Responses” only reiterates the teaching of Pope John Paul II and “is not meant to denigrate other Christian faiths” or compromise ecumenical efforts. In “Responses,” “the Holy Father is reminding us” that [a]ll the fundamentals” Jesus “established – from the celebration of the Eucharist to the priesthood to the succession of the Apostles to the Bishops of today -- exist in their truest form only in the Catholic Church.”

“Responses” does not say, said Barnes, “that one must be a believer in Christ to go to heaven,” though “faith in Christ is the surest path to salvation.” In the salvation of souls, said the bishop, “knowledge and power belongs only to God.” Nor does the statement deny “validity” to other “Christian communities.” For, though “Vatican II affirmed that we are the one true church,” the council also made it clear that other Christian communities’ shared faith in Christ makes them valid instruments of truth and salvation.”

Barnes said “Responses” was not issued “in arrogance, but rather to remind us, as the text reads, of the ‘fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.’ Like St. John, our Holy Father points people of all nations to the Christ. Our Catholic faith is a gift. We should not fear in proclaiming it.”


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

I cannot think that anyone has been trying to say that the Church is an institution, just asking for

a definitive Orthodox statement or statements within the living tradition of the Orthodox Church
and in that sense, it would be more helpful to abandon the straw man approach and proffer some of those statements.

Your approach is essentially that of St. Cyprian, which has recently been described thus by as very distinguished scholar:

a rigid and anxious ecclesiology that was all concerned with drawing the boundaries between 'us', as Church, and 'them', as persecuting pagans or heretic. Such an ecclesiology was useful in times of crisis (and may still have important aspects in this time of crisis for the Church's identity) but it is not the last word, and can lead to a profound 'dumbness' of the Church in the face of world religions, and their religious quests (on the Cyprianic model model to be dismissed as entirely 'demonic') and also in terms of whether or not dissident groups are 'in' the Church or not ...

There seems much wisdom here, not least in that 'not the last word'.

Against this rigidity he would juxtapose an

ecclesiology which takes its beginning not from the liminal defence of boundaries, but from a cosmic vision of the eros of God for His world, and from the hope that all humans are called to rise into the spiritual apprehension (and ultimately - love) of the One God who comes to all of them through his descent as Incarnate pedagogue, to teach the path of virtue, humility, love, and hope. Surely this is a mystic Christo-centric universalism whose spirit we could do well to recapture in our various ways?
Fr. John A. McGuckin, Origen of Alexandria on the mystery of the pre-existent Church in the International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church vo. 6, no. 3, 2006, p. 217

Part of my attempt to grasp it is to set aside the partisan comments about a papal 'sect' as being a sad and sorry echo of ancient animosities which, as the CDF document shows, the RCC is getting beyond. And, if someone will give me one of these definitive Orthodox statements, I may even be able to find out whether this is so in the OC.

In Him,

John

[Nina]

It is only wise and spiritually beneficial to restrain ourselves from judging the Saints of the Church.

The so called "ancient animosities" are nothing, but misleading statements. Are we saying here that Saints of the Church, by defending the Truth and the dogma of the Church, harbored and nursed such feelings characteristic to animosity? How can we desecrate in such a way the holy names, lives and deeds of our Saints and Forefathers in God?

Again: It is only wise and spiritually beneficial to restrain ourselves from judging the Saints of the Church. But as always do not take my word (post) for it. Go read the Holy Bible where it is written, that the righteous will judge the world.

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,

I wouldn't read what Fr. McGuckin says as casting aspersions on anyone, and in a non-Cyprianic spirit would suggest that we don't read it, or my own comments, in that way. If you are suggesting there are no ancient animosities between the various Christian traditions that would be an interesting point of view to see elucidated.

To return to the subject of this thread, what is being suggested is that OC and RC ecclesiologies are really rather similar; down to there being what Fr. McGuckin called 'Cyprianic' tendencies in both - just as there are other tendencies on both sides of the ancient divide.

In Him,

John

[Anthony]

Dear John,



Your approach is essentially that of St. Cyprian, which has recently been described thus by as very distinguished scholar:


With due respect, I think the excerpt posted is a poor characterization of St Cyprian. St Cyprian's thought about the Church is not motivated by fear, but, to a great extent, by an (equally "mystic", whatever that means in this context) vision of the Church as a pure bride. He often compares his position, as a bishop, to somebody who has been entrusted with the care of his best friend's wife.

Whether St Cyprian's detailed views on the sacraments are the last word or not, I disagree with the idea that his vision of the church is something we should seek to "get beyond", or patronize as being appropriate only to a situation of persecution.

[John Charmley]

Dear Anthony,

I am not necessarily agreeing with Fr. McGuckin, but since he is both an Orthodox priest and a theologian of great experience, I am hardly qualified on either count to disagree with him!

The wider point he makes about two types of ecclesiology seems of interest in the wider context of this thread; I wonder what thoughts other have on that distinction?

In Him,

John

[Anthony]

Dear John,



I am not necessarily agreeing with Fr. McGuckin, but since he is both an Orthodox priest and a theologian of great experience, I am hardly qualified on either count to disagree with him!


Nor am I, of course. Nonetheless there are other distinguished scholars and priests around; my post was based on past reading of some of them.

And as Nina said, if I have to choose between saints and scholars I would rather be found on the side of the saint.

I must admit I have rather lost the "thread" of this thread, but just saw something which I thought required a response. I apologize for going off at a tangent if I misunderstood what you, and / or Fr McGuckin, meant.

[John Charmley]

Dear Anthony,

No problem. Of course there are, as you say, other views, but in this thread I had not seen the one offered by Fr. McGuckin represented, and I wondered what others made of it.

In Christ,

John

[Anthony]

Dear Anthony,

No problem. Of course there are, as you say, other views, but in this thread I had not seen the one offered by Fr. McGuckin represented, and I wondered what others made of it.

In Christ,

John

What I personally make of it (on the basis of your quotation and lacking any other knowledge of Fr McGuckin's thought) is that it is surprisingly quick to dismiss, or relativize, St Cyprian - and with him a large amount of traditional Orthodox teaching - while the alternative presented is so vague that I have to wonder what, in practical terms, its ecclesiological content amounts to.

Perhaps you would like to elucidate what you yourself make of it?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Are St Cyprian's and Origen's ecclesiological sense really contradictory? We need to be more sure from investigating each on a deeper level since they may only refer to different circumstances and thus actually complement each other.

The basic problem here, at least as I take it about St Cyprian, is that he is often made to represent a specific kind of ecclesiology. Briefly, he is often portrayed as representing a strict ecclesiological position (akriveia) as opposed to a more lenient one (economia).

This is to generalize however to the point of losing track of the actual issues which St Cyprian and the Church at large were concerned with. For example his apparent strictness comes from a particular interpretation of the disputes with Pope Stephen of Rome over receiving back those fallen from the Church. What is often overlooked is that many and not just one issue was involved- ie those who had lapsed, those who had fallen into schism and those who were involved in what were judged to be actual heresy. Though similar in the sense that all of these put one outside of the Church in some sense the degree in which they did was different and was obviously the very question at issue in the first place. And about this within the Church there was little unanimity. Thus St Cyprian in relation to Pope Stephen is strict but in relation to Novatian he is lenient.

The most important point to keep in mind however is the issues involved here. Yes, St Cyprian in relation to Pope Stephen was more strict. But this was mainly in terms of the pastoral issue of what was needed for re-entry into the Church. Certainly such pastoral questions bear on ecclesiology. But not to the extent that two different pastoral practices necessarily imply two opposed ecclesiologies. It only means that the practice of one bishop was simply more strict than that of another about entry into the One Church. And in a particular circumstance!

We nowadays see exactly the same thing. Within the One Church there are many different ways of receiving people. These differing practices do not necessarily imply a different ecclesiology. Indeed someone practicing greater economia may even have a more hard line stance about what they discern to be outside the Church. The main point is what they deem necessary to come to the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

You ask:

Are St Cyprian's and Origen's ecclesiological sense really contradictory? We need to be more sure from investigating each on a deeper level since they may only refer to different circumstances and thus actually complement each other.

From a reading of the whole article, I would say Fr. McGuckin's answer to this is that they are different, and that whilst nothing you say about the pastoral realm is not so, this is not what he is writing about. He is dealing with two different ways of configuring the same ecclesiology, and the implications that follow. As to whether his interpretation of St. Cyprian is correct, all I can say is I am not at all qualified to question the good professor's scholarship in this area; but being familiar with most of his work, I would be extremely surprised if his views were not based on sound scholarship. Of course, as we all know, that does not make him infallible, but he raises interesting points in a scholarly way.

Anthony asks what I make of it. Well, it seems to me that the second reading of OC ecclesiology would make for a more vigorous dialogue with others, and one more likely to be productive of a real dialogue.

My views, of course, are not fearfully relevant because I am from outside your tradition, whilst he is firmly within it; hence, of course, my interest in knowing how far such views were shared in your tradition.

In Him,

John

[Anthony]

Dear John,

My question was a genuine one; perhaps you could make more explicit for us what ecclesiological consequences seem to you to follow from Fr McGuckin's article, which I have not read apart from the short passages you quote.

Anthony

[James Aubuchon]

I'm not even sure I understand what is being said here. The fact is that the Orthodox Churches ecclesiology is absolutely necessary to its identity. Do we give in to ecumenism or some invisible church theory, and wallow in the mire with the rest of christendom? No. Is it possible that our eccelsiology is not complete? Perhaps. But its the only one that really makes any sense. Either there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, or there is not. You either believe that as it was understood when it was written, or you don't. Yes, this means that all claims to Catholicity compete with each other, and will probably never be satisfactorily resolved so that all of christendom reunites. But what choice do we really have if we want to take the concept of Church at all seriously in any way.

We already admit that one can possibly be saved outside of the Church. That's about the best we can do given that we strive to maintain an historical theology of the Church.

Maybe when we all get to heaven we will find out that it is not entirely what we thought it was, but in the present circumstances I see no other way for the OC to define themselves.

In Christ,

Jim

[Anthony]

Dear John

Just one further clarification: I am not (as you possibly assume) advocating a "rigorist" position within the spectrum of ecclesiological views held within the Orthodox Church. I have not actually expressed a view of my own on that very complex subject.

[John Charmley]

Dear John

Just one further clarification: I am not (as you possibly assume) advocating a "rigorist" position within the spectrum of ecclesiological views held within the Orthodox Church. I have not actually expressed a view of my own on that very complex subject.

Dear Anthony,

I am happy to say I made no such assumption.

I quite take Jim's points, but they don't quite match up with those by a distinguished Orthodox theologian who is also an Orthodox priest - which is one of the reasons why the question still seems relevant.

To recap: the RC ecclesiology looks pretty much identical with that of the OC, but, as one can see from the CDF document cited above, it does recognise the validity of the Orthodox Churches under certain conditions; all I have been trying to do is to find out whether anyone can tell me whether there is a similarly helpful source for whether the OC takes a similar view or the rigorist one cited by Jim.

It is obviously not as easy to get such a statement from the OC, which is, of course, fair enough.

I am not arguing any particular case, and have my own views, which are hardly relevant to what the OC which is in the majority here holds; so if there is a useful OC source or two, it would be good to be able to read it.

In Him,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote:



From a reading of the whole article, I would say Fr. McGuckin's answer to this is that they are different, and that whilst nothing you say about the pastoral realm is not so, this is not what he is writing about. He is dealing with two different ways of configuring the same ecclesiology, and the implications that follow. As to whether his interpretation of St. Cyprian is correct, all I can say is I am not at all qualified to question the good professor's scholarship in this area; but being familiar with most of his work, I would be extremely surprised if his views were not based on sound scholarship. Of course, as we all know, that does not make him infallible, but he raises interesting points in a scholarly way.


I would say that we're talking about two different things. One is St Cyprian's understanding of the Church. The other is Fr McGuckin's understanding of this. Fr McGuckin's presentation could well be very enlightening. But it still is an interpretation of the saints' writings which are very large in number.

Except in certain rare circumstances I've don't favour using using modern authors to back up one's own presentation of the Fathers' understanding of the Church. These authors may be very helpful in coming to an understanding of the Fathers for oneself. But the risk I think is of falling into a fruitless series of arguments instead of a living understanding of the Faith.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

John Charmley wrote:
...
Except in certain rare circumstances I've don't favour using using modern authors to back up one's own presentation of the Fathers' understanding of the Church. ...

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr. Raphael,

My purpose in quoting a very distinguished theologian who is also an Orthodox priest was to enquire whether his reading of ecclesiology (the subject of this thread) was accepted by others in your tradition, not to back up my own views.

I confess to being puzzled about how you think we are to understand the Fathers if we are not to take on board the developing understanding encouraged by writers such as Fr. McGuckin. What, under such an understanding, would be the function of Patristics scholars?

A living understanding of the Faith might, perhaps, be taken to involve such prayerful engagement?

In Him,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

My purpose in quoting a very distinguished theologian who is also an Orthodox priest was to enquire whether his reading of ecclesiology (the subject of this thread) was accepted by others in your tradition, not to back up my own views.

To cut through some of the confusion, the answer appears to be NO, his reading of the ecclesiology has NOT been entirely accepted by others in our tradition.

[John Charmley]

Dear Herman,

Many thanks, as ever, your plain common sense helps us along nicely.

The question probably is not whether his reading has been accepted by all - that would indeed be in the nature of a minor miracle, I suspect; it is rather whether it is an acceptable reading?

Which, of course, raises the other question bubbling along here from time to time - that of who decides such matters in the OC? Would I be correct in assuming that it would be rather like the OO, where each synod would make such a decision? Obviously here, at least, eastern and western ecclesiology would not be the same, since it is easy enough to locate where the RCC would make such a decision.

In Him,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

To cut through some of the confusion, the answer appears to be NO, his reading of the ecclesiology has NOT been entirely accepted by others in our tradition.

This really comes down to a discussion of the difference in how we see theology. For us such authors really are commentators and interpreters of the Fathers. Some are accepted by and end up influencing the Church at large while others barely register beyond their own thoughts.

The difference I think comes down to the manner in which their words are a reflection of the Faith of the Church. There's nothing predictable about this- whether a person is more intellectual or more spiritually intuitive or whatever- the point is how that person is received by the Church at large. It is in this way that we read such commentators on the Fathers not giving them an authority which the Church at large has not yet given them.

The difference in how this relates to theology is very important. In modern commentary there is a tendency to rely on academic experts who are thought to have authority simply because they are academics. Although the Church would never reject the thought of someone because they are an academic it is definitely not on the basis of the fact that they are an academic that the Church accepts them. Rather it is the manner in which they express the Faith of the Church.

Discussions here then which are supposed to have their foundation in the Fathers & tradition of our Church need to keep the above in mind in order to not continually fall into fruitless argumentation- a main fruit and object in itself for modern understandings of theology which are based on ideas of opposition, conflict and temporary resolution. Within this way of seeing theology 'experts' are continually drawn on to try to give one's own views a substance beyond oneself- a self-contradiction when it comes to faith if ever there was one.

Again I'm not at all saying we should not read those like Fr John McGuckin. From what I have read of him he has some good insights. But we also shouldn't make more of him than he would likely make of himself. He is only a commentator as of yet, an interpreter and the Church will be the one which determines if he actually is a theologian.

This means that in such discussions I think it is we who need to say what we believe be it about St Cyprian or Origen. If we believe and agree that St Cyprian represents: (the two quotes are from the above post)


a rigid and anxious ecclesiology that was all concerned with drawing the boundaries between 'us', as Church, and 'them', as persecuting pagans or heretic. Such an ecclesiology was useful in times of crisis (and may still have important aspects in this time of crisis for the Church's identity) but it is not the last word, and can lead to a profound 'dumbness' of the Church in the face of world religions, and their religious quests (on the Cyprianic model model to be dismissed as entirely 'demonic') and also in terms of whether or not dissident groups are 'in' the Church or not ...

and Origen:


ecclesiology which takes its beginning not from the liminal defence of boundaries, but from a cosmic vision of the eros of God for His world, and from the hope that all humans are called to rise into the spiritual apprehension (and ultimately - love) of the One God who comes to all of them through his descent as Incarnate pedagogue, to teach the path of virtue, humility, love, and hope. Surely this is a mystic Christo-centric universalism whose spirit we could do well to recapture in our various ways?
Fr. John A. McGuckin, Origen of Alexandria on the mystery of the pre-existent Church in the International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church vo. 6, no. 3, 2006, p. 217


then say it if we wish.

But such views are debatable to say the least. Personally, for the reasons I explained above, I think they are a fundamental misinterpretation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Raphael,



The difference in how this relates to theology is very important. In modern commentary there is a tendency to rely on academic experts who are thought to have authority simply because they are academics. Although the Church would never reject the thought of someone because they are an academic it is definitely not on the basis of the fact that they are an academic that the Church accepts them. Rather it is the manner in which they express the Faith of the Church.

Makrakis comes foremost to my mind in this regard among modern commentators.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, it seems to this bear of little brain that if there is a question, then it is generally up to THE BISHOP to decide the appropriate answer or response. "THE BISHOP" in this case, is of course, the particular Bishop you happen to be under. In this we seem similar to the Catholic Church. However, if THE BISHOP departs from the Apostolic Witness which is preserved in the practiced Orthodox Tradition, then it is up to his brother bishops to "set him straight". In extreme situations the laity themselves might rise up against heresy but I think this a rather undesireable and limited exception to the rule that maintains good order and discipline within the Church. Every Orthodox bishop is a "Popa" to his flock, but is not allowed to use the crowbar of "infallibility" to force questionable theology on the Church. This is where we depart from the RCC in ecclesiology. If I depart from the Truth, then my bishop is there to correct me. If the bishop departs from the Truth, then the Church is there to correct him. However, the Church is never ever one person. Even our Lord Jesus Christ is part of the Trinity, so there is no single authority except God the Trinity, a plural singularity, a singular plurality.

The idea of an infallible vicar of Christ seems to defeat the very concept of the Trinity and gives the "vicar" of Christ more authority than Christ Himself assumes. At least that is how it seems to this simple mind.

Herman the Pooh

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Herman,

Many thanks for the explanations.

I suspect Herman's interpretation of infallibility is far from infallible itself; the number of occasions upon which Popes have spoken thus since 1871 are hardly numerous according to my Catholic friends; another of those misunderstandings that proliferate, especially since the Pope usually consults other bishops before pronouncing; indeed, he may be a good deal less infallible in practice than some of your priests, by the sound of things.

Naturally and of course the views are debatable; I was simply trying to understand how the debate might be translated into the teachings of the Church given the absence of a Magisterium, and am duly grateful for the attempts to enlighten me.

In Him,

John

[Antonios]

..the number of occasions upon which Popes have spoken thus since 1871 are hardly numerous according to my Catholic friends;


Hi John,

Even if the Pope used this once, it is contradictory to the councils and ecclesial make-up of the Apostles and the Church. This is a major difference in the ecclesiology. As a historian, you should realize this.

[Herman Blaydoe]

the number of occasions upon which Popes have spoken thus since 1871 are hardly numerous according to my Catholic friends;

So rare that it seems rather superfluous, or as you Brits so charmingly say "redundant". The Catholic doctrine of the Magesterium comes closest to the Orthodox doctrine, or would, if it were not over-rideable by Papal "Infallibility". We do indeed have a "magesterium", but it is not as rigidly defined as the Catholics have done. You do not need a Pope to have a magesterium.

[John Charmley]

Hi John,

Even if the Pope used this once, it is contradictory to the councils and ecclesial make-up of the Apostles and the Church. This is a major difference in the ecclesiology. As a historian, you should realize this.

Dear Antonios,

That would certainly be our view. The RCC takes the view that from the earliest days there was a strand of thinking in the Fathers that accorded more authority to St. Peter, and they have, as one might expect, a host of readings to that effect. When it is pointed out that that was not the predominant view, they are often happy to accept that but to argue that it was a necessary development of doctrine. To the OC argument that such changes cannot take place without the approval of the Church, the RCC responds with the same ecclesiology as that of the OC; it is the Church in which the fullness of the faith is found.

The possible difference in ecclesiology is in how the two traditions, East and West, regard each other. The CDF document gives a clear view that the RCC regards the OC as being a valid ecclesial community; I still, despite the length of this discussion, have not the foggiest idea of whether that is how the OC regards the RCC - or even whether there could be an OC view as opposed to view of individual priests and bishops; from what others have written, it looks as though the latter may be the case. But what happens when two priests, or two bishops, disagree?

It still seems as though the ecclesiological dogmas, east and west, have much in common; indeed, if one looks at Catholic apologetics, it uses the same arguments and same justifications to support the RC position as does the OC. The rigorist position on both sides is hardly one that can lead to discussion, unless one thinks telling someone else they are wrong, but when they convert and do what one's own tradition says, they will be OK. Fr. McGuckin's position, on the other hand, seemed to offer ground on which discussion could take place.

Of course, for those who take the rigorist reading of such matters, on both sides, such discussions are emanations of the heresy of ecumenism; just as for those who take a different reading, such discussions are a fulfilment of His command that 'they shall be one'. Perhaps, as we say in the UK, 'you pays your money and you takes your choice'?


In Him,

John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John,

The Church has never taught that we should be one with those in heresy.

There is an Patriarchal Encyclical written in 1848 and signed by 4 Patriarchates and 29 Orthodox Bishops that clearly states that Rome is in heresy. These days in public it is not polite to say that a group is in heresy, it is said privately though. Nevertheless Orthodoxy does know that Rome is in heresy and as I mentioned before we are not in communion with Rome.

§ 5, xv. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of Saint Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: “If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope Saint Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council."

It should be noted that more things have "developed" in Rome since 1848, they also have been addressed and are being addressed.

Individual theologians can be wrong, so can Bishops, Priests, Deacons and those in flock etc. The Holy Spirit is not monopolized by any one person or group, it is recognized and acts within the entire body of the Church, to those that believe it brings to remembrance all things in Christ. So it is the Holy Spirit that guides the faithful, the Church. Correct or normal traditional Orthodox teaching can be seen in the response of the Eastern to Pope Pius IX's in 1848 regarding the Easterners.

You may read more of the thinking from the Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops in the 1848 Encyclical along the lines of "the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves"

As you may recall the Holy communities of Mount Athos Karyes, wrote some comments on 30 December 2006 regarding the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

"when the papist institution has not retreated at all on any of its heretical teachings"

Those outside the Church are guided by their own opinions coming from their minds or by listening to the enemy of the Church. Since they reject the Orthodox Church they can not understand Her. We would say they are blinded by pernicous heresies.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Antonios]

Dear Antonios,

That would certainly be our view. The RCC takes the view that from the earliest days there was a strand of thinking in the Fathers that accorded more authority to St. Peter, and they have, as one might expect, a host of readings to that effect. When it is pointed out that that was not the predominant view, they are often happy to accept that but to argue that it was a necessary development of doctrine. To the OC argument that such changes cannot take place without the approval of the Church, the RCC responds with the same ecclesiology as that of the OC; it is the Church in which the fullness of the faith is found.

The possible difference in ecclesiology is in how the two traditions, East and West, regard each other. The CDF document gives a clear view that the RCC regards the OC as being a valid ecclesial community; I still, despite the length of this discussion, have not the foggiest idea of whether that is how the OC regards the RCC - or even whether there could be an OC view as opposed to view of individual priests and bishops; from what others have written, it looks as though the latter may be the case. But what happens when two priests, or two bishops, disagree?

It still seems as though the ecclesiological dogmas, east and west, have much in common; indeed, if one looks at Catholic apologetics, it uses the same arguments and same justifications to support the RC position as does the OC. The rigorist position on both sides is hardly one that can lead to discussion, unless one thinks telling someone else they are wrong, but when they convert and do what one's own tradition says, they will be OK. Fr. McGuckin's position, on the other hand, seemed to offer ground on which discussion could take place.

Of course, for those who take the rigorist reading of such matters, on both sides, such discussions are emanations of the heresy of ecumenism; just as for those who take a different reading, such discussions are a fulfilment of His command that 'they shall be one'. Perhaps, as we say in the UK, 'you pays your money and you takes your choice'?


In Him,

John

Dear John,

I have not read Father McGuckin's opinions, so I cannot comment on what he writes. Thus, I will bow out of this discussion and allow others who might be able to comment. As for my understanding, the RC and OC are not in communion and have not been in 1000 years, mainly because of the claims of Papal superiority and infallability, which is the root source of the ecclesiological difference. They may argue it was a 'necessary development of doctrine', but the Orthodox would say it is heresy, driven by political ambition and pride.

[Nina]

Of course, for those who take the rigorist reading of such matters, on both sides, such discussions are emanations of the heresy of ecumenism; just as for those who take a different reading, such discussions are a fulfilment of His command that 'they shall be one'. Perhaps, as we say in the UK, 'you pays your money and you takes your choice'?
John


Many modern Orthodox Elders have warned us about the heresy of ecumenism. And I never read, or heard from any of the modern Orthodox Elders speak about the phrase 'they shall be one' in the meaning you imply. Because we are One. We are One Church. Orthodox Creed says so. All are free to cast away old heresies and join the One Church. We welcome them with opened arms.

The Orthodox Saints and Orthodox Elders have spoken to us. These Forefathers of us in Orthodoxy, did not engage in empty philosophical statements about God and faith, but theologized with their lives, actions, words and example. They saw the Uncreated Light and had the Holy Spirit in them. If there is someone whom I would listen and pay attention to in this world for my own salvation, it would be them.

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew, Antonios and Nina,

I am grateful to you all for your time in considering the matter.

I am unclear that anything written in 1848 could refer to Papal Infallibility, which was only pronounced in 1871, but take, of course, the general point, which is a restatement of the fact that there is a schism.

I have Catholic friends who would agree with every word all of you say - just substituting their Church for yours. When that happens, as when anyone assumes that all ecumenism is ipso facto a 'heresy' there is no dialogue possible; which is only sad for those who think the opposite - but they would think that!

I was, of course, familiar with the Athonite comments about the meeting between the EP and the Pope - and as the thread on that here shows, more than one view was taken of that.

At any rate, an interesting discussion, and one which shows the remarkable similarities between eastern and western ecclesiology; except, of course, there is nothing remarkable about it, since it derives from the same reading of the same Fathers.

As a little treat for us all, I wonder what we all score on this quiz to see if we are 'Chalcedon compliant'? [It must be dodgy, since I was 100% compliant!]
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=131773

With thanks to those who have been so patient as to follow this discussion and to contribute to it.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew P wrote:



The Church has never taught that we should be one with those in heresy.

Actually this very point has been made here in various ways many, many times. Along with why we think or are this way as a Church.

At this point what most intrigues me is why then come back to the point so many times over & over. Possibly we are misunderstanding what is behind this urge. Honestly I'm not sure.

It could be however that the problem arises simply from a disagreement with what we say but an inability to clearly say this.

The fact is that the basis of the Church's understanding of itself is not some declaration cast in concrete that can be proved in legal fashion. Rather what we read in declaration is a witness to the Faith of the Church as it is lived and held by the faithful. Thus explanations of whom we are in communion with or not comes after the fact that we are in or out of communion with someone. This in actuality is the life of the Church and the accurate witness to Her life.
Misunderstanding I think comes from not recognizing this basis of the overall life of the Church & instead focusing on individual statements, documents, etc.

Beyond this however is the fact that it is difficult to see how any thought or belief about the Church does not come down to an understanding based on faith as understood by our common experience of that which we have faith in. This common experience is what gives us certainty or assuredness concerning our faith. This latter has always been a main sign of what the Church is and what Her life actually refers to. It is what the Fathers always insist on.

In modern times however there is increasing hesitation over certainty or assuredness concerning the Faith. The reasons for this are too many to go into here. But I think we delude ourselves if we do not recognize how this comes not from the Church but rather from modern society. In other words we would rather deal with Faith in the generic sense rather than the certainty & the common life which underpins that Faith in the first place.

Isn't it this that leads to such fruitless interaction? I think so. If we give no place to the certainty of Faith produced by our common experience within the Church then there is literally nothing that can be explained.

The position of the modern sense of reality is a difficult place for us to discuss from within. On face value it demands concrete evidence but this demand is based on a faith in a universal and generic truth which can provide no evidence for itself. It too is a faith but in a self-contradictory reality where the experience of an assured, specific truth cannot exist. Thus between this and the Church there cannot be a rational discussion. To discuss and get to a fruitful place needs a conversion from what is held at face value to an understanding and then acceptance about faith itself. It requires a conversion of heart and mind.

But that's what the Holy Fathers have been saying for 2000 years.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[James Aubuchon]

I do hope that one day all the churches will unite, but it is not worth the cost of ecumenism. The only way that this can happen is through suffering. Each group must bear their cross. Heroes of the faith must make ways that lead to dialogue and resolution. Look at what the OC and OO churches have been able to accomplish is the last few decades! Now if we can get around the politics, I'm sure that the two groups would unite once again.

And yes both sides need to be willing to give. If you want the RC to give up papal infallibility, should we not be willing to at least concede something in return? Perhaps the filoque is not the great big heretical deal that it is made up to be. I know that some Orthodox theologians would be at least be willing to accept a limited understanding of filoque. Triumphalistically proclaiming that the OC is the only way and then failing to be willing to listen and dialogue seems counter to the witness of our Holy Fathers, who in humility, always sought for reconciliation if at all possible with tears.

I am not saying that we compromise the faith (a la ecumenism). But with great suffering and tears, we should strive for unity if at all possible. We shouldn't just sit on our side of the fence and proclaim "If you want unity, come to our side." That's what some RC's do, its what some fundamentalist Protestants do, and its what some OC's do. (John I am not sure if this is found in OO, but I imagine that it is)

It gets us nowhere.

In Christ,

Jim

[Nina]

But that's what the Holy Fathers have been saying for 2000 years.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Amin!

Contemporary Elders on Ecumenism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-RdNeKlFs8#).

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

You ask:

Isn't it this that leads to such fruitless interaction? I think so. If we give no place to the certainty of Faith produced by our common experience within the Church then there is literally nothing that can be explained.
and I would respond that that is exactly what RC apologists also say. The point here is not who is right - that, as you say, depends on the common experience in the Church - whichever one.

Oddly enough, I'm with Jim on this one when he writes:

I am not saying that we compromise the faith (a la ecumenism). But with great suffering and tears, we should strive for unity if at all possible. We shouldn't just sit on our side of the fence and proclaim "If you want unity, come to our side." That's what some RC's do, its what some fundamentalist Protestants do, and its what some OC's do. (John I am not sure if this is found in OO, but I imagine that it is)

In both the RC and the OC (EO and OO) there are those who adopt what we have called for convenience the rigorist view; they indeed do proclaim that unity will come only when the other lot give over being so stubborn as not to realise that they are wrong and we are right. That may indeed be a correct reading of either RC or OC ecclesiology; but it may also be a sign of stubborn human pride.

In answer to Jim's question, there are those in all Churches who sincerely hold the rigorist position, as there are those who hold another reading of it. One side is fearful of syncretism and so holds all the tighter to its reading; the other is fearful of accusations of bigotry, and so tries to sound 'liberal' - which just confirms the other party in its view that that is what they are, which, in turn, confirms the second party in its fears of bigotry; and so it goes on - to the great amusement of the growing number of non-Christians in our society.

Perhaps they should all take the test in my last post?

Anyway, I didn't really want to go on with this, as we seem to have established that those who take one view take it, and those who do not, do likewise, and all take their stand on the same Fathers read differently.

In Him,

John

[Nina]

One side is fearful of syncretism and so holds all the tighter to its reading; the other is fearful of accusations of bigotry, and so tries to sound 'liberal' - which just confirms the other party in its view that that is what they are, which, in turn, confirms the second party in its fears of bigotry; and so it goes on - to the great amusement of the growing number of non-Christians in our society.
John

Hmmm... fearful is a word that applies to people who are not confident in their belief and faith. Orthodox Fathers are nothing resembling fear because they were firm in their belief that the Orthodox Church is perfect because its Head, the Christ is perfect. I am not so wise as them, or so saintly as them so I better follow on their footsteps, because they followed Christ in everything. They are the real theologians. We can not turn the deaf ear and the blind eye to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy, which started since the times of the New Testament:

"... a man that is heretic after the first and second admonition, reject him. Knowing that such a one is perverted and sins being self condemned" (Tit 3:10-11)

"... withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after the tradition which he received from us" (2Thess 3:6)

"... if anyone preaches to you different of what you received, even if he is an angel from heaven let it be anathema" (Gal 1:8)

"For many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." (2 John 1:7-11)


P.S The "non-Christians in our society" will have it easier than those so-called Christians during the Last Judgment. As Christ said to those given more it will be required more.

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,

One thing is quite certain, and that is that those who hold the rigorist position on ecclesiological dogma seem remarkable unfearful of pronouncing on who is heretical.

Indeed it is the identical nature of the ecclesiological reading by such people in both traditions that makes dialogue so difficult for those who don't share that reading.

After all, if as Fr. Raphael writes:

it is difficult to see how any thought or belief about the Church does not come down to an understanding based on faith as understood by our common experience of that which we have faith in
then we could reach Fr. McGuckin's position by another route, since what we have faith in is the one Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins and who rose again from the dead that we might have life eternal.

But let us leave this one here, perhaps, since we approach it from different traditions, and both believe sincerely what we perceive our tradition to be teaching us.

In Him,

John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear James,

When we speak of the Church as triumphant meaning true it should not be taken as seeming "to be counter to the witness of our Holy Fathers, who in humility, always sought for reconciliation if at all possible with tears."

John sees "a sign of stubborn human pride" in the positions of the Orthodox and the Latin's while he persists in his understandings. The Church fathers did not fear the demons, and demons of heresy are the worst for they lead souls very astray. Suffice it to say they did fear being proud. But most importantly the Church Fathers fear God. Where is the fear of God with the heretics? So when those in the Church hear things like the bishop of Rome thinking himself to be the "Successor of Christ" and other accepting such thinking we can see great falls. Not because we are holy but rather because we have read what the Holy Fathers say, we are allowed in the Church through their prayers. Even when we speak with Latin's they continue to accept such things for they have been deceived. Some help them along that way and join hands with them because they think that the Church can somehow reconcile with things that can't be accepted ever, so we should logically give something in return if Rome gives up papal infallibility. These are very strange ideas to me and certainly not what I have heard in the past that is within the Church. John mentions "and all take their stand on the same Fathers read differently." One can take falls as well John. Tell me of one Orthodox Church Father that is for a "Successor of Christ"? You do not think that they would find such thinking as "wicked" in the worse sort of way? They would, yet those in communion with the papal sect do not and apparently such things are easily accepted by others as well for the sake of unity, you know the kind you advance and mention many times. John, do you think that they would see "life" in such thinking? And since the true answer is no, what does that mean to you?

During the first Sunday of lent, we gather for the Sunday of Orthodoxy the "triumph of Orthodoxy." That is, the triumph of true doctrine over heresy.

"A day full of joy and delight has appeared today" we hear sacred chants like: "for the brightness of the very true dogmas shine, and the Church of Christ lightens in splendour now, decorated with the restoration of the holy Icons and engravings, and a God-awarded harmony of the faithful is brought about".

The Church is iconic the entire structure rests upon Orthodoxy for Christ the way and the truth is the victor. St. John the Divine "the beloved disciple of Christ" said "And this is the victory, our faith, this is the victory."

"As the prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the Teachers have dogmatized, as the Universe has agreed, As Grace has shown forth, as Truth has revealed, as falsehood has been dissolved...."

We believe in the word "Orthodoxy," "the true faith", the Church is both militant and triumphant always, that is when it is embraced of our own free will. The Church remains triumphant even when it is not embraced by others. They have not chosen wisely yet the Church continues to pray for them, so she struggles and is "militant". The heretics are iconoclasts in way or another for they either distort the teachings of the Church or rise up against the Church hoping that the Orthodox Church will join them one day. Can a house that is divided stand? No, there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[James Aubuchon]

Let me ask you, Michael this question.

If the Church were to hold an ecumenical council, and decide that the filoque could remain in the creed, what would you do?

Would you separate from the Church because you think that the filoque should not be there?

Many times, it is the rigorists who become the heretics. There are numerous sects that are no longer in communion with the ecumenical patriarch because their rigorous views of what Orthodoxy should be (instead of what it is) blind them, and they depart, yes perhaps holding to correct doctrines, but committing heresy in their hearts.

I'm waiting for the NOPOC to arise...the Non-Organ-Playing Orthodox Church. Throw out those organs, even if it lands you in HELL!!


Jim

[Father David Moser]

and I would respond that that is exactly what RC apologists also say. The point here is not who is right - that, as you say, depends on the common experience in the Church - whichever one. (emphasis mine)

And this is exactly the point. The question is whether or not the RC Church is "right" or within the "true Church". It is not "right" - that is the well established position of the Orthodox Church. Thus it is ruinous to assume that it is. St Ignatii Brianchaninoff in responding to a question about whether a novice's faith can "compensate" for following an erroneous elder (iow, sincerity of experience) says,

"Faith in the truth saves. Faith in a lie and in diabolic delusion is ruinous, according to the teaching of the Apostle. (2Thess 2:10-12) ...Falsehood and hypocrisy has not the right to repeat the words of Truth itself for the justification of its criminal conduct whereby liars and hypocrites subvert their neighbors.

So you see that the point is exactly "who is right" and that there cannot be two truths and therefore two "common experience(s) in the Church".

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

Let me ask you, Michael this question.

If the Church were to hold an ecumenical council, and decide that the filoque could remain in the creed, what would you do?

Would you separate from the Church because you think that the filoque should not be there?

Why waste time worrying about an impossibility. The Church has already rejected the filioque and so the above scenario won't happen - either that or the Church is already in error and so God has failed His promise to us (in which case all is lost).

Fr David Moser

[Antonios]

Dear all,

I think we must repeat the statement that we may call ourselves Christians, but are not so, if we do not wish and pray for unity with all God's children. Orthodoxy is not against unity or ecumenism, but against false unity and false ecumenism.

I remember a few months before the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriach met, the RCC announced that a certain 'title' of the Pope would be dropped as a means of promoting closer ties. Everyone had much anticipation that it would be the title 'Vicar of Christ'. Instead, the title dropped was "Patriach of the West".

This is what frustrates the Orthodox world and will continue to do so. The only title that would seem closer to how the Orthodox have understood the Pope since the early Church (outside of Bishop of Rome) is the one that is dropped.

True ecumenism must be in Truth.

[James Aubuchon]

Why waste time worrying about an impossibility. The Church has already rejected the filioque and so the above scenario won't happen - either that or the Church is already in error and so God has failed His promise to us (in which case all is lost).

Fr David Moser

Which ecumenical council was it that rejected the filoque?

I would like to know.

Jim

[Michael Stickles]

Let me ask you, Michael this question.

If the Church were to hold an ecumenical council, and decide that the filoque could remain in the creed, what would you do?

Would you separate from the Church because you think that the filoque should not be there?

Why waste time worrying about an impossibility. The Church has already rejected the filioque and so the above scenario won't happen - either that or the Church is already in error and so God has failed His promise to us (in which case all is lost).

Fr David Moser

I don't know if James was suggesting that the filioque might actually be accepted by a council, but I think the idea works well to illustrate his next thought:


Many times, it is the rigorists who become the heretics. There are numerous sects that are no longer in communion with the ecumenical patriarch because their rigorous views of what Orthodoxy should be (instead of what it is) blind them, and they depart, ...

Think of his hypothetical situation of "an ecumenical council accepted the filioque, so what will you do?" as an analogy to get us to see the world from the point of view of a rigorist. I have known people for whom the presence of a kitchen inside a church building is nearly as great an offense against God and right doctrine as denying the deity of Christ (no, I'm not exaggerating). Imagining some Orthodox reactions to an ecumenical council accepting the filioque seems pretty analogous to how those folks would react if their leaders wanted to install a kitchen in each church building.

In Christ,
Mike

[Michael Stickles]

Which ecumenical council was it that rejected the filoque?

I would like to know.

Jim

As far as I've read, it was the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV; 879/880) which officially condemned the filioque. Before then, I don't think it had been accepted widely enough to warrant being addressed by a council (although I wouldn't trust my historical knowledge on that point).

In Christ,
Mike

[John Charmley]

And this is exactly the point. The question is whether or not the RC Church is "right" or within the "true Church". It is not "right" - that is the well established position of the Orthodox Church. Thus it is ruinous to assume that it is. St Ignatii Brianchaninoff in responding to a question about whether a novice's faith can "compensate" for following an erroneous elder (iow, sincerity of experience) says,

So you see that the point is exactly "who is right" and that there cannot be two truths and therefore two "common experience(s) in the Church".

Fr David Moser

Dear Fr. David,

It is even as you say, which is further support for the notion that you have the same ecclesiology as Rome - you both simply believe you are the Church. On a rigorist reading you can't both be right; what do you think follows from that as regards to the billions who are Roman Catholics?

I have some idea what Rome thinks, because of the CDF document; in the absence of similarly authoritative statement from the OC, I can't work out what follows in terms of the salvation of billions who call themselves Christians. Of course, we can say God decides that, because it is true, but I guess there must be some downside for all those Catholics who say they have the fullness of the Faith, if, in fact, you have it. Or perhaps there is no downside?

In Him,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

One thing is quite certain, and that is that those who hold the rigorist position on ecclesiological dogma seem remarkable unfearful of pronouncing on who is heretical.

The above description is very exaggerated. It is difficult to see how there could be the Church if it had no sense of what it is and is not. Heresy simply proclaims what is not of the Church and what is directly opposed to the life of the faithful. So, far from being ‘rigorist’, such is simply being responsible & faithful. Whether strict or lenient about this the same sense of the Church is held; what is different is only the means by which we are faithful to the Church.

Thus for all St Cyprian's apparent rigorist ecclesiology in another circumstance he argued for the practice of pouring water over the head for someone sick in bed rather than the stricter practice of immersion. (Ep. 75). Also as pointed out previously, compared to Novatianism, one of the most acute struggles St Cyprian had to face in the Church of his day, he actually was lenient. But to stick to the point here, so far no evidence has been presented from Fr John McGuckin or any other source that those more lenient about baptizing heretics actually held a different over all ecclesiology than St Cyprian. I do not believe any evidence to this point is available simply because no such situation existed.


Indeed it is the identical nature of the ecclesiological reading by such people in both traditions that makes dialogue so difficult for those who don't share that reading.

This misunderstands the point made throughout these posts. The Church’s conviction about itself is not based on the modern & abstract ideal about truth that as long as one has conviction about something then it must be true. This is the kind of truth we are all already familiar with. Following this kind of truth it turns out that everything contradictory and even false is true as long as we believe in it.

What the Church holds to however is something radically different than this. For its sense of truth is based on the living experience of Christ Who is the Truth. Thus the truth of the Church is not subjectively based as we see around us in today’s world. It is based on going beyond ourselves to knowing and witnessing to Christ.

The fact of many different versions of Christian understanding of Christ does not mean that they are all correct. To impose the modern understanding of equivalent truth on Christians is actually to undercut the foundation of faith for now all sense of distinct truth is lost. The very basis of the Church’s unique witness to Christ is extinguished.

This leaves us with the paradox of the present situation which has been pointed out here many times before. The very word Orthodox that we use for the Church implies that there is correct belief and incorrect belief. It means that there will be those we do not accept as the Church. And other Christians will hold to belief in a similarly exclusive way. Some will do so consciously & others only by the implications of their own belief & witness.

The project for unity then contains within itself the seeds of destruction not only for Orthodoxy but also of any Christian witness of integrity. Like a law of inverse proportions the more unity is pushed in its present way the more the integrity of all Christianity will be lost. Turning this around the paradox is that the seeds of true unity will come not by pushing on present divisions but on freely allowing Christians to come to a Patristic & Orthodox understanding of the Church through the sparks and glimmers of the One Truth found within each.

And no- this doesn't mean everything's already the Church! :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[James Aubuchon]

As far as I've read, it was the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV; 879/880) which officially condemned the filioque. Before then, I don't think it had been accepted widely enough to warrant being addressed by a council (although I wouldn't trust my historical knowledge on that point).

In Christ,
Mike

Here is the definition of 'ecumenical' as posted on this board:

Of worldwide scope or applicability: relating to the whole of the Orthodox Church. The seven 'ecumenical councils' are those that have dogmatic authority throughout the whole Church.

There is no mention of an 8th 'ecumenical' council here. So do we also accept an 8th council?

I did some research on this and found, to my amazement that some Orthodox believe that there are 9 ecumenical councils and not 7. So which is it?

If the 8th council is not 'ecumenical' then the issue has not actually been decided yet.

But this all gets us off track. The real point I was trying to make is that we can be so sure that we are towing the line, only to find out that we are out of bounds.

I could be wrong here, but isn't the Old Calendarist issue of the same sort of thing? A change was made...and then rejected by some...and now they are in schism.

Jim

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr. David,

It is even as you say, which is further support for the notion that you have the same ecclesiology as Rome - you both simply believe you are the Church. On a rigorist reading you can't both be right; what do you think follows from that as regards to the billions who are Roman Catholics?

I have some idea what Rome thinks, because of the CDF document; in the absence of similarly authoritative statement from the OC, I can't work out what follows in terms of the salvation of billions who call themselves Christians. Of course, we can say God decides that, because it is true, but I guess there must be some downside for all those Catholics who say they have the fullness of the Faith, if, in fact, you have it. Or perhaps there is no downside?

In Him,

John

Please see my post above John. I really feel the danger with what you have presented is that the whole basis of belief as the Church understands this is lost. If a witness to exclusive truth is wrong, 'rigorist', then all opinion is equally right, even that which rejects Christ, as long as it feels itself correct. The basis for something being truthful in itself is lost.

In this sense any belief your have in Christ or the Church is totally arbitrary and contradicts the exact point you make about the exclusive call of the Church. After all if exclusivity is what is at fault then Christ and the Church certainly are in this category since so many reject the very idea of there being a Church or Christ. To be consistent, belief in Christ, the Church and indeed in all things, must be rejected as extreme. The only thing acceptable is what one feels correct at any given moment.

Granted this hardly seems like the point you wish to head for, I still say your presentation very much gets us to this point. The only alternative to arbitrary picking and choosing according to the moment is conviction of what is true based on faith.

And the only way the last statement about faith adds up in our mind to all faith being equal is to fall right back into the same way of seeing reality as described above. As extreme as it sounds in todays' world the way we have of seeing an equivalent truth which irons out all that is distinct is based on the delusion of abstractions. This so called equivalent truth is non existent and is a production of our fallen minds.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

It is even as you say, which is further support for the notion that you have the same ecclesiology as Rome - you both simply believe you are the Church. On a rigorist reading you can't both be right; what do you think follows from that as regards to the billions who are Roman Catholics?


I agree, we can't both be right - the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church. If that is "rigorist" then I guess that's me.

But you seem to think that the Church is salvation and making the wrong organizational choice is a "go to jail" card. But the Church is not salvation - the Church is the path to salvation. Is it possible to somehow find the path without being the Church? (which seems to be the question you continually bring up - and have brought up throughout my experience with you on this forum). Well that's not something I can answer because the only One who can answer that question is God Himself - and I'm not God. I can say that the only assurance of being saved that we are given in this life is the path of following Christ, the path of the Church (and that would be the Orthodox Church). If you want to "risk" going it on your own, then that's your choice and God, not I will be your judge. God is indeed merciful and the lover of mankind and desires that all be saved so who am I to say there is no hope - but I think I can say that there is no assurance outside the Church that you are on the right path.

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

Dear all,
I think we must repeat the statement that we may call ourselves Christians, but are not so, if we do not wish and pray for unity with all God's children. Orthodoxy is not against unity or ecumenism, but against false unity and false ecumenism.


Orthodoxy = following Holy Fathers of the Church, who followed the teaching of the Apostles, who followed our Christ. Orthodoxy waits with opened arms those who reject the false teachings and embrace Orthodoxy.

Our Holy Fathers have established what is needed for a union. One of the conditions is what Saint Mark Eugenikos has stated:



The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed “filioque” and confess the Creed as we do.

Those who "believe [that] they are wiser [than] the Holy Fathers" as Elder Philotheos Zervakos (http://impantokratoros.gr/19669CE9.en.aspx) calls them, are those who are misleading many. We, need to hold fast to the teachings of the Saints. And following the teachings of the Saints does not make one a rigorist, but it makes one like the wise virgins: vigilant, careful and uncompromising. Uncompromising about the Orthodox faith (the teachings of the Holy Fathers, Apostles and Christ) and the salvation of the soul.

Do you know about Saint Euphemia? Do you know about the miracle God performed through her for the truth?

There are so many Fathers who speak about ecumenism and reject it. Elder Zervakos, a contemporary Elder, like many of them, is very clear about it:
Ecumenism, Orthodoxy and Heresy. (http://impantokratoros.gr/19669CE9.print.en.aspx)

What union are we speaking about? The true union are the converts. They reject the false teachings and embrace Orthodoxy. When a convert to Orthodoxy recites the Creed, this rejection happens. All are invited and welcomed by the Church to follow in the steps of those Orthodox, who departed from the heterodox teachings.

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Fr. David Moser,



But you seem to think that the Church is salvation and making the wrong organizational choice is a "go to jail" card. But the Church is not salvation - the Church is the path to salvation. Is it possible to somehow find the path without being the Church? (which seems to be the question you continually bring up - and have brought up throughout my experience with you on this forum). Well that's not something I can answer because the only One who can answer that question is God Himself - and I'm not God. I can say that the only assurance of being saved that we are given in this life is the path of following Christ, the path of the Church (and that would be the Orthodox Church). If you want to "risk" going it on your own, then that's your choice and God, not I will be your judge. God is indeed merciful and the lover of mankind and desires that all be saved so who am I to say there is no hope - but I think I can say that there is no assurance outside the Church that you are on the right path.

It is my understanding that "rigorist" (and I don't really like this term but I am using it since it has already been used conventionally throughout this dialogue thus far) ecclesiology is inextricably intertwined with a certain exclusivist soteriology, at least if we are going to stick to the "traditional" rigorist position of Fathers like St Cyprian who explicitly declared that there is NO salvation outside of the Church (which is clearly not equivalent or compatible with the sentiment that there is merely no sure guarantee of salvation outside of the Church). If one retorts with the position propounded by various modern EO theologians that "we know where the Church is--it's "institutionally" (to use the term very loosely) visible to those who seek it, but we do not know where the Church is not", then that would just undermine a "rigorist" ecclesiology in the first place, wouldn't it?

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

I agree with everything you have said, and somehow I do not doubt that John would at least agree with the idea that Truth is not relative. After all, he himself was an earnest inquirer and seeker of that Truth and expended much energy, time and prayer before deciding where that fullness of Truth was—a surely superfluous effort and approach had he simply believed that absolute Truth is anywhere and everywhere. It seems like everyone is just talking past each other in my opinion. For some reason internet forums easily incline people to disagreement, even when no disagreement actually exists (which is not to say there is no real disagreement on at least some of the issues raised).

I think John's concern is not whether or not the fullness of, or absolute, or objective (or however else you wish to term it) truth exists outside of the Church, but rather the (traditionally inextricable) ecclesiological and soteriological implications of those who do not have the fullness of truth (and in this sense it seems he is only inquiring into and questioning the EO position and not seeking to develop or argue a personal position of his own), and furthermore how this is to shape one's disposition to ecumenical dialogue.

I don't think John is advocating syncretistic or compromising dialogue, but rather sympathetic and empathetic dialogue. I think his concern, though one I personally don't share, is that the further ecclesiological and soteriological implications of a "rigorist" conception of one's own Communion challenges one's ability to pursue such dialogue.

I felt the need to jump in as an observer who has felt John's posts here to have been consistently retorted with (albeit unintentional) straw man attacks. John is, ofcourse, free to correct me if I have in turn misrepresented him (in which case this post will stand as an embarrassing double-standard!)

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Father David Moser]

It is my understanding that "rigorist" (and I don't really like this term but I am using it since it has already been used conventionally throughout this dialogue thus far) ecclesiology is inextricably intertwined with a certain exclusivist soteriology,

If you say so. The term has never really been defined - it's just something that John has been throwing around, so I simply responded with his terminolgy. If you think I'm not rigorist, then that's ok with me - since the only thing that I strive to be is like Christ.

I agreee with St Kyprian that there is no salvation outside the Church. So who is outside the Church. Do you decide this? I know that I don't - it is only Christ Himself who decides. All I can say is that the only place where I know I can be within the Church is within the Orthodox Church - anything else is a gamble that I don't wish to take (but you are free to do so if you wish).

I don't really know if this is a "rigorist" position or not - and frankly I don't care. But this is the Orthodox position.

Fr David Moser

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Nina,


Do you know about Saint Euphemia? Do you know about the miracle God performed through her for the truth?

I presume this (an obvious allusion to a polemical Chalcedonian hagiography--though you certainly have the right to see it otherwise) was intended to "bait" John (though I guess, within the context of this forum, such is not considered "baiting" at all).

I could likewise ask you whether you know about Patriarch Dioscorus and "the miracle God performed through [him] for the truth" whilst he spent his last days on the island of Gangra ministering to the poor? Or whether you know about St Peter the Iberian (who i'm sure the Georgians are familiar with) and "the miracle God performed through [him] for the truth" in his pursuit to preserve non-Chalcedonian communities faced with imperial pressure?

Let me make it clear, I am, on the contrary, not trying to bait you, but to demonstrate the very point I made above to Fr. Raphael about sympathetic and empathetic dialogue. I have about as much reason to reject the hagiographical tradition and patristic witness of my Church in favour of yours, as you do vice versa--the fact I can observe this is indicative of that very sympathetic and empathetic disposition which constructive dialogue necessitates. If you believe these qualities (of empathy and sympathy) are an affront to a "rigorist" ecclesiology, then that furthers John's inquisitive, not personal, challenge to such an ecclesiology. Though I personally don't believe that such qualities should necessarily challenge such an ecclesiology.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Nina]

Dear Fr. David Moser,



It is my understanding that "rigorist" (and I don't really like this term but I am using it since it has already been used conventionally throughout this dialogue thus far) ecclesiology is inextricably intertwined with a certain exclusivist soteriology, at least if we are going to stick to the "traditional" rigorist position of Fathers like St Cyprian who explicitly declared that there is NO salvation outside of the Church (which is clearly not equivalent or compatible with the sentiment that there is merely no sure guarantee of salvation outside of the Church). If one retorts with the position propounded by various modern EO theologians that "we know where the Church is--it's "institutionally" (to use the term very loosely) visible to those who seek it, but we do not know where the Church is not", then that would just undermine a "rigorist" ecclesiology in the first place, wouldn't it?

In IC XC
Athanasius

Dear Athanasius,

Actually I was getting ready to reply about the term 'rigorist' to Father David. However I saw your post so I would like to explain something.

As we know some words are vested suddenly in history, by some groups, with a negative connotation and applied for different purposes to an opposite group.

It was amusing for me to see the word 'rigorist' thrown in the disscusion here, not only because we know its association with the Jansenists, but also because the word 'rigorist', in its original language, has the same root as the words "straight line", "ruler" ("a smooth-edged strip (as of wood or metal) that is usually marked off in units (as inches) and is used as a 'straight'edge or for measuring" - from Webster). Compare that 'straight' notion to the word Orthodoxy (where 'ortho' has the same meaning) and you get the conclusion. In other words by calling the people here rigorist, it is the same as calling them orthodox.

I kept from writing this until now, but since Father David said that he is one, I wanted to let him and all those like you- who do not like the term-, know that the term 'rigorist' is actually saying that the person is orthodox.

Not bad to know some etymologies, or even foreign languages, before we subscribe to throwing terms with a purpose in a discussion.

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Fr David,


I agreee with St Kyprian that there is no salvation outside the Church. So who is outside the Church. Do you decide this?

I have no authority to decide anything, but I cannot see that those who certainly are authorities (at least authorities we can both accept), such as St Cyprian, conceived of the possibility of the Church existing outside of that Communion of which they were a part. St Cyprian was faced with a number of communities who were very diverse in their degree of departure from the Truth, yet he seemed to maintain the exclusivity of his own Communion as the Church in the face of all of them, without any concessions. To maintain the exclusivity of one's communion of the Church and yet maintain the possibility of the Church outside of the Church seems contradictory to me. I am merely presenting my line of thought, and am more than happy to consider any constructive criticism of that very line of thought.

Furthermore, if there is a patristic basis for the idea that the Church may exist beyond its canonical boundaries i'd like to be informed of it that I may consider that also it in possibly reformulating my own views.


The term has never really been defined - it's just something that John has been throwing around, so I simply responded with his terminolgy. If you think I'm not rigorist, then that's ok with me - since the only thing that I strive to be is like Christ.

Well it has been associated with St Cyprian's ecclesiology and in that sense I would consider myself a "rigorist". If you would like to add your vote to that ecclesiology too then that is your prerogative but I do not think there was anything in my last response to you to suggest that I was discussing the position as if it were necessarily your position.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Nina]

Dear Nina,



I presume this (an obvious allusion to a polemical Chalcedonian hagiography--though you certainly have the right to see it otherwise) was intended to "bait" John (though I guess, within the context of this forum, such is not considered "baiting" at all).

I could likewise ask you whether you know about Patriarch Dioscorus and "the miracle God performed through [him] for the truth" whilst he spent his last days on the island of Gangra ministering to the poor? Or whether you know about St Peter the Iberian (who i'm sure the Georgians are familiar with) and "the miracle God performed through [him] for the truth" in his pursuit to preserve non-Chalcedonian communities faced with imperial pressure?

Let me make it clear, I am, on the contrary, not trying to bait you, but to demonstrate the very point I made above to Fr. Raphael about sympathetic and empathetic dialogue. I have about as much reason to reject the hagiographical tradition and patristic witness of my Church in favour of yours, as you do vice versa--the fact I can observe this is indicative of that very sympathetic and empathetic disposition which constructive dialogue necessitates. If you believe these qualities (of empathy and sympathy) are an affront to a "rigorist" ecclesiology, then that furthers John's inquisitive, not personal, challenge to such an ecclesiology. Though I personally don't believe that such qualities should necessarily challenge such an ecclesiology.

In IC XC
Athanasius

I am sorry, but speaking about a Saint of mine is not a bait.

[Athanasius Abdullah]

I am sorry, but speaking about a Saint of mine is not a bait.

Saint Euphemia is no more a Saint of "yours" than a Saint of "mine."

It's bait in light of the indirect allusion, intent and directed audience. Anyway, as I made clear, it's all about context. I'm just relaying my perspective.

Nevertheless...that was the most insignificant part of my post you could respond to. What's important is that we understand that we can be "rigorist" without being close-minded (and yes, I know what you're thinking, "Sorry, close-minded? You mean following the Holy Fathers?", but that really just begs the question). We need to recognise that other ecclesial communities, such as for e.g. the RCC, do believe themselves to have the fullness of truth. That is not to say that everyone who believes they have that fullness of truth necessarily does, but that that observation should dictate a proper approach to ecumenical dialogue which encompasses empathy. Having just finished a thorough study of second century Christian apologists, it is clear to me that what I am suggesting here is neither innovative, nor an affront to a "rigorist" ecclesiology (which, as i've made clear, is one I hold insofar as it is identified with the ecclesiology of St Cyprian).

In IC XC
Athanasius

[James Aubuchon]

John and Athanasius,

I would be interested in hearing what the Oriental Orthodox position is on ecclesiology. I am pretty much ignorant when it comes to the Oriental Orthodox tradition.

Thanks and God Bless,

Jim

[Nina]

Saint Euphemia is no more a Saint of "yours" than a Saint of "mine."

It's bait in light of the indirect allusion, intent and directed audience. Anyway, as I made clear, it's all about context. I'm just relaying my perspective.

Nevertheless...that was the most insignificant part of my post you could respond to. What's important is that we understand that we can be "rigorist" without being close-minded (and yes, I know what you're thinking, "Sorry, close-minded? You mean following the Holy Fathers?", but that really just begs the question). We need to recognise that other ecclesial communities, such as for e.g. the RCC, do believe themselves to have the fullness of truth. That is not to say that everyone who believes they have that fullness of truth necessarily does, but that that observation should dictate a proper approach to ecumenical dialogue which encompasses empathy. Having just finished a thorough study of second century Christian apologists, it is clear to me that what I am suggesting here is neither innovative, nor an affront to a "rigorist" ecclesiology (which, as i've made clear, is one I hold insofar as it is identified with the ecclesiology of St Cyprian).

In IC XC
Athanasius

I am sincere, when I say that, I did not use Saint Euphemia as a bait. You can believe me, or not.

Second, please read my post (#121) above regarding the term rigorist. It is actually good to be one.

Third, I am not in a position to discus about such things (you mention in the quote above) from a personal point of view because I am neither wise, nor a saint.

[Mary]

I don't think John is advocating syncretistic or compromising dialogue, but rather sympathetic and empathetic dialogue. I think his concern, though one I personally don't share, is that the further ecclesiological and soteriological implications of a "rigorist" conception of one's own Communion challenges one's ability to pursue such dialogue.
In IC XC
Athanasius

Oh boy... I'm trying to follow along here, and you've all left me in the dust. What on earth do all these words mean? Rigorist, ecclesiological, soteriological, syncretistic, etc, etc, etc...!

Forgive me for throwing in my ignorant questions, but if someone has time to explain, I'd appreciate it.

What do you mean by 'sympathetic' and 'empathetic' dialogue? Does it mean, willingness to listen to the other person's views/ trying to understand the other person's views? Or does it mean accepting the other person's views?

I'm guessing it shouldn't mean 'accepting' another's views, for if you do, you've compromised your own faith. But if not compromising is being a rigorist, then, I'm afraid we should all be 'rigorists', unless we want to sacrifice our Faith for the sake of unity. I think our Faith is far more important than a fake earthly unity.

On a personal level, I've noticed that even if I'm willing to listen to whatever my door-to-door friends wish to throw at me, they're not at all willing to listen to what I have to say. I tell them I already go to church and read the Bible, but they still want to read to me...! I find the same to be true of those whom I know personally. They do not want to know. They want me to accept what they believe (ecumenicalism as I understand it) - but they cannot accept what I believe (a double standard). If they do, they'll have to become orthodox. They want to be accepted as 'equal' and 'complete', but they don't want to accept us in the same way. How can they? Two different things cannot both be 'equal' and 'complete', regardless of if the differences are minute or astronomical.

Why do they want me to accept their faith? Does it make them feel better about themselves if I say "We're all the same, for we're all at God's mercy..."? I'm afraid I don't see it as my job to make them feel better about what they believe. But I do accept them - as people, and human beings created in the image of God, but not as part of the Church. I do not know if they will find salvation outside the Church. But I know for an absolute Fact, that I will definitely not find salvation outside the Church. I cannot jeopardize their salvation or mine, by lying to them by saying: it's all the same and we'll all be saved as long as we believe in Jesus and go to some church regularly.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Athanasius Abdullah]

I am sincere, when I say that, I did not use Saint Euphemia as a bait. You can believe me, or not.

Okay, if you say it wasn't your intention then I believe you, but surely my interpretation was not unreasonable.

Dear Jim,

Strictly speaking, we're not allowed to discuss OO ecclesiology on this forum; it's outside the forum's defined scope. I will nevertheless briefly answer your question since it has been asked, but request that any further dialogue on the matter beyond this response of mine be taken up elsewhere (via PM if you wish) so as not to annoy or upset the administrators.

Generally, the OO Church recognises that there is but One Church with all the fullness of truth, and that there is no salvation outside of the Church. There is, at least as far as i'm aware, no speculation whatsoever on questions concerning the possibility of salvation outside of the Church, or on questions of whether the Church can be found beyond its canonical boundaries. These thought-provoking issues have only been raised, as far as i'm aware within the EO and RC Communions. A Coptic Metropolitan was being interviewed on Egyptian TV soon after the RCC came out with its declaration regarding the "defectiveness" of other communities, and he was asked what his reaction was to this proclamation. The interviewer, a Muslim, having considered the generally negative reaction throughout the Christian world, was expecting a similarly negative reaction from the Metropolitan, but only received a response to the effect of: "yes, this is the Christian understanding of the Church, I don't understand what the fuss is about?"

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Nina]

Okay, if you say it wasn't your intention then I believe you, but surely my interpretation was not unreasonable.
In IC XC
Athanasius

Your assumption was not empathetic at all (if you speak about empathy in dialogs). However it is not a problem.

It is natural for me to love and have a high esteem and think often of Saint Euphemia. My spiritual father is a spiritual son of Elder Paisios, who had very high esteem for Saint Euphemia. The Saint even appeared to Elder Paisios. If you see my post where I mention her, I am making a point that we should not play with things such as filioque and un-natural unity.

[Matthew Panchisin]

"yes, this is the Christian understanding of the Church, I don't understand what the fuss is about?"

Dear Athanasius,

That may sound witty to some but it is not true. It is not quite accurate at all. The Orthodox Church is the Church and Orthodox Christian understandings can tell the difference. The understandings really are not individualistic. Those that say that the Orthodox Church is defective are speaking a lie, that is the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Church. So in the world there are lies and truth, knowing the difference is important.

How does one come to know the differences though, that is a good question? Orthodoxy sees things through a different type of theology and it is that theology that is not confused.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Athanasius,

You wrote:



... I cannot see that those who certainly are authorities (at least authorities we can both accept), such as St Cyprian, conceived of the possibility of the Church existing outside of that Communion of which they were a part. St Cyprian was faced with a number of communities who were very diverse in their degree of departure from the Truth, yet he seemed to maintain exclusivity of his own Communion as the Church in the face of all of them, without any concessions. To maintain the exclusivity of one's communion of the Church and yet maintain the possibility of the Church outside of the Church seems contradictory to me. I am merely presenting my line of thought, and am more than happy to consider any constructive criticism of that very line of thought.

Furthermore, if there is a patristic basis for the idea that the Church may exist beyond its canonical boundaries i'd like to be informed of it that I may consider that also it in possibly reformulating my own views.


Yes, this is exactly my point also. In fact I know of no evidence before more recent times, from our part at least, of any belief in salvation apart from the Church. Of course how this exactly applied to schisms and heresies has always been an ongoing discussion. But this still does not discount the understanding of no salvation apart from the Church.

For myself I'm not so easy about the rigourist label due to the way it was brought up in these discussions. Rigourist for those who do not know is a recent accusatory label for those who more firmly insist on the bounds of the Church & seek to translate this into sacramental practice (ie reception of non-Orthodox by baptism rather than chrismation). In this presentation St Cyprian is usually brought in as an example of rigourism since he argued against Pope Stephen for the baptism of heretics whereas Rome had the tradition of receiving otherwise.

Not that I, like others here should mind be called any sort of name, especially one that only implies being serious. But this particular name has a history behind it which means 'extremist'. Again, labels are one thing, but this one is based on a misunderstanding of what are actually everyday pastoral practices within the Church. If they are 'extremist' it is because, we have to start with the certainty that most definitely yes there is the Church.

Secondly as I have tried to point out numerous times already the presentation of St Cyprian as a rigourist, at least according to the above definition is historically false. Pope Stephen in fact held no less a rigourous idea of the exclusivity of the Church than did St Cyprian. The only thing at stake was how particular heretics were to be received. For St Cyprian this was by a more strict standard while for Pope Stephen it was by a more lenient standard. Neither in fact differed from the other in what they thought the Church was. And we see very similar things to this day.

I do take John's main idea however. He seems to feel that since we are all now separate churches each holding to the idea of the One Church that this means the idea of the One Church is wrong. I couldn't disagree more. But I've already explained my reasons for this elsewhere so I don't want to repeat myself right now.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Athanasius,

That may sound witty to some but it is not true. It is not quite accurate at all. The Orthodox Church is the Church and Orthodox Christian understandings can tell the difference. The understandings really are not individualistic. Those that say that the Orthodox Church is defective are speaking a lie, that is the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Church. So in the world there are lies and truth, knowing the difference is important.

How does one come to know the differences though, that is a good question? Orthodoxy sees things through a different type of theology and it is that theology that is not confused.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

You are clearly misunderstanding the Metropolitan's response. He was merely expressing the sentiment, "why should there be any surprise that the RCC views itself the way any community with a truly Christian understanding of the Church should view itself?" He was not, ofcourse, implying that the RC claims are true (else he'd be conceding to the idea that he himself is a Metropolitan of a "defective community" which is certainly not a view he holds), but that they are based on a basic Christian understanding of the Oneness of the Church.

Please do take the issue up further with me in PM if you wish, but let us not stray from the forum guidelines any longer.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Michael Stickles]

What do you mean by 'sympathetic' and 'empathetic' dialogue? Does it mean, willingness to listen to the other person's views/ trying to understand the other person's views? Or does it mean accepting the other person's views?

If Athanasius is using the terms in the same way I would, then a "sympathetic and empathetic dialogue" has at least as much to do with feelings as with understanding. When the other person speaks, you seek to know not just what they said, but what they meant by what they said, and the feelings that (at least in part) move their words. When you speak, you try to use the right words so that what they hear and understand is what you meant to say, without any unnecessary offense. This requires making an effort to see the issue at hand as if you were the other person. You are trying for a moment to feel what they feel and think what they think, so as to better understand them. This in no way implies that agreement with them is necessary.

One of the big problems with discussions like this one is that too often what is heard is not quite what was said, and unnecessary offense gets multiplied as we attack the positions the other person did not intend, and wound each other with rhetorical shrapnel. An empathetic and sympathetic dialogue can help reduce this problem. A good place to start is simply to follow James' admonition to be "quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry." (James 1:19)

In Christ,
Mike

P.S. - I would like to make clear that I am not "speaking at" anyone in particular (except myself), merely answering Mary's question.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Athanasius,


You are clearly misunderstanding the Metropolitan's response. He was merely expressing the sentiment, "why should there be any surprise that the RCC views itself the way any community with a truly Christian understanding of the Church should view itself?" He was not, ofcourse, implying that the RC claims are true (else he'd be conceding to the idea that he himself is a Metropolitan of a "defective community" which is certainly not a view he holds), but that they are based on a basic Christian understanding of the Oneness of the Church.


I don't think I'm misunderstanding the Metropolitan's response. A truly Christian community does not have a "Successor of Christ" as its infallible leader when speaking ex-cathedra. You have widened the way of basic Christian understandings and conveyed much room for its ok we understand you have a truly Christian understanding of yourself as the Church in the Latin or Protestant places. As such you will say that you are the Church. That conclusion is not rendered on a basic Christian understanding of the Oneness of the Church for they have departed from those understandings. It seems that others have as well. So we are back to what is true and what is not and why the differences can not be seen or understood.



In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Paul Cowan]

Mike,

I sure am glad you said this.


One of the big problems with discussions like this one is that too often what is heard is not quite what was said, and unnecessary offense gets multiplied as we attack the positions the other person did not intend, and wound each other with rhetorical shrapnel

I was beginning to wonder if there was a fast going on somewhere I had not heard of. It seems we "attack" (or are agressive/ short/ sharp) each other more during the fasts.

Paul

[Michael Stickles]

I don't think I'm misunderstanding the Metropolitan's response. A truly Christian community does not have a "Successor of Christ" as its infallible leader when speaking ex-cathedra. You have widened the way of basic Christian understandings and conveyed much room for its ok we understand you have a truly Christian understanding of yourself as the Church in the Latin or Protestant places. As such you will say that you are the Church. That conclusion is not rendered on a basic Christian understanding of the Oneness of the Church for they have departed from those understandings. It seems that others have as well. So we are back to what is true and what is not and why the differences can not be seen or understood.

Matthew, I think you are misunderstanding the Metropolitan's response; I'm certain that you're missing Athanasius' point. Compare these statements from your respective posts:

Athanasius: "He was merely expressing the sentiment, "why should there be any surprise that the RCC views itself the way any community with a truly Christian understanding of the Church should view itself?""

You: "You have widened the way of basic Christian understandings and conveyed much room for its ok we understand you have a truly Christian understanding of yourself as the Church in the Latin or Protestant places."

Nowhere was Athanasius suggesting that the Metropolitan's response accepted that the RCC's understanding of itself as the church was Christian; only that they had a correct Christian understanding of the implications of what it would mean to be the Church. They were simply applying it in the wrong place. That "understanding of the implications" appears to be what the Muslim interviewer had heard other Christians react negatively to, and the Metropolitan seems to have been affirming it, not the RCC, as correct.

In Christ,
Mike

[Mary]

If Athanasius is using the terms in the same way I would, then a "sympathetic and empathetic dialogue" has at least as much to do with feelings as with understanding. When the other person speaks, you seek to know not just what they said, but what they meant by what they said, and the feelings that (at least in part) move their words. When you speak, you try to use the right words so that what they hear and understand is what you meant to say, without any unnecessary offense. This requires making an effort to see the issue at hand as if you were the other person. You are trying for a moment to feel what they feel and think what they think, so as to better understand them. This in no way implies that agreement with them is necessary.

In Christ,
Mike

P.S. - I would like to make clear that I am not "speaking at" anyone in particular (except myself), merely answering Mary's question.

Thanks Mike. I do understand 'sympathy' and 'empathy' in a non-religious/ non-doctrinal sense. I use it all the time to connect to the person talking to me.

But, I'll have to be a saint before I can listen with such deep understanding and feeling to someone's half-baked doctrine. Forgive me, but I already know what I left behind. I don't want to hear it again. It sickens me.

God knows my weakness. I had only one dear friend try to teach me all that he assumed I had failed to learn as a protestant. He sent me link after link after link of trash to read. I told him I'd be willing to talk to him personally, because he's my friend, but I can't have a dialogue with protestant doctrine. I still call every once in a while and talk to him and his wife. I think I'm more comfortable talking to them than they are to me.

I don't know what unity/ peace/ understanding between churches, on a large scale would look like. Here's what it looks like in my life: All my friends and family know I'm orthodox. Some ask questions. I answer. Most don't, I remain silent. We have icons all over our house, and I wear as scarf to church and sometimes all the time. Lots of opportunities for the curious to ask questions.

We tell our children not to 'evangelize' their friends and cousins, because we don't want to cause problems between parents and children, and we don't want to undermine the parents' authority. (You gotta admit, orthodoxy is very child friendly!) Unfortunately, I wasn't able to keep a close watch on my son this summer and my brother-in-law was in a tight spot, trying to explain to his son that holy water isn't really holy water, etc.... =) But, I appologized for my son's enthusiasm and we agreed that we'd avoid doing religious tours together. I also, didn't allow my son to buy icons for his cousins. His cousins and his friends have to be older, in order to explore orthodoxy with their parents' blessings. (permission...)

We only visit their churches if there's a wedding or some other once in a life-time kinda thing. We always invite them to visit our parish, and they dont' waste their breath inviting us back to the churches we left.

I have noticed that it is much harder to re-connect with them person-to-person. I didn't know that the biggest thing I had in common with most of my friends was church! I seem to be able to connect better with folks who have nothing to do with the church... we meet at a 'human' level - I'm a person, you're a person. I like you, you like me, we've got similar values, similar humor, like the same kinds of food, we can help each other with our problems, we all need to talk, we all need to be listened to, etc.

That's the extent of sympathy and empathy I can offer at this point. I respect them, and their rights to live their life in any way they wish, and I'll teach my children to respect them too.

Mike, I hope you see that I wasn't picking on you for answering my question. It's just that, I still can't see how 'sympathy' and 'empathy' can fit in with doctrinal dialogues. I mean, if something isn't true, there's no gentle way of saying: That's not true! Just like when I learned for the first time that I can't commune in an orthodox church... that rubbed me the wrong way, and yet, I wasn't being judged. It's like getting angry because someone tells you the sun rises in the east, when all your life, you've believed it rises in the west. There's no reason to be annoyed and angry, and yet, it happens, however gently and kindly and humbly the truth is presented, it still Hits you!

In Christ,
Mary.

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

You write:

. Heresy simply proclaims what is not of the Church and what is directly opposed to the life of the faithful.

But 'heresy' proclaims nothing unless someone proclaims it first ; and I suspect that the rigorist position does precisely this - just as stated in my last post; an exaggeration or simple description of what is?

You go on to write:

so far no evidence has been presented from Fr John McGuckin or any other source that those more lenient about baptizing heretics actually held a different over all ecclesiology than St Cyprian. I do not believe any evidence to this point is available simply because no such situation existed.
No, no one has ever said his ecclesiology was different - just that his reading of the ecclesiological position of the Church was less rigorist.

This:

This misunderstands the point made throughout these posts. The Church’s conviction about itself is not based on the modern & abstract ideal about truth that as long as one has conviction about something then it must be true. This is the kind of truth we are all already familiar with. Following this kind of truth it turns out that everything contradictory and even false is true as long as we believe in it.is something of a straw man. It may be something you are familiar with, but it is not a position being argued here, and the RCC would most certainly be with you in opposing it. My point is made yet again - that the two rigorist ecclesiological positions are identical - right down to saying that those outside of them cannot fully comprehend them.

This is most interesting:

Thus the truth of the Church is not subjectively based as we see around us in today’s world. It is based on going beyond ourselves to knowing and witnessing to Christ.I know of no Christian Church which would dissent from such a view.

What you say here is again, profound and true:

The fact of many different versions of Christian understanding of Christ does not mean that they are all correct. To impose the modern understanding of equivalent truth on Christians is actually to undercut the foundation of faith for now all sense of distinct truth is lost. The very basis of the Church’s unique witness to Christ is extinguished.It is also the position of the RCC; again we see the identity of the ecclesiology.

Again, you, myself and the RCC all agree that


The project for unity then contains within itself the seeds of destruction not only for Orthodoxy but also of any Christian witness of integrity. if that is, it is pursued in the way some people pursue it at present; I should not be up for saying that all ecumenical activity is of this fashion.

I see what you mean when you write:

I really feel the danger with what you have presented is that the whole basis of belief as the Church understands this is lost. If a witness to exclusive truth is wrong, 'rigorist', then all opinion is equally right, even that which rejects Christ, as long as it feels itself correct. The basis for something being truthful in itself is lost.
and you are right in suspecting this is not where I am going.

But there is a problem here as regards Christian witness in the world. The RCC and the OC ecclesiology is, I think we have established, the same. But you can't both be right on a rigorist reading (you could on Fr. McGuckin's). So, if (as I have been) I am asked by an atheist colleague what we (the OC - poor thing, I couldn't bring myself to try to explain that I am not in the OC as you understand it) think follows from the fact that millions of RCs are not in the Church, I am rather at a loss.

Fr. Mcguckin seemed to me to be propounding the outlines of a reading of traditional ecclesiology that might indeed take us beyond old arguments without syncretism or theological liberalism.

I am, as ever. grateful, Father, for your engagement and insights, and hope we have come to a better comprehension of these important but difficult matters.


In Him,

John

[John Charmley]

I agree, we can't both be right - the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church. If that is "rigorist" then I guess that's me.

But you seem to think that the Church is salvation and making the wrong organizational choice is a "go to jail" card. But the Church is not salvation - the Church is the path to salvation. Is it possible to somehow find the path without being the Church? (which seems to be the question you continually bring up - and have brought up throughout my experience with you on this forum). Well that's not something I can answer because the only One who can answer that question is God Himself - and I'm not God. I can say that the only assurance of being saved that we are given in this life is the path of following Christ, the path of the Church (and that would be the Orthodox Church). If you want to "risk" going it on your own, then that's your choice and God, not I will be your judge. God is indeed merciful and the lover of mankind and desires that all be saved so who am I to say there is no hope - but I think I can say that there is no assurance outside the Church that you are on the right path.

Fr David Moser

Dear Fr. David,

I take your points. It is precisely because I know I cannot make it on my own that this question exercises me so much; God will be my Judge.

A Catholic bishop has told me just the same thing as you have. How am I to know which of you speaks for the real Church when I belong to neither of your traditions?

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

I think John's concern is not whether or not the fullness of, or absolute, or objective (or however else you wish to term it) truth exists outside of the Church, but rather the (traditionally inextricable) ecclesiological and soteriological implications of those who do not have the fullness of truth (and in this sense it seems he is only inquiring into and questioning the EO position and not seeking to develop or argue a personal position of his own), and furthermore how this is to shape one's disposition to ecumenical dialogue.

I don't think John is advocating syncretistic or compromising dialogue, but rather sympathetic and empathetic dialogue. I think his concern, though one I personally don't share, is that the further ecclesiological and soteriological implications of a "rigorist" conception of one's own Communion challenges one's ability to pursue such dialogue.

I felt the need to jump in as an observer who has felt John's posts here to have been consistently retorted with (albeit unintentional) straw man attacks. John is, ofcourse, free to correct me if I have in turn misrepresented him (in which case this post will stand as an embarrassing double-standard!)

In IC XC
Athanasius

Dear Athanasius,

Thank you. You understand my position perfectly, and I am most grateful for your help in seeking to sweep away the host of straw men who pop up from time to time. The was a previous time on this board when it turned out that some were imputing motives that just were not there. My desire is exactly as you state it. If I thought all truth relative I would not be here - it was because that seemed to be the Anglican position that I left.

In Christ,

John

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Matthew,


A truly Christian community does not have a "Successor of Christ" as its infallible leader when speaking ex-cathedra.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The Metropolitan is not addressing every single aspect of RC ecclesiology, but only the particular aspect which he is being interviewed with respect to viz. the notion that there is but one Church which possesses the fullness of Truth and that all ecclesial communities outside of Her are thus “defective.”

The interviewer was expecting a response of disappointment/sadness, but the Metropolitan was trying to express the idea that we have nothing to be disappointed/saddened about since the RC's are simply applying (albeit to the wrong ecclesial community) a perfectly Orthodox principle. It would only be a double-standard to be disappointed/saddened given that we, applying the same ecclesiological principle in question to our own Church, likewise view them as “defective.” I think the Metropolitan was simply exercising a bit of that much needed empathy that I have been stressing thus far, but I can hardly see how it is reasonable in the slightest to read him as condoning the RC concept of papal infallibility. This doctrine is very much a dividing point between our Church and the RCC as much as it is between your Church and the RCC (and probably even more so since we are not even warm on the idea of Rome’s “papal primacy” which some EO theologians have come to accept).

There really is no point in dwelling on this any further. As I said, I am more than happy to answer anymore questions regarding OO ecclesiology via PM (and there is only so many times I can invite such private discourse whilst at the same time pursuing public discourse before I begin to look silly, so if you do post a public response that requires another response from me I will PM it to you).

In IC XC
Athanasius

[John Charmley]

Dear Athanasius,


we have nothing to be disappointed/saddened about since the RC's are simply applying (albeit to the wrong ecclesial community) a perfectly Orthodox principle

Indeed, as as you have clearly seen, this is the exact point where this one becomes germane to our threat here.

Fr. David tells me with all sincerity that his OC is the Church; a nice RC bishop tells me this too. They both use an identical ecclesiology and the same set of arguments. What has been termed the rigorist reading of that ecclesiology means they can't both be right. So what bothers me is twofold: how am I, outside either tradition, to decide between their competing and identically phrased claims? Secondly (and it is unkind and a little unfair to imply I think belonging to a Church is a 'get out of jail free card'; is anyone that naive?) what are the consequences of belonging to a Church that is not the Church?

What attracted me to Fr. McGuckin's reading of the same ecclesiology is that it offered a path away from such thickets - without going down the primrose path of relativism - which, as you have rightly stated, is not my position at all. Indeed, you are correct to see that I am not taking any position at all, simply trying to elucidate the implications and complexities of traditional ecclesiology - east and west.


In Christ,

John

[Anthony]

Since I think I was actually the person who was guilty of intellectual laziness in throwing the term "rigorist" into this thread (strangely, because it is not one I usually use) - perhaps I should clarify that I meant by it the position that there are no sacraments outside the canonical boundaries of the Church, and therefore all converts to Orthodoxy must be received by baptism without any possibility of economy (cf. the context of Fr Raphael's previous post on St Cyprian). I do not necessarily subscribe to that view (which is not the practice of the jurisdiction I belong to), though it is one which I respect and sometimes worry about.

Simply holding that the Orthodox Church, to the exclusion of others, is the true church, is, as Nina and others have said, basic Orthodox teaching and I hold fast to it as I professed it when I was received. If people want to apply the word "rigorist" in this context, they are welcome to do so, I do not regard the word as an insult.

[Michael Stickles]

Mary,


But, I'll have to be a saint before I can listen with such deep understanding and feeling to someone's half-baked doctrine. Forgive me, but I already know what I left behind. I don't want to hear it again. It sickens me.

Understandable. But what you're really listening to and feeling with is the person; the "half-baked doctrine" they espouse is a window into themselves, their fears, hopes, understandings (and misunderstandings), and the questions they ask which their doctrines are the "answers" to.


I had only one dear friend try to teach me all that he assumed I had failed to learn as a protestant. He sent me link after link after link of trash to read. I told him I'd be willing to talk to him personally, because he's my friend, but I can't have a dialogue with protestant doctrine.

You'd be amazed at how much you can learn about someone by the choice of material they send you. As an example, my pastor recently visited us to express his concerns with our move into Orthodoxy, and he gave us a copy of the "Summary of the Task Force Report: Eastern Orthodox Teachings in Comparison with The Doctrinal Position of Biola University." From that and the comments he made when he gave it to us, we could discern that he thought we still held to certain Protestant doctrines he thought were self-evident (but which we had abandoned long before investigating Orthodoxy) and that he believed we just didn't understand how the Orthodox differed on those points. It also helped us realize that when he expressed concern that our "departure from a biblical foundation can only bring disaster", he identified "a biblical foundation" with sola scriptura. That let us better target our reply to address his true concerns and misunderstandings.

Admittedly, there's only so far that can go. The fourth link they send you of exactly the same nonsense isn't going to tell you any more than you learned from the first three, except about their level of persistence, and how much denial they're in about where you're really coming from.


I still can't see how 'sympathy' and 'empathy' can fit in with doctrinal dialogues. I mean, if something isn't true, there's no gentle way of saying: That's not true!

Perhaps there are no gentle ways, but there are often gentler ways. What we try to avoid, as I said, is the unnecessary offense. Merely to imply that someone is wrong oftens raises their defenses somewhat; you don't want to thwack their sensibilities so hard that they bar the gate, raise the drawbridge, and stock the moat with alligators, then shoot at you over the walls.

As an example, right now I'm certain that the concept of the Orthodox Church as "The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" would be immediately misunderstood by most of our friends. The ecclesiologies are just too different; we'd have to first lay a foundation of "what does 'the Church' mean?" before we could effectively go there without pushing all kinds of emotional hot buttons that might close off any willingness to listen. So we've just told them that God has called us into the OC (which is true), with hints that there are things there that are not present in the Protestant churches (also true). If any of them get curious as to what those things are, we can go into more depth.

We don't want to try to just give people "the answers", since those answers won't make any sense if they're not asking the questions the same way we are. What we want to do is help lead them to ask the right questions, and from there they can often see the answers for themselves.

In Christ,
Mike

[Matthew Panchisin]

This seems to be a pointless discussion insofar as a notion of an identical ecclesiology of east and west is how John sees things. Any response that attempts to dismiss such a pushed position is met with terms like "strawman arguments".

What I mean is if someone can't tell the difference and is simply reading words or statements superficially, "see you say the same thing, as such your ecclesiology is the same" there is no point in any discussion. Any real understanding could only come about when such ways are abandoned.

Besides this discussion really is more of a set argument that we have seen before, some loath this sort of thing.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mary]

You'd be amazed at how much you can learn about someone by the choice of material they send you. ... That let us better target our reply to address his true concerns and misunderstandings....

In Christ,
Mike

Dear Mike,

I agree with your entire post, but just picked out a few words...

What I've quoted above is the reason I think there cannot be any kind of all-encompassing ecumencal relations between us and other churches... there can only be individual understanding. Everyone is offended by or attracted to a different aspect of orthodoxy. I've never talked about the same thing twice with our protestant friends and family. In spite of the fact that the basic issues are the same, the actual concerns are different. And you're so right, I've totally loved the insight it's given me into the hearts of my friends and family! =)

The only person I "annoy" with my orthodoxy is my sister, I deliberately push her hot buttons. But that's only because she's my sister... and I don't do it all the time. We have had serious conversations and she has sincerely sought to understand orthodoxy. And so has her husband, for which I am very thankful.


But there is a problem here as regards Christian witness in the world. The RCC and the OC ecclesiology is, I think we have established, the same. But you can't both be right on a rigorist reading (you could on Fr. McGuckin's). So, if (as I have been) I am asked by an atheist colleague what we (the OC - poor thing, I couldn't bring myself to try to explain that I am not in the OC as you understand it) think follows from the fact that millions of RCs are not in the Church, I am rather at a loss.


John,

there's no way you can explain the differences between all the churches to an Atheist. That's the job of the atheist to find out for himself, if he is really interested.

As for me, I see you, as a brother in the orthodox church. I do not understand why you feel like you're not a part of us, just because we call ourselves Eastern Orthodox and you call yourself Oriental Orthodox. We rejoiced with you the day you finally joined the Church and began to commune with us. It made no difference that the EO and the OO do not intercommune. What mattered was, you broke communion with the Anglicans and instead of joining the RCC, you chose the Orthodox church.

When I was in India, I found out that the Indian orthodox church had a split sometime back and a part of the churches broke communion with the Syrian Patriarch that they used to be under. They no longer commune with the Syrian orthodox BUT - get this - they commune with the Anglican church in India!!! To me, they are no longer Orthodox, but the Syrian church, with which we do not commune, are still Orthodox!

To me, those who are Orthodox are those who hold on to the Traditions and the Teachings of those who came before them. To hold on to a part and discard or alter teachings and traditions is totally Unorthodox.

Whatever it is that separates the different orthodox churches and keeps us from communing together, can be worked out. But it can never be worked out with RCC, Anglican, all other protestants... because there's no common ground.

If someone were to ask me about the millions of others who call themselves Christian, including my dearest family and friends, and my precious father who died 12 years ago - I would tell them - they are not a part of the Orthodox church, and that would simply be the truth. IF they ask me if I'm condemning everyone to hell in saying that, I can still truthfully answer that I am not in charge of sending anyone to hell, but if I had it my way, I wouldn't send anyone to hell, and neither would God, because He is not willing that any should perish. If anyone goes to hell, it's their own choice, not God's or mine.

And please, stop separating yourself from the rest of the Orthodox world! It bothers me that you do so. Why do you not feel like you're one of us? What have we done to make you feel like you're out there, on the fringe, and somehow different? I'd like to know, so I can ask you to forgive me and change the way I speak so I dont' exclude you. But please understand, when I say "Orthodox Church" I mean ALL Orthodox churches who do NOT commune with RCC or Anglican or Protestant.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John:

You wrote:



is something of a straw man. It may be something you are familiar with, but it is not a position being argued here, and the RCC would most certainly be with you in opposing it. My point is made yet again - that the two rigorist ecclesiological positions are identical - right down to saying that those outside of them cannot fully comprehend them.

and:


This is most interesting:
I know of no Christian Church which would dissent from such a view.

I take you at your word that you truly believe that two bodies of Christians both holding to an ecclesiology in which there is no salvation outside of the Church means that, "that the two rigorist ecclesiological positions are identical." But really they are not unless one judges each by an abstract standard that does not match the actual reality of either.

Plus as is clear from the implication of your posts you hold this 'rigourism' up as a negative value, something which by the clear logic of the Church (ie the Church by definition would not hold to something negative as one of Her defining principles) should not be practiced.

What then are we to make of St Cyprian's place in this discussion? That we disagree with his stance vis a vis Pope Stephen or that his apparent rigourism is wrong? The first of course has a full place within the ongoing discussion of the Church. But if this is what you accept then it is difficult to see what the whole point of bringing up this line of discussion was for. On the other hand if as your posts and quotes seem to imply you believe such rigourism has no place within the Church then again- what are we to make of St Cyprian- that he actually was in delusion?

I am afraid that the only conclusion I reach from your posts is that holding that there is a distinct Body of Christ makes all churches equal; and that such a belief should have no real place within the Church.

At some point we all need to see the self-contradiction in this formulation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Agreed, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You do not understand what a "perfectly Orthodox principle" is, meaning a statement is made "We are the true Church" when they are not the true Church is lie. Now when the true Church says that it is the true Church it is the true Church for she is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. In Orthodox theology the Holy Spirit convicts concerning sin and righteousness, as such the "Successor of Christ" should compel one to recognize who guides a particular community. While in your opinion your Metropolitan was trying to express the idea that we have nothing to be disappointed/saddened about, I personally can not agree with such thinking. The reason why is that among basic Christian principles the notion of accepting sin like lies we are to struggle against within ourselves. Now if a head of a community thinks himself to be and teaches others that he is "Successor of Christ" proclaiming that they are the true Church that would not be a perfectly Orthodox principle.

We have seen that a perfectly Orthodox principle can't be understood with segmented or disconnected understandings. For me this is very unusual to see for most Copts that I have known don't see things in such ways or articulate them in such ways.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Antonios]

The RCC and the OC ecclesiology is, I think we have established, the same.

Dear John,

I admit from the forefront that I have a limited understanding RC ecclesiology, but my impression is that is not the same as the OC. In fact, the difference is exactly what has separated us and continues to separate us (that is the OC and the RC). It is like comparing a republic with a kingdom. Those in the republic feel theirs is the best (and only) way, while those in a kingdom feel theirs is the best (and only) way. What needs to be done is to go back to the teachings of Christ, to the Apostolic Fathers of the Church, and discern, was the Church to be a republic or a kingdom. And if a kingdom, Who is the King?

[John Charmley]

And please, stop separating yourself from the rest of the Orthodox world! It bothers me that you do so. Why do you not feel like you're one of us? What have we done to make you feel like you're out there, on the fringe, and somehow different? I'd like to know, so I can ask you to forgive me and change the way I speak so I don't' exclude you. But please understand, when I say "Orthodox Church" I mean ALL Orthodox churches who do NOT commune with RCC or Anglican or Protestant.

In Christ,
Mary.

Dear Mary,

The kindness of your nature does you credit. But does your view with which I am in entire agreement, chime with the ecclesiology of the OC as enunciated by the majority here?

If there is no salvation outside the Church and that Church is the OC then I recur to my question as to what are the implications of this for those of us not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches which are the Church? If there are no negative implications because God can decide to save us all any way, the point of the ecclesiology in soteriological terms begins to escape me.

By saying the ecclesiological positions of the RCC, the OO and the OC are identical I am not saying their theology or doctrine is - that's a different matter; but all 3 say, using the same ecclesiology and identical arguments that they are the Church. Are they all correct in some way that Fr. McGuckin's reading of the ecclesiology might allow (which is what I think it might be useful to explore), or are 2 of them wrong?

This is my answer to Fr. Raphael's last post. I am not labelling anything as negative in itself. Rigorist should be a compliment to those who hold that position; I use the word to distinguish another reading of the same ecclesiology, which would avoid the self-contradiction involved in trying to hold to the rigorist position and hold ecumenical dialogue.

Those who are holding that there is only one reading of the traditional ecclesiology ought to look again at Fr. McGuckin's piece, from which, alas, I could only cite the most relevant parts of the conclusion, as I don't have it on line. He makes it plain, and I agree, that this is not condemning St. Cyprian or anyone else - indeed it is all about moving away from such language and the mindsets they may connote. It is about a developing understanding of the patristic tradition. - and, in his case, from deep within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You ask, sweet Mary,

Why do you not feel like you're one of us?
to which I respond that every time I look at the headings of the posts I see I am a 'guest from another religious tradition'; it is quite hard to feel 'one of us' when one's every post fails to distinguish one from Protestants, Buddhists or Atheists. It was not my decision to make such differentiations, and I have not complained about it; nor would I have mentioned it save for the fact it is the answer to your question.

I am with your:

when I say "Orthodox Church" I mean ALL Orthodox churches who do NOT commune with RCC or Anglican or Protestant
but that is not the position of this forum - alas.

In Christ,

John

[Father David Moser]

So what bothers me is twofold: how am I, outside either tradition, to decide between their competing and identically phrased claims?

Why must you decide? The only reason that I can come up with is that you are looking to embrace one or the other and are feeling as though you were in a quandry as to which. If I am missing something, please enlighten me.


Secondly (and it is unkind and a little unfair to imply I think belonging to a Church is a 'get out of jail free card'; is anyone that naive?) what are the consequences of belonging to a Church that is not the Church?

You put yourself in the hands of God without any assurances. Is God merciful? Yes, most certainly - so there is hope. But no assurance. Oh, nd by the way, I didn't say that belonging to a church was a "get out of jail free card" - I did say that some people have the belief that belonging to the wrong Church is an automatic "go directly to jail" card (two similar but different concepts - and yes I do know some people who are so naive as to believe the second)

In the end the question comes down to one of faith - which do you believe. Choose that path and follow it. I have made my choice, but you seem to be unsatisfied with yours. What if you choose wrong? That's God's call, not yours or mine, however, the Gospel does say that if we ask for bread He will not give to us a stone, therefore truly ask God for guidance in your choice and trust His providence that He will not lead you astray.

Fr David Moser

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John,


We know in our own lives that when we accept sin it is an individual matter that can also effect many others, indeed it often does. When heresy is accepted the degree of heresy makes a difference. Do keep in mind that those within your tradition we have much in common with, your communities pious dispositions are well known to many. Disagreements between us are not seen by either as being piously deluded so there is much hope there. You know John there are things that we can see that are very good indeed and even understand within many "Christian" traditions, how strange it is for those within Saint Isaac's tradition to see EO vestments with crosses all over them. Strange to them because they really are very pious in many ways, as such a Priest should never have a cross on his backside or enter the Altar area with his street shoes on etc., "the place where he stands is Holy." We understand such things that are understandable pious traditions. But things that are not pious, a "Successor of Christ" which is the worst thing I have ever heard in my life simply do not support your notion, "The RCC and the OC ecclesiology is, I think we have established, the same."

Something that you may not be aware of but I think is very important to point out is that while one may think they are working for unity they may actually to more to hinder it by conveying positions that have not been conveyed from within the Coptic tradition in the past. By reading some of the post here some may think "Well we understand things much differently than the Copts." Such a conclusion is not accurate though as progress is being made in the official discussions between the EO's and Oriental Orthodox. I suspect that the lines of thought that have been articulated here would have resulted in a further separation, and that should be a reason for concern.

The forum is right the Council of Chalcedon for us is not something that can be dismissed since it is significant, that is the Orthodox Churches understanding of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. As such Mary having the best of intentions is seeing things as many Eastern Orthodox Christians do namely a very close relationship between us, particularly in the Liturgical sense I think.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Nina]

Dear John,


We know in our own lives that when we accept sin it is an individual matter that can also effect many others, indeed it often does. When heresy is accepted the degree of heresy makes a difference. Do keep in mind that those within your tradition we have much in common with, your communities pious dispositions are well known to many. Disagreements between us are not seen by either as being piously deluded so there is much hope there. You know John there are things that we can see that are very good indeed and even understand within many "Christian" traditions, how strange it is for those within Saint Isaac's tradition to see EO vestments with crosses all over them. Strange to them because they really are very pious in many ways, as such a Priest should never have a cross on his backside or enter the Altar area with his street shoes on etc., "the place where he stands is Holy." We understand such things that are understandable pious traditions. But things that are not pious, a "Successor of Christ" which is the worst thing I have ever heard in my life simply do not support your notion, "The RCC and the OC ecclesiology is, I think we have established, the same."

Something that you may not be aware of but I think is very important to point out is that while one may think they are working for unity they may actually to more to hinder it by conveying positions that have not been conveyed from within the Coptic tradition in the past. By reading some of the post here some may think "Well we understand things much differently than the Copts." Such a conclusion is not accurate though as progress is being made in the official discussions between the EO's and Oriental Orthodox. I suspect that the lines of thought that have been articulated here would have resulted in a further separation, and that should be a reason for concern.

The forum is right the Council of Chalcedon for us is not something that can be dismissed since it is significant, that is the Orthodox Churches understanding of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. As such Mary having the best of intentions is seeing things as many Eastern Orthodox Christians do namely a very close relationship between us, particularly in the Liturgical sense I think.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

I agree. Also the (traditionally) Coptic people I know in real life (because I do not know people who are not traditionally Coptic), are the most gentle and so un-forceful people that even their voice is so gentle as not to wake up a baby. In addition they are wonderful and very pious people. And I have even mentioned before the Abba from Ethiopia I knew, and what a person he was. Reading such messages here on this thread I have been wondering if they believe such stuff.

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. David,

Of course it is a matter of faith, and letting the Spirit guide us; on that basis far more Christians stand outside both the OC and your ecclesiology than lie within it. What's going on there then? Did they all get it wrong? There are many prayerful Christians out there who believe they were guided by the Spirit - but there are more of them outside the OC than in it - especially if by OC we do not adopt the reading of our sister in Christ Mary.


I am still unsure what consequences you think may flow from the fact that the largest majority of Christians in the world are not within your reading of what the Church is; that is why the McGuckin reading of the same ecclesiology interested me - it seemed to offer a more productive way of thinking about all those other people in the world who feel they have been led to the Risen Lord.


In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,


I agree. Also the (traditionally) Coptic people I know in real life (because I do not know people who are not traditionally Coptic), are the most gentle and so un-forceful people that even their voice is so gentle as not to wake up a baby. In addition they are wonderful and very pious people. And I have even mentioned before the Abba from Ethiopia I knew, and what a person he was. Reading such messages here on this thread I have been wondering if they believe such stuff.

You would, I am afraid, have to ask them.

I suspect that as in all Churches, there are those who are quick to say that others believe 'stuff' - when, in fact, they just ask questions.

In Him,

John

[Father David Moser]

I am still unsure what consequences you think may flow from the fact that the largest majority of Christians in the world are not within your reading of what the Church is

No wonder you are unsure, since I have not made any statement about such consequences. Any consequences are in God's hands, not mine and therefore you'll have to ask Him what the consequences are (and not me). But I suspect that God will not be posting on this forum, you'll have to speak with Him personally.

Fr David Moser

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for what you say in your post.

Two quick points:

I am not discussing Chalcedon; that would be out of place on this forum and off thread.

Nor am I enunciating any Coptic position. I am asking questions which I am also asking in my own Church. They seem reasonable enough - though I still don't know what people think follows from being guided (as one saw it) to an ecclesial body which turns out not to be the Church. Perhaps there are none, in which case what's the point of the ecclesiology?


But things that are not pious, a "Successor of Christ" which is the worst thing I have ever heard in my life simply do not support your notion, "The RCC and the OC ecclesiology is, I think we have established, the same."
Please understand that here I am not saying that we hold the same doctrines and dogma (I'm not saying we don't either, in fact I'm saying nothing on this theme at all) - just that both the OC and the RCC believe there is only one Church - and they both hold they are it. Is that not the same ecclesiology?

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

No wonder you are unsure, since I have not made any statement about such consequences. Any consequences are in God's hands, not mine and therefore you'll have to ask Him what the consequences are (and not me). But I suspect that God will not be posting on this forum, you'll have to speak with Him personally.

Fr David Moser

Dear Fr. David,

I did, but He doesn't seem to agree with you.

In Him,

John

[James Aubuchon]

Dear Fr. David,

Of course it is a matter of faith, and letting the Spirit guide us; on that basis far more Christians stand outside both the OC and your ecclesiology than lie within it. What's going on there then? Did they all get it wrong? There are many prayerful Christians out there who believe they were guided by the Spirit - but there are more of them outside the OC than in it - especially if by OC we do not adopt the reading of our sister in Christ Mary.


I am still unsure what consequences you think may flow from the fact that the largest majority of Christians in the world are not within your reading of what the Church is; that is why the McGuckin reading of the same ecclesiology interested me - it seemed to offer a more productive way of thinking about all those other people in the world who feel they have been led to the Risen Lord.


In Christ,

John

What is even more frustrating is an ecclesiology that allows people baptized outside of the OC to be received by chrismation (as I was), and allowing them to marry non-EO Christians (even filoque confessing Christians), and then being told that these people who baptized them, and with whom we are married are not part of the Church.

How does that work exactly?

If they are properly baptized, and we can marry them, then they are Christians, which means they are part of the Body of Christ.

So how are they not part of the Church exactly?

Jim

[Nina]

Dear Nina,



You would, I am afraid, have to ask them.

I suspect that as in all Churches, there are those who are quick to say that others believe 'stuff' - when, in fact, they just ask questions.

In Him,

John

But John, the persistence you exhibit is similar to someone who believes something. There are priests and brothers in Christ here, who are trying to answer your questions and you persist in the same lines and call them straw men.

Do not get me wrong. I also ask many questions when I do not understand something. However sometime I think: this is the border where my question is edifying for both me and the audience, or it is not. And I often remind myself if my questions continue because the truth is inconvenient for me, or because I sincerely need to know further.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John,

Your thinking seems very abstract and strange to me. You still can not understand some things as you say, "Is that not the same ecclesiology?"

Try to look at ecclesiology as a Coptic monk would. I know for a fact that if a Coptic monk discussed the "Successor of Christ" notion a typical Coptic monk would be thinking along the lines of "Climb the ladder of Divine Ascent following such a one" it is not possible, such thinking is utter madness or worse, it is blasphemous! Flee from such a one even if the largest majority of "Christians" in the world follows such a delusion.

They may feel they have been led to the Risen Lord but how can one be lead to the Risen Lord following a man that thinks himself to be the "Successor of Christ". We are not to follow what we think, rather we are to embrace the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Helper whom the Father sends in Christ's name that teaches us and guides the Church.

John the Coptic participants on this forum actually often do not convey the typical Coptic witness. That should be a sincere cause for concern.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mary]

I am still unsure what consequences you think may flow from the fact that the largest majority of Christians in the world are not within your reading of what the Church is; that is why the McGuckin reading of the same ecclesiology interested me - it seemed to offer a more productive way of thinking about all those other people in the world who feel they have been led to the Risen Lord.


In Christ,

John

Dear John,

I haven't taken the time to read the previous posts, so I do not know what McGuckin's way of thinking is. Why would I need to know the consequences of those outside the Church?

Personally, I feel I need to know the boundaries of the Church, NOT to determine the salvation of other Chrisitians, but rather, to determine my own! I need to know my boundaries, so I do not become heretical in my thinking and therefore cut myself off from the Church.

I often wonder what would've happened if I'd died before I had a chance to become orthodox. Would God have sent me to hell? To be totally honest, I DO NOT KNOW! =) All that I do know is that He would've been just as merciful to me then, as He is now. Now, I know more than I used to. Therefore, I am more accountable. Therefore, I need to define my boundaries more carefully and be more strict with myself. What used to be a narrow road, has become far narrower - for me... not for everyone else.

How God is going to judge them, I do not know. But if I give up and go back to what I used to believe before, then I know how I will be judged! But that's not all... the more God works in my life, the narrower my road becomes. I am far stricter with myself than with others. What's ok for them, is NOT ok for me. In fact, what was ok for me last year, isn't ok this year! But it would be totally wrong of me to expect the same from others as I do of myself. It is my own salvation that I have to work out, not that of others, whether they are others within the EO or the rest of the Orthodox church, or totally not orthodox. It's all irrelevant to my own salvation. My salvation depends on what I do with What God has revealed to me. And yours depends on what God has revealed to you.

In Christ,

Mary.

PS... Please, ignore the header... I don't look at anyone's header. I think it's just for the purposes of defining the framework of discussions, since I doubt there are experts on all traditions who are members here. But there are those who know the EO. Also, I believe it's beyond the scope of this forum to bring all of our various orthodox traditions to unity. But, what we can do is, get to know each other, learn to love each other, and pray, pray, pray, that God would bring us all to unity (by "us" - I mean various orthodox, not all Christians... for "them", we'll have to pray that they'll join "us"...!) =)

[Father David Moser]

I did, but He doesn't seem to agree with you.

So is your purpose here to convince me of my error on God's behalf? Or perhaps you aren't sure that God was right? I still don't understand the source of your discomfort or confusion. If God has spoken to you, then why all the questions for us?

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

How does that work exactly?


mercy - or if you prefer, compassion.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

Friends,

Over the past couple of days, I haven't really read much of anything in the way of Patristics on this topic (and here I include my own comments as well) - mostly it's come down to repeating the same things over and over again along with a lot of emotional reaction. I would like to ask you all to either redirect this conversation back to some patristic/monastic/liturgical basis or move your comments to private messages. Without a dramatic return to patristic discussion, this topic will be closed in 24 hours

Fr David Moser

[John Charmley]

So is your purpose here to convince me of my error on God's behalf? Or perhaps you aren't sure that God was right? I still don't understand the source of your discomfort or confusion. If God has spoken to you, then why all the questions for us?

Fr David Moser

Dear Fr. David,

None of the above.

The questions follow fairly naturally I should have thought, even if the answers don't.

My point was that being aware that it was necessary to approach this in prayer and with an open heart asking for guidance, I did so; I should not have mentioned it had you not raised it here

therefore you'll have to ask Him what the consequences are
That guidance took me into the British Orthodox Church. Naturally, given the common ecclesiological position that there is but one Church, it has been an object of concern to me to wonder whether that might be reconciled with the statements of the RCC and the EOC to be the Church.

I'd be quite content with the view that the OOC is the Church and the others are sincere but quite in error, except that is not how it seems when I read and pray. It follows that I would ask questions about how those in your tradition, mine and the RCC might deal with that question. The RCC and the OO answer in a straightforward manner, attributing no motives, but seeing why the question might matter; that was good of them, and I much appreciated their patience.

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear John,

Your thinking seems very abstract and strange to me. You still can not understand some things as you say, "Is that not the same ecclesiology?"

Try to look at ecclesiology as a Coptic monk would. I know for a fact that if a Coptic monk discussed the "Successor of Christ" notion a typical Coptic monk would be thinking along the lines of "Climb the ladder of Divine Ascent following such a one" it is not possible, such thinking is utter madness or worse, it is blasphemous! Flee from such a one even if the largest majority of "Christians" in the world follows such a delusion.

They may feel they have been led to the Risen Lord but how can one be lead to the Risen Lord following a man that thinks himself to be the "Successor of Christ". We are not to follow what we think, rather we are to embrace the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Helper whom the Father sends in Christ's name that teaches us and guides the Church.

John the Coptic participants on this forum actually often do not convey the typical Coptic witness. That should be a sincere cause for concern.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

I must defer to you as to what a 'typical Coptic witness' might be. One of the difficulties in such discussions is that people tend to take as 'typical' that with which they agree; this is not a necessary corollary.

I am sorry you keep coming back to the Pope and the title 'successor of Christ'; I have not come across Popes using this, but if they do, I would, of course, disagree with it.

Do have another look at what Athanasius has posted; I really am just asking questions, and am still surprised at the defensive fire they seem to provoke here; on neither RCC nor Coptic fora do the faithful react in this way - and I have had this discussion on fora for both. Still, as I suggest above, it is unwise to judge any tradition by the reaction of a few of its adherents on an internet forum.

In peace,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear Mary,

It is kind of you to care. But the answer really lies in Fr. David's answer to Jim, that it is through 'mercy' or 'compassion' that:

allows people baptized outside of the OC to be received by chrismation (as I was), and allowing them to marry non-EO Christians (even filoque confessing Christians), and then being told that these people who baptized them, and with whom we are married are not part of the Church.

Much though one appreciates the niceness of the compassion, and the mercy, it doesn't really chime with being part of the same family - even if one always tries to show those qualities to one's own family too; at any event, it sits uneasily alongside the rigorist reading of the ecclesiology under discussion.

What McGuckin's reading suggested was that there might be ways of being able to reach one's fellow Christians. As to why one would care about what happens to those outside the Church, well, if there is no salvation outside it, as an act of mercy and compassion I care. The point of McGuckin was that he was suggesting that this did not necessarily lead to heresy; that seemed interesting to me.

You write, and with great compassion:

My salvation depends on what I do with What God has revealed to me. And yours depends on what God has revealed to you.
but whilst I am inclined to agree, it comes quite close to things my old Protestant friends say, and I was wondering whether there was another way of coming at this; guess there isn't.


what we can do is, get to know each other, learn to love each other, and pray, pray, pray, that God would bring us all to unity (by "us" - I mean various orthodox, not all Christians... for "them", we'll have to pray that they'll join "us"...!) =)

Indeed, dear Mary, you are quite correct, and, having dealt with all the points that needed dealing with, I shall anticipate Fr. David's deadline - unless there is need to respond to any further direct points.

My thanks to those who have engaged with the questions.

In Christ,
John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John,

The reason I referenced the "Successor of Christ" title numerous times is so that you might come to see that we do not have the same ecclesiology. That is a fruit from another place that would be very far away from the foundation of Orthodox ascetical theology. It seems no matter what is said that is not understood.


One of the difficulties in such discussions is that people tend to take as 'typical' that with which they agree; this is not a necessary corollary.

Actually, you're wrong once again. We do not agree with all that the Coptic tradition says we know that so do they. Having said that the typical Coptic disposition on the types of matters that are being discussed here are pursued in a much different way then I've seen before.

That is my observation. The notion of someone telling or defining typical in their way which turns out to be out of touch with that which is really typical.

I really don't see any point in furthering this discussion for we have seen many times in the past that the thinking simply does not change.

Perhaps the moderators would find it merciful to close the thread for those of us that loathe this sort of thing that we have also experienced in the past. Surely the Eastern Orthodox can just go away and be at peace.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've been out of internet contact for the past many days (as I will be also for the next several), and have only today read through this latest flurry of posts in this thread. Predictably, most have just been a re-hashing of the standard way such conversations always go, with a few brush-strokes in slightly a different shade to make it seem new. However, there have been a few comments that seem to me interesting.

First, the claim that, to use the examples given here, Roman Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiological patterns / models / understandings are the same, simply made by different groups (though one could compare instead a variety of other groups), seems to me to succumb to a basic flaw in 99% of casual ecclesiological discussions: it takes ecclesiology as a kind of administrative or working model - a framework for 'in', for 'out', for structure, for function. To approach ecclesiology in this way is all too common in comparative discussions, which is why they so often go nowhere; or rather, go in circles. Yes, Roman Catholic and Orthodox models can, in some regards, look quite similar, if not identical, when approached in this manner. There may be claims of exclusivity that both express; claims to heretical boundries that both make; etc. And yet each group insists that it is 'the' Church and the other, by its criteria, is not - which causes quite the puzzle, as John has observed, to an outside observer who sees two parties making exactly the same claims. How can they both say the same thing, yet insist the other has it wrong?

But ecclesiology has at its root, not a model of structure, limits, boundries and function, but a Christological doctrine of divine encounter. In other words, those aspects - boundries, limits, scope, etc. - are extensions of theological conceptions of divine reality and divine encounter, centred in the Christological testimony of the incarnate Son, known in the Spirit, who reveals the Father. The questions of boundries and limits in particular are all but meaningless outside the context of Christological engagement, which sets them into the framework of encountered relation. This was what was said in another thread, some time ago; though it met with reactions of 'Yes, but {church x} would also say the same thing'. But the point is that saying the same things of secondary elements does not, in fact, point to an equality of what is being confessed. It is the theological confession that infuses those ecclesiological points with meaning to those who confess them - a meaning which will be different if the same points are made from a different theological confession; and a meaning which might be erased and all but lost if those points are explored in abstraction from the theological scope.

Ecclesiological concepts are not meant to be read or find meaning apart from the confession that supports them.

This is why historical discussions on ecclesiological concepts were so often theological in orientation. Were it simply a matter of models of power, boundries, limits and the like, this would certainly not have needed to be so. But it is in the Christological confession that such discussions have meaning within the context of that confession. Rent apart, to be compared with models grounded in another confession or perception of divine reality, the ecclesiological territory suddenly loses its real meaning; and stripped of this grounding, it becomes only the secondary elements which are compared - and these can seem similar, so much so that they seem identical. This seems to me what John has been doing in this thread (e.g. here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50000&postcount=58), and in what followed from that - sorry to single you out, John, but it has been your questions that have really driven this flurry). Obviously both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do say that they are 'the Church' and that 'the "fullness of the Faith" rests with them' (to quote your point) - making the same claim from two traditions. But this is hardly news. And yet, if you were to look only at this claim with regards to the locus of the Faith, the two traditions seem to be mirror copies, saying the same thing but disagreeing on the 'who' that goes with the 'we'.

But such a claim is one which, properly, means nothing without the theological substance of that faith in confessional encounter. Statements on the ecclesiological structure of the Church are properly capstones on the experience of theological encounter, not the starting points for understanding it and framing it in. If one looks at the classical ecclesiological texts of the earliest Church, this is a standard pattern. Ecclesiological definitions come at the end of long discussions of theological substance. St Irenaeus, for example, defines Church only some 150 pages into his greatest opus - as the body that proclaims this encounter, this Christ, this salvation, this confession. Take those ecclesiological definitions (cf. AH 3) out of the context of the theological articulation in which they are framed, and suddenly they could be held up as parallel to all sorts of others (including several in the catalogue that Irenaeus himself is refuting!). But this is already to have rendered them theologically impotent.

This is becoming fairly rambling, and I hope it doesn't come off as brusque or avoiding the question. But I don't think it proper or authentic to try to carry forward a discussion of ecclesiology that does not see the whole discussion in the framework of confessed Christological encounter - i.e. Christian theology. And if this be the starting point and basis, then there is a real possibility to see how the Orthodox insistence on such things as the doctrinal testimony of the councils, etc., is more than just a litany of joining-agreements or cop-outs for ecclesiological discussion, but right at the heart of how secondary statements on ecclesiology fit into its theological heart.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

In an above post, John wrote:


I really am just asking questions, and am still surprised at the defensive fire they seem to provoke here; on neither RCC nor Coptic fora do the faithful react in this way - and I have had this discussion on fora for both.

Simply to give some context for this: I rather think defensiveness counter-productive in almost all cases. But I do suspect the reason you encounter such here is that this line of discussion, which is brought up over and again, is one that is expressly not in the scope of this forum's raison d'etre and purpose. People are prone to become tired and short when again and again faced with a topic of address that goes specifically against the purposes for which the forum exists.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr. Dn Matthew wrote:



But I don't think it proper or authentic to try to carry forward a discussion of ecclesiology that does not see the whole discussion in the framework of confessed Christological encounter - i.e. Christian theology. And if this be the starting point and basis, then there is a real possibility to see how the Orthodox insistence on such things as the doctrinal testimony of the councils, etc., is more than just a litany of joining-agreements or cop-outs for ecclesiological discussion, but right at the heart of how secondary statements on ecclesiology fit into its theological heart.


The reason for the frustration is also that such constructions use abstract argumentation which seem to force one into ground one consciously or intuitively feels to be un-Churchly.

There is a peculiar force to such arguments nowadays simply because they are so common. But they also gain their power I think because we almost all are prey to them. Like deer in the headlights it takes an especially intense intellectual and spiritual effort to pry oneself loose from their grip and see the real issue. Which in this case as you say is Christ or as I was explaining the understanding of the Church.

Until then, and in a way even then, one feels as if one was being dragged into ground that is proclaimed to be of the Church but which in one's heart of heart one senses is not. It this last which best accounts for the frustration expressed I think.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

I had hoped to avoid posting again on this, but there are, alas, a few points which need responding to.

You write:

I hope it doesn't come off as brusque or avoiding the question not the former, nor quite the latter; more like undue mystification. After all, to say that those outside cannot understand is to prejudge the issue. My Catholic friends do say, with you, that:

boundries, limits, scope, etc. - are extensions of theological conceptions of divine reality and divine encounter, centred in the Christological testimony of the incarnate Son, known in the Spirit, who reveals the Father. The questions of boundries and limits in particular are all but meaningless outside the context of Christological engagement, which sets them into the framework of
and they do claim their Church has that Christological engagement - and would even, if pushed, suggest you cannot understand what they mean because you are not within their tradition. Indeed, it is hard to see how you can know this:

a meaning which will be different if the same points are made from a different theological confession
since it would seem that your own reading means you can't know the inwardness of the Catholic Christological encounter; so how can you know it is different? You can assume it is, as you clearly do; that is not the same as knowing.

When you write:

Ecclesiological concepts are not meant to be read or find meaning apart from the confession that supports them
that is where it looks like mystification and one thinks of Lewis Carroll and Humpty Dumpty; it ends discussion very effectively because words take on a meaning the speaker wishes them to take on.

The Catholics also quote St. Irenaeus, indeed, these Fathers belong to all those who claim to be the Church, which makes me wonder when you write:

the body that proclaims this encounter, this Christ, this salvation, this confession. Take those ecclesiological definitions (cf. AH 3) out of the context of the theological articulation in which they are framed how you can be so sure that you are not taking them out of that context, but can be certain the Catholics are? After all, surely 'Christian theology' is not confined to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

As for the frustrations, again, all I can report is what I find here and elsewhere.

In Him,

John

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Matthew,


You do not understand what a "perfectly Orthodox principle" is, meaning a statement is made "We are the true Church" when they are not the true Church is lie.

I am continually perplexed as to what it is you don't understand about the fact that the Metropolitan is not condoning the RC Pope's subjective application of the idea that there is but one true Church to the RCC (he is in no way acknowledging that they—the Church of Rome—are the one true Church, and hence he is not saying that their claim is true), but rather he is expressing the sentiment that the fact they acknowledge the idea that there is but one true Church is but the acknowledgment of a very basic Orthodox ecclesiological principle. The fact they misinterpret the fact that the one true Church is not the Church of Rome is, ofcourse, not something the Metropolitan agrees with (else why would he be part of the Coptic Church in the first place?), but it is something rather unsurprising.

If this still doesn't address your concern then we will just have to agree to disagree. I am grateful to Mike Stickles for confirming (in post #136) what I feel is quite obvious and clear from my very initial post on the matter, but I cannot force you to see what you do not wish to see.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[John Charmley]

As we come to the end of this discussion, one reflection upon the difficulties of language, and another on its (ab)uses,

Matthew reminded us that:

The questions of boundries and limits in particular are all but meaningless outside the context of Christological engagement, which sets them into the framework of encountered relation.
and that:

It is the theological confession that infuses those ecclesiological points with meaning to those who confess them - a meaning which will be different if the same points are made from a different theological confession;

This last comes pretty close to post-modern relativism; what you read into a text depends not upon the author's meaning but your own context (for which read 'theological confession'). In this there is no 'real' or definitive meaning, just an endless series of possible readings based upon one's own theological confession; with the added complication of the conviction that those outside cannot possibly read aright texts you both hold in common reverence.

An example of this might lie in this from St. Cyprian:

Upon him [Peter], being one, He built His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone....', that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one [Peter]. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.
--St. Cyprian :"On the Unity of the Catholic Church", chpt 4.
One 'confession' reads that as interpreting the significance of Simon's change of name to 'Peter' as signifying the rock upon which the Church was built; the other concentrates upon the 'rest of the Apostles'; one says Papal Infallibility was a doctrinal development from this and the Church in its fulness can rest only on the successor of St. Peter; others disagree.

In the end it is, of course, a matter of faith, which seems to come down, oddly, to a rather Protestant-style personal (but Spirit-guided) choice - or an accident of birth.

With that, to the relief of many, that's it for this thread.


In Him,

John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John.

Perhaps the thread will continue on long after it is closed.


This last comes pretty close to post-modern relativism; what you read into a text depends not upon the author's meaning but your own context (for which read 'theological confession'). In this there is no 'real' or definitive meaning, just an endless series of possible readings based upon one's own theological confession; with the added complication of the conviction that those outside cannot possibly read aright texts you both hold in common reverence.

Would an accurate example of that sort of thing be reading something or observing (perceiving) a situation and then articulating a definitive statement based upon ones own individual seperated perception? It seems to me that perceptions effect our past, our present and our future.

Here is something you mentioned recently:


Yes, it is a shame that so few take an interest in the British Saints; I am glad to say that the British Orthodox Church is an exception to this sad state of affairs.

Here is a correct response from Fr. Deacon Matthew whose vision is different:


I'm not at all convinced that no one takes an interest in the British saints. They are a group of intense interest to a great many in Russia, as well as in the USA. Here in Britain, the Russian Orthodox Church has been working quite tirelessly - and especially of late - to have them more widely recognized throughout the Orthodox world, and to have many of them added to the official Russian Orthodox calendar.

In the USA, there are numerous groups dedicated to the furtherance of the British saints.

Here is the response of the Orthodox Church:


The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church instituted a holiday to honor Christians who lived on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and were canonized before the 1054 schism that divided Christendom into the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The holiday will be an annual event observed on the third Sunday after Pentecost in the Julian Calendar.

The Synod, which met on Tuesday, also ordered that these saints' names be included in the Menology after their Christian exploits have been studied.

The Synod's decision follows an appeal of March 3, 2007, in which the diocese of Sourozh, a Russian Orthodox diocese having the islands of Great Britain and Ireland for its territory, asked the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexy II, and its Holy Synod to institute a holiday for pre-1054 British and Irish saints.

In conclusion we have seen statements can be made based upon ones own perceptions and issued as though they are accurate even when they are not. To me your way John is Protestant-styled and motivated by individual seperated personal choice. Father Deacon Matthews' understanding of the matter was and remains consistent with how the Church discerns things.

I don't know if this can help at all, nevertheless we have seen that truth is not a relative thing. At least the Orthodox Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils knows the way and the truth is Christ. That Church does not create it's own understanding of truth, other groups do.



In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,


That Church does not create it's own understanding of truth, other groups do.

which is just what the RCC says. And that is why we have, whether we acknowledge it or not, been talking about one ecclesiology. Your faith, your tradition, your theological dialogue tells you that the OC is the Church. The RCC is told that by the same things, as are the OOs. I make no comment as to which of them might be right.

You suggest:

To me your way John is Protestant-styled and motivated by individual seperated personal choice.
Yet as Fr. David commented:

In the end the question comes down to one of faith - which do you believe. Choose that path and follow it.

You don't, alas, provide any way that someone outside your tradition could come to it without following Fr. David's advice to 'choose'. Why is choice 'Protestant'; how do those not born Orthodox decide to become so except by a choice - one they (and I) believe is God-guided - but it is a choice, is it not?

As you suggest, we have not exhausted the subject, but the same may not be true of the patience of others.

In Him,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

In my post above (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50523&postcount=170), I wrote:

'The questions of boundries and limits in particular are all but meaningless outside the context of Christological engagement, which sets them into the framework of encountered relation. [...] It is the theological confession that infuses those ecclesiological points with meaning to those who confess them - a meaning which will be different if the same points are made from a different theological confession'In response to this came the following:

This last comes pretty close to post-modern relativism; what you read into a text depends not upon the author's meaning but your own context (for which read 'theological confession'). In this there is no 'real' or definitive meaning, just an endless series of possible readings based upon one's own theological confession; with the added complication of the conviction that those outside cannot possibly read aright texts you both hold in common reverence.

I fear this has rather misread my post at a fundamental level, and I would encourage you to read it again if you've an interest in what I was actually attempting to say.

Relativism, as you've described it, talks of a thing for which 'there is no "real" or definitive meaning, just an endless series of possible readings', and these based on one's personal choices, preferences, thoughts, understandings. To this you've equated theology, and so to extend my quotation of your words: 'just an endless series of possible readings based upon one's own theological confession', as if this confession were akin to a category of choice, preference, etc.

And yet it is precisely the nature of theology as the relational encounter with the truly real, that sets it apart from such relativism. Authentic theological confession is not a selection of those things one elects to admire, adhere to, or believe, but a genuine confession of the truly real, as it truly is. When Christ asks his disciples, 'Who do you say that I am?', he is not posing an open-ended question. Peter tells him what other people say; but Christ asks again. That is what they say, but you - what do you say? 'You are the Christ, Son of the living God'. And for this confession Jesus replies, 'Thou art blessed, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven'.

If by 'theological confession' one means simply a selection of God-minded things that one assembles and elects to believe, one not only fails to adhere to a notion of confession as authentic articulation 'of what truly is, as it truly is' (St Irenaeus), one also fails to understand theological confession as the articulation of that hypostatic encounter with the incarnate Son. It becomes a mental and intellectual activity - and in this is truly does become wholly relativistic, and all is basically lost.

When, however, theological confession is understood as the right expression (articulation) of Truth as encountered, met and known in the sacrificial Christ - as the right receiving and handing on of that encounter as given ('this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father...'), then it becomes a singular motion, a unified expression of the one God.


To take this back to my earlier point on ecclesiology, I wrote:
'It is the theological confession that infuses those ecclesiological points with meaning to those who confess them - a meaning which will be different if the same points are made from a different theological confession'This can only be a relativistic statement if one believes more fundamentally that all theological confession is elective choice, and therefore variable and subjective. But if the theological confession is that right expression of encounter with that one Son as revealed by the Father through the Spirit, it becomes an absolute, just as much as Christ is absolute.

An example that was given might aid in this point, which seems to me an absolutely fundamental issue for understanding ecclesiology as known in the Orthodox Church. The example offered was of a text from St Cyprian of Carthage, from his On the Unity of the Catholic Church, as follows:


Upon him [Peter], being one, He built His Church (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Church), and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Apostle), and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone....', that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one [Peter]. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.

Reading this statement, the following conclusions were drawn:


One 'confession' reads that as interpreting the significance of Simon's change of name to 'Peter' as signifying the rock upon which the Church was built; the other concentrates upon the 'rest of the Apostles'; one says Papal Infallibility was a doctrinal development from this and the Church in its fulness can rest only on the successor of St. Peter; others disagree.

But the question is not whether some read it one way, others another; of course they have, do, and always will. The question is whether one believes that there is something 'beneath' those varying decisions of belief. Is what Christ meant something that ultimately resides in my interpretive will? In other words, is it my belief that dictates Christ's actual intention in changing Simon's name to Peter? If so, then confession has again been defined in wholly relativistic terms, and this opens the possibility to draw a conclusion such as:


In the end it is, of course, a matter of faith, which seems to come down, oddly, to a rather Protestant-style personal (but Spirit-guided) choice - or an accident of birth.

But this conclusion, at least as it is stated, does not acknowledge that perhaps there is an authentic meaning that can be confessed, the authenticity of which stands irrespective of whether or not I agree or adhere to it. Obviously and of course, that which one choses to align one's self to is a matter of faith and a choice; this is not a Protestant issue, but one of essential Christianity. But the fact that what I may choose to accept is up to me, does not equate to the authenticity of the choices before me being up to me.

This leads full circle, back to the question that spurred on my initial posting; namely, the claim that two groups (such as the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church) which offer ecclesiological details of substantial similarity, are for that fact offering 'the same ecclesiology'. In a subsequent post, reflecting on further Orthodox statements offered by another poster that reflect statements made by Roman Catholic sources, there came this reply:


[...] which is just what the RCC says. And that is why we have, whether we acknowledge it or not, been talking about one ecclesiology.

This seems to me, again, to fail to grapple at all with the question of ecclesiology as an extension of relational theology. It is not so much that the conclusions are relativistic, as the presuppositions going into it. This is highlighted in the claims that follow:


Your faith, your tradition, your theological dialogue tells you that the OC is the Church. The RCC is told that by the same things, as are the OOs. I make no comment as to which of them might be right.

Again, this seems to locate truth in what people (or in this instance, a tradition), claims to be true. The issue that is not being addressed is whether there is a specific truth that gives substance to such a claim.

To boil all this down: similarity of ecclesiological expression, even if on many points, cannot equate to a common expression of 'one ecclesiology' except and unless one accepts as a basic principle a relativistic understanding of what gives ecclesiology substance and meaning. But to their credit, neither the Roman Catholic nor the Orthodox Church have been willing to do this historically, and have emphatically not claimed a common ecclesiology, despite on many practical points being essentially identical. This is, at its core, because ecclesiology is not understood as a pattern of self perception and relation to others (e.g. membership, limits, boundries, authority), but the communal extension of the theological encounter with incarnate Truth, the Son of the Father. It is is the 'corporate body' of authentic confession of the authentic Christ, which is why both communion's theologians have seen the starting point of fraternal dialogue not in the machinery of the ecclesia, but in the confession of Christ which is its meaning.

INXC, Matthew

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Dcn Matthew,

May I ask if you are, in a nutshell, simply arguing the following: that a) authentic theological confession is centred upon a true living encounter with Christ (and as there can only be one true living encounter/relationship with Him viz. through membership in His Body, that there can thus only be one authentic theological confession), and b) that that one authentic confession cannot be said to be the "same" as, or "one with" any other by reference to an apparent similiarity of adopted and agreed upon abstract doctrinal principles (be they ecclesiological, Christological etc.) given that those principles are, within that one true authentic theological confession, truths personally received and experienced, and hence truths imbued with fundamentally more meaning and significance than that with which they exist outside of that one theological confession.

If this is a fair summation of the position you have outlined in your response to John, then I cannot but perfectly agree with you. I think it can be related to the basic Evagrian axiom that "A true theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a true theologian," which emphasises the inextricable connection between authentic truth and authentic experience (the former of which the "true Church" can claim by virtue of her "access" to the latter which necessarily establishes the appropriate context for the former in the first place).

I will wait for you to confirm, or correct, my attempted personal representation of what you are saying before I raise my concern as to why I believe your response, whilst perfectly agreeable in and of itself, appears to read too much into the questions John raises to properly stand as a "corrective" in any sense within the context of the discussion at hand.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Dn Matthew wrote:



And yet it is precisely the nature of theology as the relational encounter with the truly real, that sets it apart from such relativism. Authentic theological confession is not a selection of those things one elects to admire, adhere to, or believe, but a genuine confession of the truly real, as it truly is. When Christ asks his disciples, 'Who do you say that I am?', he is not posing an open-ended question. Peter tells him what other people say; but Christ asks again. That is what they say, but you - what do you say? 'You are the Christ, Son of the living God'. And for this confession Jesus replies, 'Thou art blessed, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven'.

If by 'theological confession' one means simply a selection of God-minded things that one assembles and elects to believe, one not only fails to adhere to a notion of confession as authentic articulation 'of what truly is, as it truly is' (St Irenaeus), one also fails to understand theological confession as the articulation of that hypostatic encounter with the incarnate Son. It becomes a mental and intellectual activity - and in this is truly does become wholly relativistic, and all is basically lost.

When, however, theological confession is understood as the right expression (articulation) of Truth as encountered, met and known in the sacrificial Christ - as the right receiving and handing on of that encounter as given ('this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father...'), then it becomes a singular motion, a unified expression of the one God.

and:


The question is whether one believes that there is something 'beneath' those varying decisions of belief. Is what Christ meant something that ultimately resides in my interpretive will? In other words, is it my belief that dictates Christ's actual intention in changing Simon's name to Peter? If so, then confession has again been defined in wholly relativistic terms

I found these quotes from your post above very helpful in clarifying something similar which I have been trying to point to.

All through this at least year long discussion a very similar point about having the same ecclesiology has been made. At times this has been on the score of apparently sharing an identical Christology regardless of conciliar proclamations. Recently in this discussion the presentation to the same point has been more along the lines of 'we say the same things'. Just so as not to lose track of ourselves I think it important to recall that this whole line of discussion began a year or more ago over the point that we all actually are saying and believing the same thing if we could but see it.

I think your comments Fr Dn Matthew help clarify something which I have been trying to grasp more fully and express through this whole discussion of the past year or so. Basically, the Faith which the Church witnesses to is tied to its relation with Christ as the Truth. It is not an expression of our understanding of this Truth as a kind of deeper truth which then serves as a binding link between all Christians. In other words Truth as known through the Church proceeds through a focus first on Christ and then the expression through the Church of this; so the Church is not the result of a shared human experience about Christ which looks primarily to that experience as the main criterion for the truth.

Of course it can and probably will be countered that no such subjective claim about the Church was ever really made or intended. That's why I think it important to keep in mind a few things.

One is that for the Church the Truth about Christ as referred to above has always been made through its Tradition. Short of falling into the same relativism warned about above such Tradition has always been for the Fathers the one clear thing all can cling to as a sign concerning the boundaries of the Church. It is no small thing that for the Fathers (eg St Irenaeus) the one thing they pointed to was the crucial difference in Tradition in its written and oral form for the Church. To our own day a similar point is made by the Fathers whenever similar discussions about 'the truth of all faiths' comes up. I believe this to be a very important point for really it is the most clear presence we have for the Truth we are speaking of and which does not fall back into relativism. Not accidentally most all who follow the subjectivist line attack in one way or another the distinct tradition of the Church.

Secondly I think it worth while to repeat the point I have previously made about an underlying abstract way of looking at the Church, Faith and Christ. Even our experience on which Faith is based is not so subjective as long as it is based on understanding as the Fathers understand this. Indeed we can even say as those like St Isaac the Syrian do that experience is transformed from the subjective and relativistic to the real in as much as it grows in Christ. I think then that our modern way of relativizing is the result of how we create abstract 'truths' to encompass all reality as the result of our no longer engaging with that reality in a godly way. Here I do not know how long we can avoid saying openly what Christ has been telling us for a long time now, "we must die in order to live." ie behind a lot of these modern positions is fear of Christ's cross.

Finally then, following from the above I also think it it crucial to keep in mind that for the Fathers what the above requires is an ongoing conversion in the ecclesiological sense.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

We do come at this from different directions, but perhaps can end up with an agreement.

I am not denying that there is an authentic Truth, and agree that:

Authentic theological confession is not a selection of those things one elects to admire, adhere to, or believe, but a genuine confession of the truly real, as it truly is.
but in the context of dialogue with those outside one's own confession would ask: as it truly is to whom?

When you write that

one also fails to understand theological confession as the articulation of that hypostatic encounter with the incarnate Son
I would not dissent; I doubt a Roman Catholic would, either.

You come to the heart of the matter (as our friend Rick might say):

When, however, theological confession is understood as the right expression (articulation) of Truth as encountered, met and known in the sacrificial Christ - as the right receiving and handing on of that encounter as given ('this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father...'), then it becomes a singular motion, a unified expression of the one God.
Indeed, and given, but the question of how your confession knows it is the one that is 'receiving right'. and that another confession is not, remains, it would seem, an act of faith; nothing wrong with that, of course, but difficult to know how one confession can pronounce on another which is, implicitly - and explicitly - what is so often done.

You write:

This can only be a relativistic statement if one believes more fundamentally that all theological confession is elective choice, and therefore variable and subjective. But if the theological confession is that right expression of encounter with that one Son as revealed by the Father through the Spirit, it becomes an absolute, just as much as Christ is absolute. Not all theological choice, but I was asking the question in a context you have wrested it from; that was the one of how one outside your theological confession can come to it except by choice? Even if one believes one has been guided, one makes a choice of one's own free will. The mode of conveying that 'right expression of encounter' remains ineluctably vague to one outside your theological confession, and it is equally unclear how it is to be conveyed.


Is what Christ meant something that ultimately resides in my interpretive will? In other words, is it my belief that dictates Christ's actual intention in changing Simon's name to Peter? If so, then confession has again been defined in wholly relativistic terms
Since 'ultimately' must involve one accepting of one's own free will what one's Church teaches, then I see no way out of answering this in the affirmative; however much I want to answer it the other way. If from time to time I seem a mite troubled, that's the reason, I guess.

So when you write:

perhaps there is an authentic meaning that can be confessed, the authenticity of which stands irrespective of whether or not I agree or adhere to it - I agree, but think it begs the question of by what authority authenticity is established. Here it would seem that choice slips in by another route; your confession believes in that authentic meaning; another confession might believe in the same thing - you cannot know whether it does or not, which is why you cannot know whether their ecclesiology is the same as your own or not, so even if

neither the Roman Catholic nor the Orthodox Church have been willing to do this historically, and have emphatically not claimed a common ecclesiology, that fails to establish conclusively they do not; indeed, the identical nature of their refusal may be significant in this respect; or it may not.

But happily, we concur on:

both communion's theologians have seen the starting point of fraternal dialogue not in the machinery of the ecclesia, but in the confession of Christ which is its meaning.
which was the point I made, long ago, quoting Fr. McGuckin, and which seemed to prompt cries of 'ecumenism'.

I am not, let me make clear, advocating a relativistic approach, but remain sceptical that the ecclesiology outlined is not sufficiently similar - if understood aright- that is as lying in the confession of the same Risen Lord - to allow for a more constructive dialogue than some imagine.

Fr. Raphael writes:

One is that for the Church the Truth about Christ as referred to above has always been made through its Tradition
indeed, and there are at least three Churches which claim to inherit that 'Tradition', and those in them who proclaim that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Either this last is relativistic in the sense that since it is God who makes that decision, it does not matter which Church you are in; or it is very real and matters a great deal.

If the starting place for dialogue is in the confession of Christ where the meaning of the ecclesia is located, then it is needful to recall His command that we should love one another.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote:


Not all theological choice, but I was asking the question in a context you have wrested it from; that was the one of how one outside your theological confession can come to it except by choice? Even if one believes one has been guided, one makes a choice of one's own free will. The mode of conveying that 'right expression of encounter' remains ineluctably vague to one outside your theological confession, and it is equally unclear how it is to be conveyed.


But what Dn Matthew wrote concerns the faith each is to have. Not an affirmation about someone else's faith. This is why this whole method is condemned to run eternally in circles until we understand our own faith and care to witness to it. At this point it should be clear that we would see the faith of others as lacking something. Indeed there is no way out of this consequence of faith unless we reduce faith to a common set of propositional statements about faith . At this point though we are no longer really talking about faith anymore.




Since 'ultimately' must involve one accepting of one's own free will what one's Church teaches, then I see no way out of answering this in the affirmative; however much I want to answer it the other way. If from time to time I seem a mite troubled, that's the reason, I guess.

But this is the very point. Faith involves a particular affirmation about Christ and the Church. Unless one tries to escape from the consequences of this faith there is no alternative but to understand that there is that which is incorrect, incomplete or misplaced faith. I see no alternative except that between acknowledging that the divisions we see within Christianity are the result of fundamentally different visions of what faith is and denying one's faith. As pointed out previously if we adopt the latter to try to solve the former we are engaged in a self-contradictory process which ends up denying the Church.

Division in itself is not actually the problem. Rather the incorrect, incomplete or misplaced faith referred to above is the problem.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

There are some interesting things to ponder, drawn out of the recent posts. In order to attempt to clarify some of the issues, I'm going to try to organise my own response here into themes, these being:

Confessions of theological truth, vis-a-vis subjective concerns
Proper reception of truth
Observing confessions and ecclesiologies 'from the outside'
Troubles over the notion of 'choice', and what this means for objective truth claims
Theological differences at the root of ecclesiological differencesConfessions of theological truth: Of a subject, or to a hearer?

This theme has been brought up in numerous posts, both in this thread and in others. In one of the recent posts here, this:

in the context of dialogue with those outside one's own confession would ask: as it truly is to whom?
This in regard to my own statement, that the nature of theological confession is the articulation of the truly real, as it truly is (this being a notion drawn, at least in part, from the introductory sections of St Irenaeus' Demonstration of the apostolic preaching). But to qualify articulation of the truly real, as it truly is to someone, forces one of two options: either truth is different to one person and to another; or truth remains constant, and the 'to whom' indicates not the constant, unchanging truth itself, but its appearance to and reception by a person or group. In the first option, truth changes, and it is one thing to one individual, another to a second. In the latter option truth remains constant, and the differences in the 'to whom' are in how it seems to one person, or to another, etc.

The first, I trust most would agree, cannot be adhered to as a Christian understanding of truth; for if truth is the person of Christ, who is 'ever unchanging and eternally the same', 'the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow', then the concept of a variable truth simply cannot hold.

The second conception is far more difficult. Clearly, truth - particularly truth as a person, Christ - is always subjectively (or better, personally) experienced. Christ meets Peter personally, Mary personally, me personally. And yet the how of my encounter does not alter the who of the subject, the person, of incarnate Truth. This is part of the thrust of the consistent patristic focus on God's impassibility - often thought of as the doctrine that 'God doesn't suffer', but which in actuality is more properly concerned with the fact that human passibility, mutability and frailty does not change God, even though he interacts with it directly (excellent work on this subject by Paul Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God). The mutability of my experience of God does not render mutable the God I experience. The differing perception of that experience that may be registered by me and by another, does not multiply or vary the truth of the One that is experienced.

This brings us back to the question of 'truth' and 'truth to whom'. If we are speaking of theology as the articulation of Truth, can it ever be properly an articulation of a truth to someone? Or is it the articulation of the one who is truth, and who thus is truth to all? If theology is about truth as subjectively received or defined, there will be infinite theologies, all of which glimmer here and there of that real and personal Truth which they express, but which is not in fact the articulation of that Truth itself. But if theology centres here, then that 'to whom' is not the core of its nature, but the foundation of its missiological, pastoral purpose.

That's all rather abstract. In concrete terms related to this discussion on ecclesiology, to say that truth must be 'truth to someone', is all but to force ecclesiology to be reduced to its external or secondary characteristics - shape, boundries, borders, limits, etc. - for the 'core' that roots these becomes subjective and multiple. Because one cannot ground discussion in a notion of singular, personal Truth that transcends the 'to me' or 'to you' of human subjects, ecclesiological 'truth claims' are reduced to what one says about what one believes truth to be; and then, when two groups say similar things, they look 'the same'. Hence:


When you write that

one also fails to understand theological confession as the articulation of that hypostatic encounter with the incarnate Son
I would not dissent; I doubt a Roman Catholic would, either.


But this is utterly not the point. To offer this as a rejoinder, in fact, is a kind of affirmation of this 'to whom' perception of theological reality, and the grounding it might give to ecclesiological discussion.

The point, as it would be understood by an Orthodox ecclesiology, is that it is not the claim of a Christological confession that grounds its theological reality, but the authenticity of that confession as engendering genuine encounter with the true God, as he truly is. As ecclesiology is the 'corporeal expression' of theology known in Christ, it is in the authenticity of that theological encounter that the ecclesiology has merit. Two groups who say, 'My ecclesiology is that of the incarnate Christ' are not, simply by saying the same thing, confessing a same ecclesiology. Who is this Christ? What is this incarnation? The questions go back to Christ's: 'Who do you say that I am?', not so that each can give his own answer, but so that discernment of revealed truth can be made clear and known.

Determining right reception - and the question of 'faith':

I think that what causes this to be uncomfortable to some, is the implicit statement that other confessions can be wrong. This doesn't feel 'nice'. It is much more 'friendly' to say that truth, because it is known this way and that, to this person and to that, is authentically truth in multiple forms. This is to abstract truth from the person of Christ - it always fails. And Christ himself, lest we forget, showed no reticence whatsoever in articulating against wrong perceptions of himself, of the world, of his Father, of redemption.

If there be authentic truth, against error, how does one know which is which? This is another aspect that I think often bothers people - and in lieu of a definitive, satisfying categorical answer (i.e. a tick-list, or nice strip of litmus paper), determine instead that no healthy answer can come. John himself raises the question of determining authenticity:


You come to the heart of the matter (as our friend Rick might say):

When, however, theological confession is understood as the right expression (articulation) of Truth as encountered, met and known in the sacrificial Christ - as the right receiving and handing on of that encounter as given ('this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father...'), then it becomes a singular motion, a unified expression of the one God.
Indeed, and given, but the question of how your confession knows it is the one that is 'receiving right'. and that another confession is not, remains, it would seem, an act of faith; nothing wrong with that, of course, but difficult to know how one confession can pronounce on another which is, implicitly - and explicitly - what is so often done.


Of course there is, in this, an act of faith. This lies at the very heart of Christianity. Were Christ himself again incarnate in the midst of us, today, conjoining oneself to him as to Truth would still be an act of faith. There is no way that it ever could not be so.

The question is, does this aspect of requiring faith, mean that truth can never be definitively known as authentic and definitively true? This seems to me to reflect a rather weak view of what faith is - equating it, to some degree, with a choice that is stripped of the resources of an absolute and obvious resolution. Faith is picking one option from another, and sticking to it, for reasons that can't quite be elucidated by tidy or definitive criteria. Two traditions may make differing claims on truth; given that there are no scientific criteria by which to pick one over the other absolutely, 'faith' is reduced to merely a choice, and act of the deliberative will, by which one picks the one in lieu of such.

But is this faith? The scriptures say faith is the substance of things not seen; the assurance of what is not known. It is, according to St Paul, the active working of the grace of God - which according to St Gregory Palamas is the very energy of God himself. In other words, faith is not simply a choice of will: it is the working of God in the will to the revelation of himself. Faith is a theological activity: God in the Spirit transforming the heart of man.

So, if two choices are presented to a person, must we say that it just comes down to a personal choice? Is the authenticity of what is not definable by scientific criteria not, through faith as the grace of God - the work of the Spirit - still discernable through the experience of this activity of God?

The Orthodox Church believes that faith as the working of encounter with the God who is truth, reveals authenticity of truth that goes beyond simply electing to adhere to one set of claims over another. Faith is part of the incarnational encounter with Christ himself.

Subjective truth? Or, confusing choice and definition:

This seems, to me, to relate to what is being addressed when we talk about subjective approaches to the Truth. Here is a portion of our recent dialogue:



Is what Christ meant something that ultimately resides in my interpretive will? In other words, is it my belief that dictates Christ's actual intention in changing Simon's name to Peter? If so, then confession has again been defined in wholly relativistic terms
Since 'ultimately' must involve one accepting of one's own free will what one's Church teaches, then I see no way out of answering this in the affirmative; however much I want to answer it the other way. If from time to time I seem a mite troubled, that's the reason, I guess.


Unless there is something quite nuanced behind this, the response is a straightforward claim to an absolutist relativism. Is what Christ meant something that resides in my will? Yes. This is as relativistic as it gets.

The fact that multiple possibilities of interpreting truth present themselves, does not mean that the answer chosen defines actual truth. Else we're back to multiple truths, which simply doesn't work with a singular Christ. And the fact that we must accept truth in and with our own free will likewise does not reduce the problem to the insoluble level of relativism. Only if 'faith' and 'choice' are simply deliberative acts, if the will in its freedom is therefore something wholly apart from God and his revelation, does this hold. But faith is the work of grace; the free will is a will participating in the freedom of God; truth is a person who comes to the will and makes itself known.

Chosing a thing does not define it. Making a choice does not, if we believe truly that the will can be transfigured - in its freedom - by the Spirit, make the thing chosen a subjective reality.


This seems to be a basic and recurring problem. So:


So when you write:

perhaps there is an authentic meaning that can be confessed, the authenticity of which stands irrespective of whether or not I agree or adhere to it
- I agree, but think it begs the question of by what authority authenticity is established. Here it would seem that choice slips in by another route; your confession believes in that authentic meaning; another confession might believe in the same thing


And yet again, choice does not determine truth. Choice does not slip in: it is part-and-parcel of willing reality. But willing reality does not negate real truth. Both truth and will must be understood in personal terms, the one the image of the other.

On examining things 'from the outside':

In an ecclesiological context, all this must come back to the question of churches confessing theologies - and the question as to where there is a true theology, and how one is to know it. This John felt I did not adequately address in my comments on his previous post:

Not all theological choice, but I was asking the question in a context you have wrested it from; that was the one of how one outside your theological confession can come to it except by choice? Even if one believes one has been guided, one makes a choice of one's own free will. The mode of conveying that 'right expression of encounter' remains ineluctably vague to one outside your theological confession, and it is equally unclear how it is to be conveyed.

The question of this involving choice I think I've already covered.

As to practical functioning, this is precisely why the Orthodox Church is so experientially centred. Catechesis by the 'come and see' approach is not simply because one feels that the incense and candles will make a dramatic impression, but because truth as a Person must be met as a person, and the authenticity of truth, known through the faith that is the active grace of God, illumining the free will, is an authenticity known in that encounter and experience. There is an absolute insistence on certain dogmatic claims which the Church believes to be critical in the expression of that genuine revelation of truth that Christ says comes from the Father - the creed, the conciliar statements, the canons, etc. - but it is in the experience of faith that the authenticity of these is known. This is not faith as merely choice, but faith experienced in grace: the working of God in personal encounter.

Differing ecclesial Christological confessions:


your confession believes in that authentic meaning; another confession might believe in the same thing - you cannot know whether it does or not, which is why you cannot know whether their ecclesiology is the same as your own or not, so even if

neither the Roman Catholic nor the Orthodox (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Orthodox) Church have been willing to do this historically, and have emphatically not claimed a common ecclesiology
that fails to establish conclusively they do not; indeed, the identical nature of their refusal may be significant in this respect; or it may not.


This is, in part, precisely why there are dogmatic statements as part of theological confession. And this is why dogmatic statements - Christological clarifications, canonical expressions, etc. - are important ecclesiological realities; not for historical ceremony or authority by some linear, political means, but as the contours that delineate the expression of theological encounter.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

Many, many thanks, and this has been, at least for me (but I hope for others) a tremendously interesting discussion. I am sorry if at times we seem to have ended up in the swamps of ecumenism out near the badlands of relativism, but as someone somewhere once put it, 'there's a darkness on the edge of town'.

When you say:

Else we're back to multiple truths, which simply doesn't work with a singular Christ I say 'amen'.

So I do when you write:

Faith is part of the incarnational encounter with Christ himself.
It can, of course, be no other, and of course, if authentic, it must be an encounter with the same Risen Lord - however one's tradition lives that encounter. But does the ground fall from under my feet at the last sentence?

Within the EO you are having that personal encounter with the Risen Lord; within the OO, I am; within the RCC there will be a John or a Matthew who believes the same because of his experience; even as you say pithily:

Clearly, truth - particularly truth as a person, Christ - is always subjectively (or better, personally) experienced

So there we are, each of us in our 'Church' (which each of us would render without the quotation marks), and each convinced from the reality of that experience of that personal encounter. I am more than happy to accept that a theological confession is grounded in

the [I]authenticity of that confession as engendering genuine encounter with the true God, as he truly is
and in providing answers to the questions:

Who is this Christ? What is this incarnation? The questions go back to Christ's: 'Who do you say that I am?', not so that each can give his own answer, but so that discernment of revealed truth can be made clear and known.

But to that Matthew and John in the RC, or to me in the OO and you in the EO
the question as to where there is a true theology, and how one is to know it
and helpfully you provide a moving description of the only real answer:

it is in the experience of faith that the authenticity of these is known. This is not faith as merely choice, but faith experienced in grace: the working of God in personal encounter.

Which is what lies behind my questions. Because, whilst not wishing to make public private experiences, it was precisely my own 'personal encounter' with Him within the British Orthodox Church (something I had had in no other Church) which took me into it, and which keeps me there. At every Eucharistic feast, however tired I am from a long drive and the fast, I have the same unmistakable encounter.

So yes, I guess I could, and maybe ought, to just say it is enough for me; you have the same encounter with the same Risen Lord; so do my two sons who are evangelical Protestants; but it is precisely because, however not 'nice', I do believe that:

other confessions can be wrong
that I continue to exercise myself with this question.

I believe, as you do that:

Faith is a theological activity: God in the Spirit transforming the heart of man
but He does this where He will - not just in my, or your, Church. The 'theological encounter' takes place for you in your Church; mine takes place in mine. If this is the same Christ we encounter - and there is only One - then we should work to be one. If it is not, then one of us in error, and we should have no truck with error.

Professor McGuckin's ecclesiology seemed to me to be offering a way, through a Christo-centric dialogue, towards that aim of being one; 'one' because the Christ we encounter is one - that is the God-Man who died for us and rose again that we should have life eternal.

That is my only excuse for raising this issue.

As always, I am grateful to you for your insights and illuminations.

In the One God in Three Persons,

John

[Mary]

So yes, I guess I could, and maybe ought, to just say it is enough for me; you have the same encounter with the same Risen Lord; so do my two sons who are evangelical (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Evangelism) Protestants; but it is precisely because, however not 'nice', I do believe that:




other confessions can be wrong that I continue to exercise myself with this question.

I believe, as you do that:




Faith is a theological activity: God in the Spirit transforming the heart of man
but He does this where He will - not just in my, or your, Church.
The 'theological encounter' takes place for you in your Church; mine takes place in mine. If this is the same Christ we encounter - and there is only One - then we should work to be one. If it is not, then one of us in error, and we should have no truck with error.

Professor McGuckin's ecclesiology (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Ecclesiology) seemed to me to be offering a way, through a Christo-centric dialogue, towards that aim of being one; 'one' because the Christ we encounter is one - that is the God-Man who died for us and rose again that we should have life eternal (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Eternity).

That is my only excuse for raising this issue.

As always, I am grateful to you for your insights and illuminations.

In the One God in Three Persons,

John

Just when I think I sort of understand what's going on, you confuse me again. Are you saying that we ARE one because the Christ we encounter is One?

I know without a doubt that the Christ I encountered as a Protestant is the same I encounter now. BUT it wasn't enough. If it were, HE wouldn't have called me to the Orthodox Church. And I know HE was the one who called me, because there was no logical reason for me to leave the church in which He was surely bringing me healing.

Why didn't HE leave me there? Is HE not capable of healing me outside the Orthodox Church? I used to believe that nothing was impossible for HIM and I still do. So WHY did He not leave me where I was? I was just as willing to be healed out there, as I am now. So why did HE have to change my location in order to start answering my prayers?

It's not even like He wasn't answering my prayers while I was outside... HE did - He was healing me. He was changing me. But there was something He just couldn't give me while I was outside, that He can now.

All this to say... the Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ Himself has called me to belong to. So, even though it's the same Christ, my encounter with Him is entirely different.

Forgive me.

Porcupine Mary.

[Nina]

Why didn't HE leave me there? Is HE not capable of healing me outside the Orthodox Church? I used to believe that nothing was impossible for HIM and I still do. So WHY did He not leave me where I was? I was just as willing to be healed out there, as I am now. So why did HE have to change my location in order to start answering my prayers?

Exactly. And when it is so difficult for us in the Orthodox Church to be saved, imagine the rest who are outside, who live without the Holy Sacraments and every blessing God has given to us through His Holy Church. It is interesting to see how Judas left during the First Eucharist, while all Apostles remained with Christ. And that moment is when he betrayed Christ.



Porcupine Mary.:)
Is this the new trend on monachos? Is it confined only to animals, or can I call myself, La Niña? :)

[Nina]

If this is the same Christ we encounter - and there is only One - then we should work to be one.

This is 'oh, so familiar' statement. I have had maaaaaany non-Christians tell me not to worry, because God is one.



Professor McGuckin's ecclesiology seemed to me to be offering a way, through a Christo-centric dialogue, towards that aim of being one; 'one' because the Christ we encounter is one.
John

From many stories of converts to Orthodoxy, I have learned that this dialog you speak about consists of Catechism classes. There are many Orthodox churches around the world that offer them. This is the natural union with the Body of Christ, His Holy Orthodox Church. This casting away of heresies, is what is the natural union that the Holy Fathers speak about and have blessed. The converts are the natural union. According to the Holy Fathers' teachings, every other union is un-natural and leads to perdition.

Bible is full of examples that un-natural unions are not what pleases God and according to His Holy Will. We just commemorated the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist. It happened that even after they beheaded him, his mouth still spoke against the un-natural union he spoke against his whole life.

[Paul Cowan]

As much as I agree with what Mary and La Nina have said, John's remark is still not answered. The RCC & the OO both have the sacraments we do. So that part does not wash. I cannot begin to add anything of any contribution but even though Matthew's post was very helpful for me, John's question remains.


I believe, as you do that:

Quotation:
Faith is a theological activity: God in the Spirit transforming the heart of man

but He does this where He will - not just in my, or your, Church. The 'theological encounter' takes place for you in your Church; mine takes place in mine. If this is the same Christ we encounter - and there is only One - then we should work to be one. If it is not, then one of us in error, and we should have no truck with error.

Imagine a game board of "Chutes and Ladders (http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/Products_DetailView.htm?AC=B&BR=512&ID=8626&TP=AA)". Now cover up the entire middle of the game board. All you will see are the top and bottom rows. These two rows represent where man is and where he wants to go. Since we cannot see the middle of the game board, (not that God is playing us as game pieces) we all start out within our own denominations hoping to get to Heaven. Under the covered up board are chutes and ladders where we rise and fall in our daily walk. Some Faiths are nothing but chutes, while some are nothing but ladders. Some are both.

The EO feel we are all ladders. As do the OO and RCC and I suppose every other denomination. Who really knows but God as the board is covered up? We won't know until we get there. Those who have found all the ladders are already there praying for use to also find the ladders. But from one who has found many chutes in life, I believe I have found the last ladder that will get me to Heaven. I have found it in the EO Church.

I am not judgeing anyone, but there will be EO people going to hell. And there will be non-EO people going to Heaven. How do I know, because God has allowed me not to judge the human race and reserved that for himself. Who is on the right path? Those that are currently on a ladder. Who is not? Those currently finding themselves on a chute. Can you go from one to another, YES. That's why we have faith in the Grace and Mercy of God.

If I were to ask myself "does it matter which Faith I am in?" I would have to answer, "only if it does not have sufficient amount of ladders to get you to Heaven."

I believe the totality of God can be experienced within the EO church. I also believe non-EO people will go to Heaven who have never experienced the "totality" (as I understand it) of God. Do they experience the totality of God in their services? (Yes, as they understand it)Does the EO have the monopoly on Heaven? Absolutely not. If I go to Heaven it is by God's mercy. If I go to Hell it is by my choice. I think this applies to all mankind.

Let us all humble and submit ourselves to each other that it might go well for us on the Day of Judgement.

Pray for me THE worst of all Sinners.

Paul

[Mary]

Porcupine Mary.

:)
Is this the new trend on monachos? Is it confined only to animals, or can I call myself, La Niña? :)

Actually, it's more like, if you could describe yourself or how you're feeling using an animal, which one would it be? When I get a bit frustrated, I get all prickly and dangerous to anyone who touches me the wrong way... hence, the Porcupine. Pretty simpe, eh? =)

So what kind are you? Unless La Nina, is some kind of new and unheard of species, or a hurricane? Hmmm... I can't make a squiggly line on top of my 'n'. Oh well...

Mary.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mary wrote:


Are you saying that we ARE one because the Christ we encounter is One?

This has been the point all along I would say. But the problem of this is exactly what is trying to be shown. For basically it leaves out what faith is as Matthew is explaining above. Note also if you read carefully what has been written it actually is impossible that the encounter is the same- it most definitely is not. What is actually the same is the fact of people's encountering, not Who they encounter.

Which is why we will always come back to (again from Mary):



All this to say... the Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ Himself has called me to belong to. So, even though it's the same Christ, my encounter with Him is entirely different.



I think on the intuitive level we will understand that (from John Charmley):


If this is the same Christ we encounter - and there is only One - then we should work to be one.

is fundamentally wrong because of how it removes what faith actually means.

Then again few will not resist something that ends up trying to put together contradictory understandings of the Faith as if all together they constitute the True Church.

This in fact is the ecumenical project in its starkest colours. Not it is true trying to force one expression of the Faith on all. But rather going the next step to the proposition that because we all express faith in some way this faith and understanding of Christ is one.

Such however stands diametrically against the Fathers' understanding of faith and the Church this relates to.

In Christ-Fr Raphael

[Mary]

If I were to ask myself "does it matter which Faith I am in?" I would have to answer, "only if it does not have sufficient amount of ladders to get you to Heaven."

I believe the totality of God can be experienced within the EO church. I also believe non-EO people will go to Heaven who have never experienced the "totality" (as I understand it) of God. Do they experience the totality of God in their services? (Yes, as they understand it)Does the EO have the monopoly on Heaven? Absolutely not. If I go to Heaven it is by God's mercy. If I go to Hell it is by my choice. I think this applies to all mankind.

Let us all humble and submit ourselves to each other that it might go well for us on the Day of Judgement.

Pray for me THE worst of all Sinners.

Paul

Dear Paul,

Cornelius was a just man, he lived according to his conscience, doing what he knew was right and good, and avoiding what was bad and harmful to others. He feared the God whom he did not know. Surely he would've gone to heaven. Why then did God send to him the Apostle Peter to baptise him? It says God noticed the good things he did, long before he was baptised. Then why go to all the trouble of joining him to the Church?

I agree with you that we do not have the monopoly on heaven and many outside will be in heaven. But the fact remains that God does want us in ONE place. My favorite passage that's read a lot during Great Lent is John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Why, why, why... if those sheep that are His and not inside the fold, if they already listen to His voice, then why must they be brought to one fold? Is He not capable of protecting and keeping that which is His own, if they're not all in one place?

Forgive me. I know you already know this, that's why you converted. Sigh. I do not know how to answer John's question. I was sure that Matthew's post had answered it. It answered questions I didn't now I had! Oh well...

In Christ,
Porcupine.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Paul wrote:


The EO feel we are all ladders. As do the OO and RCC and I suppose every other denomination. Who really knows but God as the board is covered up? We won't know until we get there. Those who have found all the ladders are already there praying for use to also find the ladders. But from one who has found many chutes in life, I believe I have found the last ladder that will get me to Heaven. I have found it in the EO Church.

I am not judgeing anyone, but there will be EO people going to hell. And there will be non-EO people going to Heaven. How do I know, because God has allowed me not to judge the human race and reserved that for himself. Who is on the right path? Those that are currently on a ladder. Who is not? Those currently finding themselves on a chute. Can you go from one to another, YES. That's why we have faith in the Grace and Mercy of God.

If I were to ask myself "does it matter which Faith I am in?" I would have to answer, "only if it does not have sufficient amount of ladders to get you to Heaven."

The points you raise are correct in themselves Paul but if pressed in relation to the present discussion would end up at a point very similar to what we are warning about. That is: taking general over all points that apply to all people (in this case salvation relates to one's personal conduct) and replacing this for the particularity of what Faith is as it relates to Christ and the Church.

Put it another way: the fact that some both within and without Orthodoxy may be saved or not does not negate the fact of the unique faith of the Church.

Also we must keep in mind that ultimately salvation will be defined by the Faith of the Church. Right now the only reason the Orthodox can perish is that the fallen expression of freedom applies potentially to all. In as much as this falleness is resisted then the Faith of the Church becomes a reality.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Paul Cowan]

Put it another way: the fact that some both within and without Orthodoxy may be saved or not does not negate the fact of the unique faith of the Church.

Also we must keep in mind that ultimately salvation will be defined by the Faith of the Church.

Fr. Raphael,

Not to be argumentative but only for clarification...

I was taught the EO has the "best plan" for salvation. As for other belief systems, that is up to God to decide. So is this said to be "nice" as was referred to earlier? Or are we to say, "if you are not one of us, we don't have room for you in our life boat, get your own".

I have been accused of accepting things too blindly. In reality, I do! But when family and friends ask me to explain why I believe such and such, I come up short for answers. Maybe I am way off on the purpose of this thread, but what I have gathered at least recently is there are multiple denominations saying "we have the history, apostlic succession, right belief" and all identical words, obviously, someone does not Or if we all do then we are all wrong.

SO unless someone is willing to say "ok, you've got it and I don't" this thread should probably end since no one is going to bow out or submit their denomination is wrong. We are at an old fashioned stand off. I know the EO has "it". The OO says the same thing and the RCC says the same thing. So, we are "The good, the Bad and the Ugly" all staring each other down.

Why do I feel like Rick Henry all of a sudden with the movie references? What happened to him BTW?

Anyway, I don't support relativism. I believe there is One Way, One Truth and One Life. I don't know what it takes to get everyone into our life boat, but there is room. When family presses me, I usually just say, "because I KNOW "it" is right. I don't have to understand "it", I just have to believe "it"."

That's enough e-bay plugs for today.

Paul

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael, and Nina, Mary and Paul, and indeed, all those who have taken part in this.

Father, you write:

if you read carefully what has been written it actually is impossible that the encounter is the same- it most definitely is not. What is actually the same is the fact of people's encountering, not Who they encounter.

I have no wish to enter an argument; just to say that I know who it is I have encountered, and on no reading of any ecclesiology can you, or anyone else, say it is not the Christ who died for me and for many for the forgiveness of sins. If your ecclesiology cannot cope with the Risen Christ in the OO Church, then that is its problem. Matthew quite correctly stated that in the end it comes down to the personal encounter. I am content with that, and no more words are useful.

I have no explanation for the mystery of my encounter within the OO with the Risen Lord; nor, indeed, do I need one. Nor do I wish to try to convince anyone of anything their experience does not convince them of - for that would be folly, nor is it needful.

In Him,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Paul,

You wrote:


I was taught the EO has the "best plan" for salvation. As for other belief systems, that is up to God to decide. So is this said to be "nice" as was referred to earlier? Or are we to say, "if you are not one of us, we don't have room for you in our life boat, get your own".

Perhaps the best way to approach this is by keeping in mind that what you are suggesting is a comparative approach in regards to others. But what are we comparing these to? The faith of the Orthodox Church. Which doesn't though I agree give us a 100% black & white picture.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary]

......SO unless someone is willing to say "ok, you've got it and I don't" this thread should probably end since no one is going to bow out or submit their denomination is wrong. We are at an old fashioned stand off. I know the EO has "it". The OO says the same thing and the RCC says the same thing. So, we are "The good, the Bad and the Ugly" all staring each other down.... Paul

All right then, it's Porcupine season.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is IT. There. I've said it.

So Shoot me now! =)

In Christ,
Porcupine.

[Nina]

According to the logic I have seen lately here we can always arrive at a dangerous point. I am very happy to notify you all about something: humans do not have the monopoly over Heaven. Actually humans were not even created when Heaven and angels were there. Now, playing the devil's advocate, I would like to make the point that the devil deserves to be in Heaven as much as we do because he is a creature of God. Remember in the book of Job when it says children of God went in front of Him. And Satan was one of those children of God. However, what God does with His creatures at the end, it is not for me to concern myself with. What concerns and what I give account for are my own deeds. So we can start to advocate all unions in this world, until we end up to the union with the devil because "oh poor him - we need to justify a way for him to be saved and in Heaven with us!". Why can't the mercy of God allow the devil in Heaven also? The fall of the angels, is the very first schism. We are not the people for this kind of mission. This kind of mission might leave also our personal mission (salvation of our souls) unaccomplished.

Father Deacon Matthew's post was explaining things very clearly. And as Father Raphael sums it up again: it is different. Here makes two fathers (and Father David before) who try to explain for us, in addition to the Holy Fathers. We either are unwilling to hear, or unable to hear. Mary's explanations also are beautiful, and speak even louder because she is an Orthodox, who left other flocks. As she emphasizes: "Why convert then?"

P.S Dear Mary, I knew the why, but just trying to follow you in the trend. :) Animals?... I do not know... I like lambs very much. But I am not like a lamb. La Niña (not the ship) is the sister of El Niño. La Niña is a phenomenon that brings cooler than usual ocean temperatures and resides in the Pacific. So I am cool and pacific. As Paul C. said in another thread: "Lighten up! It is a joke!"

[Nina]

All right then, it's Porcupine season.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is IT. There. I've said it.

So Shoot me now! =)

In Christ,
Porcupine.

Yes dear Mary! Why would you convert if it was not? Why all people throughout ages would, if it was not? Why would martyrs give their blood if it was not (since as we know the foundations of the Orthodox Church are built with the blood and the lives of the endless martyrs of the first centuries).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John,

You wrote:


I have no wish to enter an argument; just to say that I know who it is I have encountered, and on no reading of any ecclesiology can you, or anyone else, say it is not the Christ who died for me and for many for the forgiveness of sins. If your ecclesiology cannot cope with the Risen Christ in the OO Church, then that is its problem. Matthew quite correctly stated that in the end it comes down to the personal encounter. I am content with that, and no more words are useful.

By leaving out the first part of what I wrote in my post above a misunderstanding of my actual point has been made.

Here is the first part of the post above:

From Mary:

Are you saying that we ARE one because the Christ we encounter is One?

My response:


This has been the point all along I would say. But the problem of this is exactly what is trying to be shown. For basically it leaves out what faith is as Matthew is explaining above. Note also if you read carefully what has been written it actually is impossible that the encounter is the same- it most definitely is not. What is actually the same is the fact of people's encountering, not Who they encounter.

What I address above is not specifically the issue of someone's personal encounter with Christ but of how there is no such thing as real encounter with Christ apart from faith as the Church understands this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary]

P.S Dear Mary, I knew the why, but just trying to follow you in the trend. :) Animals?... I do not know... I like lambs very much. But I am not like a lamb. La Niña (not the ship) is the sister of El Niño. La Niña is a phenomenon that brings cooler than usual ocean temperatures and resides in the Pacific. So I am cool and pacific. As Paul C. said in another thread: "Lighten up! It is a joke!"

The La Nina that I know from Monachos is more like a fiery tempest than a cool, pacific ocean breeze...

[Mary]

What I address above is not specifically the issue of someone's personal encounter with Christ but of how there is no such thing as real encounter with Christ apart from faith as the Church understands this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr Raphael,

This sounds totally delicious!

In other words, whatever it was that I experienced outside the Church and thought it was truly Christ, wasn't truly Christ? But in His mercy, He didn't leave me out there with my delusions and brought me Home?

I like that. I like that very much! He sure is the most wonderful God ever! =)

In Christ,
Mary.

[Nina]

The La Nina that I know from Monachos is more like a fiery tempest than a cool, pacific ocean breeze...

What da ya know? You never had a personal encounter with me. :p

Joking aside, that was the heart of the joke. :p

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Fr Raphael,


Note also if you read carefully what has been written it actually is impossible that the encounter is the same- it most definitely is not. What is actually the same is the fact of people's encountering, not Who they encounter.

I would agree that the encounter is not, and cannot be, the same, but I would disagree that the difference of the various encounters are a matter of difference with respect to the "subject" of that encounter. I would argue, rather, that it is a difference of the degree and quality of the encounter. I could not say, for example, that the subject of a Roman Catholic's spiritual encounter is not the Lord Christ through His Holy Spirit (as if that encounter is either with some demon on the one hand, or a figment of that person's imagination on the other--is there really any other option?), but I can say that given that the Roman Catholic Church is outside of the True Faith, that a Roman Catholic's spiritual encounter is at best but one of limited imminence and intimacy (but nonetheless one which the Lord Christ, through His Holy Spirit, is subject of), and one of such limited imminence and intimacy that does not, and cannot, provide a sure means of salvation the way the "fullest" and most intimate possible experience of Christ, through His Body--the One True Church, can.

If there is a patristic basis which can help us discern which approach, "difference of subject of experience" vs. "difference of degree and quality of experience of subject", is more legitimate, I would love to consider it. So far I base my line of thought on what seems to be a reasonable extension of St Justin Martyr's treatment of those outside of the Church.

On a different matter, I would like to consider your thoughts with respect to the kind of appropriate dialogue that should take place between two Communions who both believe themselves to be (but that cannot possibly both be) the only means to this full and real encounter with the Lord Christ that we are discussing, and who hence both believe their theological confessions to be a product of that encounter and faith. This is, I believe, an extension of John's query regarding how one outside the One True Church (which we all, needless to say, have different beliefs concerning) is to come to believe and accept the True Faith in light of the ecclesiological truths under discussion. It seems to me that the EO approach, at least as exemplified by some of the contributors of this thread, expects a fideistic response from those outside of her. I hope I am mistaken in my reading of the implications in question.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[John Charmley]

Dear Athanasius,

I could not agree more with your formulation

I would agree that the encounter is not, and cannot be, the same, but I would disagree that the difference of the various encounters are a matter of difference with respect to the "subject" of that encounter.
which is what I meant to say.

Either there is a personal encounter with a person, as Matthew reminds us, or there is a personal encounter with something rather terrible.

The formulation you make here:

it is a difference of the degree and quality of the encounter
is exactly it. As I have no idea of the quality of an EO or RC personal encounter, all I can do is be guided by the teachings of my own Church that it is within it that the fullness of the faith lies; it would be wrong, here, for me to say anything other than that - or to object when others say the same for themselves, illuminated as they are by the light of their Church and its teachings and understandings.



If there is a patristic basis which can help us discern which approach, "difference of subject of experience" vs. "difference of degree and quality of experience of subject", is more legitimate, I would love to consider it. So far I base my line of thought on what seems to be a reasonable extension of St Justin Martyr's treatment of those outside of the Church.
Indeed, this is where this thread has been leading for sometime - ever since I quoted Fr. McGuckin, an Orthodox priest and theologian with whose words there has been no engagement, simply a repetition of well-known positions.


the kind of appropriate dialogue that should take place between two Communions who both believe themselves to be (but that cannot possibly both be) the only means to this full and real encounter with the Lord Christ that we are discussing, and who hence both believe their theological confessions to be a product of that encounter and faith.
This is indeed the nub or the matter, here and elsewhere. One model is simply to do what has been done for a long time: stay where we are and shout 'heretic' across the divide, and of course, for some, that seems the only way (perhaps not the shouting). Those who sincerely believe you and I are Monophysites (and I have had one message calling us that) have their point of view; but it is not one that leads to a dialogue.

Those who do not want any dialogue have their position, and if there is no desire for one here, fair enoughski, but the question that you ask, Athanasius, remains a valid one; and an active one for those of us who do.

It may be this is not a forum in which, through our exploration of a common patristic heritage, we can examine our understandings of these matters, and again, fair enough if that is so.

You scope the position admirably - many thanks.

In Christ,


John

[Andreas Moran]

I've glanced at this thread and kept out of it. I really don't know what you're all on about, but that's partly because I haven't read all the posts. Do things have to be so complicated? Where is this getting everyone?

[James Aubuchon]

OK I am going to share a story that I already shared privately with John.

One time my Greek Orthodox church went to San Diego to an Armenian church to hear a lecture by an Antiochan priest. When we entered the church, they were in the middle of their service (I imagine it was Vespers), and the Armenian priest was standing before the altar doing his prayers. I *experienced* the power of the Holy Spirit (not a demon) emanating from this priest very powerfully. After the service, in the fellowship hall, this elderly priest walked up to my son and demonstrated clairvoyance, telling my son some things about himself, and encouraging him to honor his parents and serve Christ.

I have never yet met a clairvoyant spiritual father in the EO Church.

I share this story because I am quite frankly becoming sick of the constantly implied idea that the OO Church has a "different spirit", or that the EO Church is IT. It hasn't been IT for me. So far, it has constantly failed to deliver what it has promised it was going to deliver.

But I AM EO and will continue to be...just not with the stubborn self-assurance that many of you seem to be demonstrating on this forum. I have no problem with the idea that EO is the Church. I also have no problem if it is indeed true that I am wrong. I didn't become Orthodox because I wasn't experiencing Christ in evangelicalism. I was. I became Orthodox because of the deeper mystical theology of the Church Fathers that helped me to remain a Christian in light of the incredibly complex philosophical problems that I have to face, and the constant challenges by my family to my whole way of life. C.S Lewis helped me just as much. Maybe more. Maybe I should have become an Anglican. Then I wouldn't have to sit here and listen to a bunch of smug self-assured people act like they think they know, when they really do not know as they ought to know.

That is my 2 cents. I'm just a miserable sinner though, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm frankly too depressed most of the time to care anyway.

In Christ,

Jim

[Father David Moser]

...I quoted Fr. McGuckin, an Orthodox priest and theologian with whose words there has been no engagement, simply a repetition of well-known positions.

So I was intrigued and went back and found the post where you quoted McGuckin (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50251&postcount=68). Let me requote him here from your post so that we can refresh our memory as to what was actually said about 150 posts ago.


ecclesiology which takes its beginning not from the liminal defence of boundaries, but from a cosmic vision of the eros of God for His world, and from the hope that all humans are called to rise into the spiritual apprehension (and ultimately - love) of the One God who comes to all of them through his descent as Incarnate pedagogue, to teach the path of virtue, humility, love, and hope. Surely this is a mystic Christo-centric universalism whose spirit we could do well to recapture in our various ways?
Fr. John A. McGuckin, Origen of Alexandria on the mystery of the pre-existent Church in the International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church vo. 6, no. 3, 2006, p. 217

First I think his reference to the "eros of God for his world" is not a matter about which anyone would contend. Certainly God loves His creation, and in fact the Gospel tells us that He "is the lover all mankind and desires that none should perish but that all come to a knowledge of the truth" Thus it is without question that God would do all that is possible to provide for all mankind a path of salvation so that we might regain our original destiny to become like Him and enter into union and communion with Him. The question that remains then is what is this path?

Here it is that I begin to depart from McGuckin's position as quoted. He says that "the One God who comes to all of them through his descent as Incarnate pedagogue, to teach the path of virtue, humility, love, and hope. " I would counter that God did not come as the "Incarnate pedagogue" but rather he came as the God/man, showing us the path of salvation not by word, but by life. The path of salvation is not a system or philosophy or even theology, it is Life (note here that I did not say a "way of life" which would curve back around into a "philosophy" but rather "life" which implies a shared living essence). We either live in the life of Christ or not. How then is this accomplished?

The life of Christ is expressed in this world through His Body - that is through the Church. And here we come back almost to the beginning and we have to ask "Which Church?" or "Where is the Church?" If the Church is Life, then it is easy to trace it - simply go back to the source and follow the undiluted and unbroken path. And now we are back to St Cyril's "rigorist" ecclesiology. Thus it is that the only way that McGuckin can propose a less "rigorous" ecclesiology is by redefining the incarnation as God coming to teach us a way rather than God coming to share His life with us.

The Lord said, "Not everyone who says to Me 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Mt 7:21) There are many out there who say to Christ "Lord, lord" and because of this are called "Christians" but only those who actually follow Christ, who do His will can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus it is necessary - even vital - to discern the true path of salvation. A false path, or a path that deviates from the truth will not lead one to heaven. This is why St Cyrill is so adamant and "rigorous" - not because of the political mumbo jumbo that McGuckin proposed (see again John's original quote (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50251&postcount=68)). He misreads Cyrill, imo, by trying to impose a modern "more enlightened" understanding on the words of the saint, a practice which invariably leads one astray into the misguided belief that one "knows better" because of our advanced knowledge or something. I believe that the opposite is true - we know less, we are less enlightened than the saints and so when we try to impose our understanding or explanation over the top of what they say, we distort and darken the message rather than clarify it. Perhaps St Cyrill only seems to us to be "rigorous" and "rigid" because we in our own blindness cannot see what he sees. (but now I am ranting and spouting foolishness).

Take it for what its worth - but in the end it is a matter of belief. Orthodox Christians, if they follow the path that the Church lays out for them can enter the life of Christ. Some do, some don't - membership in the Orthodox Church isn't some kind of "magic charm" that saves you. OTOH, all those who are following a flawed path have less of a chance of entering the life of Christ - some may do it simply by being Orthodox without understanding what they are doing - but that does not justify or recommend the false path. Rather that example only demonstrates the all encompassing love of God for us that there will be some who will find their way despite the pitfalls inherent in their path. But remember "not everyone who says "Lord Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" there will be some who miss the mark and they will be cast into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (no matter how much we wish it were otherwise.)

Fr David Moser

[Tom Cook]

I would agree that the encounter is not, and cannot be, the same, but I would disagree that the difference of the various encounters are a matter of difference with respect to the "subject" of that encounter. I would argue, rather, that it is a difference of the degree and quality of the encounter. I could not say, for example, that the subject of a Roman Catholic's spiritual encounter is not the Lord Christ through His Holy Spirit (as if that encounter is either with some demon on the one hand, or a figment of that person's imagination on the other--is there really any other option?), but I can say that given that the Roman Catholic Church is outside of the True Faith, that a Roman Catholic's spiritual encounter is at best but one of limited imminence and intimacy (but nonetheless one which the Lord Christ, through His Holy Spirit, is subject of), and one of such limited imminence and intimacy that does not, and cannot, provide a sure means of salvation the way the "fullest" and most intimate possible experience of Christ, through His Body--the One True Church, can.


Dear Athanasius,

This sounds very similar to modern Roman Catholic teaching, as set out in the Vatican 2 document Lumen Gentium. I make no comment either way.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html



15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

[Andreas Moran]

or that the EO Church is IT. It hasn't been IT for me. So far, it has constantly failed to deliver what it has promised it was going to deliver.
Jim[/QUOTE]

I suspect many of us sometimes feel that way, Jim. I get fed up with people in the OC who can't bother with even the basic civilities to each other. I have to remember why I'm Orthodox. If I consider any alternative, then I know. Whether you think the OC fails to deliver depends on what you expect of it in the first place. What I expect of it is that it provides me with the repository of truth and the best assurance of salvation. What I expect of the Church and what I expect of the folk in it (clergy included) aren't the same. It's well known - many Fathers say it - that we don't seek after signs and miracles. In prayer, we don't seek 'states'. But things do happen, there are times when you feel grace, and it doesn't have to be manifested in some way. You just know in your heart. I don't know much about other confessions - I can't see that I need to. I've got enough on attending to myself.

[Nina]

I have never yet met a clairvoyant spiritual father in the EO Church.

That does not mean that they do not exist. Gagarin also said that he did not see God, when in space.


or that the EO Church is IT. It hasn't been IT for me. So far, it has constantly failed to deliver what it has promised it was going to deliver.

Of course the EO Church is IT. This is not told by us here. This is what the Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy confirmed and confirm for us in all their work and legacy.

I am not sure what you mean by: "it has constantly failed to deliver what it has promised it was going to deliver". The Church never promised me anything. I need the Church. The Church does not need me. And we need to humble ourselves always as prodigals we are. We go to the Church, like the prodigal son went to his father. Not the Church to us.


Then I wouldn't have to sit here and listen to a bunch of smug self-assured people act like they think they know, when they really do not know as they ought to know.

Actually you are right. The first person that does not know here it is I. However as long as the Holy Fathers say that the Orthodox Church it is IT, who are we to object?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

There continue to be some interesting, insightful, and measured comments amongst the flurry of activity in this thread of late – for which many thanks. I’ve enjoyed reading through the past two days’ activity this evening; since I am currently on irregular internet access, they are coming in ‘batches’. As a result, I’m again responding en batch, to various lines of thought and response I’ve gleaned from the recent posts. Forgive if this message grows long. Writing off-line in a word processor seems to encourage such habits, for better or for worse.

Encountering the one Christ in many traditions.

One theme that has emerged in recent posts, though hardly new, is that of the notion of encounter, and the question of who is encountering whom in Christian experience. It is an issue over which it is easy to grow defensive and not address the deeper questions.

An example exchange: John wrote, earlier in this thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50631&postcount=188):


Within the EO you are having that personal encounter with the Risen Lord; within the OO, I am; within the RCC there will be a John or a Matthew who believes the same because of his experience

[…] So there we are, each of us in our 'Church' (which each of us would render without the quotation marks), and each convinced from the reality of that experience of that personal encounter.

A portion of Fr Raphael’s response (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50634&postcount=190) (not the whole of it), read:


the problem of this is exactly what is trying to be shown. […] Note also if you read carefully what has been written it actually is impossible that the encounter is the same - it most definitely is not. What is actually the same is the fact of people's encountering, not Who they encounter.

Which elicited, in a rather defensive response (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50640&postcount=194):

I have no wish to enter an argument; just to say that I know who it is I have encountered, and on no reading of any ecclesiology can you, or anyone else, say it is not the Christ who died for me and for many for the forgiveness of sins. If your ecclesiology cannot cope with the Risen Christ in the OO Church, then that is its problem. Matthew quite correctly stated that in the end it comes down to the personal encounter. I am content with that, and no more words are useful.

Clearly, there is an element of emotional, personal defensiveness in this – which is understandable. Yet it does, perhaps as touching in an area that does evoke such emotional reactions, fail to engage directly with what is being addressed. The line of discussion reads: (a) Ecclesiology, as an extension of theology, rests in the encounter with the one Christ; (b) an assertion, in response, that many people, ‘each in our “Church”’, have ‘that’ encounter (described in the same post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50631&postcount=188) as ‘the same encounter with the same Risen Lord’); (c) an assertion, in response to this, that the encounter is not in fact the same; (d) a retort that this claims that ‘it is not the Christ who died for me and for many’ who is asserted as encountered elsewhere.

In this, (d) does not actually follow from (c); it is a twisting of what is being said. The question, and the statements addressing it, were not of differing subjects, but of differing encounters. This was a nuance immediately picked up on with some nuance by Athanasius (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50668&postcount=203):


I would agree that the encounter is not, and cannot be, the same, but I would disagree that the difference of the various encounters are a matter of difference with respect to the "subject" of that encounter. I would argue, rather, that it is a difference of the degree and quality of the encounter.

This is, in point of fact, precisely what others had been saying. There are few who would deny that in the main body of Christian traditions, humanity encounters Christ – the one Christ, the true Christ. But encounter involves not only the who, but the how. Christ’s life is filled with example – litanies in the Gospels – of those who encountered him, for whom that encounter filled them with full truth and life (Mary Magdalene, the Centurion), contrasted with those who encountered him, for whom the encounter offered less (the rich man) – or for whom the encounter bred falsehood (the Pharisees), or for whom it bred death (Judas). All encountered the one Christ, but the how how that encounter rendered its experience fruitful in different ways.

This is the kind of observation that causes one to pause when reading such seemingly innocuous statements as:


So yes, I guess I could, and maybe ought, to just say it is enough for me; you have the same encounter with the same Risen Lord; so do my two sons who are evangelical Protestants

Few (though there are some) would argue that it is not the same Christ encountered by those in various traditions – that it is encounter with ‘the same Risen Lord’. But does this make it ‘the same encounter’ with this Lord? Do we assert that today there is a uniformity of experience that did not exist even with Christ ‘in the flesh’ as recounted in the Gospels?

Surely the encounter retains the potential for varying types of experience, and varying pastoral outcomes of that encounter, just as it always has. And if the implications of this make us uncomfortable, so be it – they did the same in Christ’s earthly day.

To take this back to our ecclesiological focus, the implication to me seems direct. If ecclesiology is the corporeal expression of theology, which is the right articulation of authentic encounter in Christ, the fact that it is one and the same Christ that is encountered in many traditions does not, as a consequence, mean that their ecclesiologies are comparable (or equatable) on this ground. Peter and Judas both experienced the same Christ; their proclamations to the world of the experience of that encounter could not be more different. This is a dramatic example, by which I do not wish to equate one tradition with Peter and another with Judas – lest that be read into impressions. I offer it as a rather stark example of the folly of attempting such a line of equation.

Does this ‘restrict’ things to churches?

Any assertion like that I’ve just made, always evokes reactions of exclusivism. Does such a line of thought mean that we’re forcing God to be present and active in right encounter only in one place? We don’t like this. Hence:


He does this where He will - not just in my, or your, Church. The 'theological encounter' takes place for you in your Church; mine takes place in mine. If this is the same Christ we encounter - and there is only One - then we should work to be one. If it is not, then one of us in error, and we should have no truck with error.

The second part of this I find counter-productive in its context. I do not think there is anyone who seriously hears Christ’s words on unity that does not wish to ‘work to be one’. The fact that various people / traditions understand differently what this means does not mean they are not concerned with it. Pointed out here, it seems to equate all desire for unity to the assertion it follows: that as Christ is one, so ‘the theological encounter’ takes place for different people in different contexts – ‘for you in your church; mine takes place in mine’. But again, (b) is not a sequitor of (a).

I’ve tried to say numerous times that theology is not simply about encounter, but about authentic encounter. A ‘theological encounter’, as it were, is one in which the experience of Christ bears the fruit of authentic truth. This is not to say that a fruit of less-than-fully-authentic truth discloses a different subject of encounter; nor to claim that encounter is an all-or-nothing, black-and-white balance of ‘all right, all wrong’. But it is to assert that the grounding of ecclesiology in theological confession is, rather than to suggest a model that sees many as basically the same, one which provides – in the fullness of authentic encounter – the definitive absolute for the singular ‘one’-ness of the Church.

I appreciated Mary’s comments, offering a corrective to those who would give a somewhat potted reaction, that anything such as the above equates to a triumphalist or arrogant attempt to monopolise on God’s presence and activity. She offered, as a reflection in a response to this (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50635&postcount=191):


I agree with you that we do not have the monopoly on heaven and many outside will be in heaven. But the fact remains that God does want us in ONE place. My favorite passage that's read a lot during Great Lent is John 10:16

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Why, why, why... if those sheep that are His and not inside the fold, if they already listen to His voice, then why must they be brought to one fold? Is He not capable of protecting and keeping that which is His own, if they're not all in one place?

This seems to me an admirably stated reflection on Christ’s own missionary words. Clearly, as Mary implies, God is able to ‘protect and keep that which is his own’ in any context. God loves all. God desires the salvation of all. God gives his life ‘for the life of [all the, the whole of] the world’. Yet this same God seeks those ‘not of this pen’, desires to make them ‘one flock’.

Implications for ecclesiological reflection:

John has recently noted (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=50669#post50669) his displeasure that the words of Fr John McGuckin, which he quoted in a post at the front end of this recent revival of activity in this thread, had not been directly engaged with. Perhaps this is fair enough. Fr David has only just engaged with it rather squarely (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50686&postcount=207). Perhaps I have refrained a touch from focusing on his text, per se, because I generally do not like attempting to reflect on a single paragraph of someone’s thought, in abstraction, as a grounding for dialogue or ongoing discussion – and I’ve not read the larger work from which the extract comes. But I trust that, even just looking at that short extract in exclusion, it is apparent that the thrust of what I’ve been trying to articulate is rather in concert with his focus. His text, again, reads:


ecclesiology which takes its beginning not from the liminal defence of boundaries, but from a cosmic vision of the eros of God for His world, and from the hope that all humans are called to rise into the spiritual apprehension (and ultimately - love) of the One God who comes to all of them through his descent as Incarnate pedagogue, to teach the path of virtue, humility, love, and hope. Surely this is a mystic Christo-centric universalism whose spirit we could do well to recapture in our various ways? (As quoted by John, here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50251&postcount=68))

Again, I wouldn’t wish to try to draw out too careful a meaning from the dense terminology in this paragraph, without reading the whole. But accepting just the basic readings, I could certainly see this as reflecting the basic pattern I’ve tried to describe.


Attempting to explore ecclesiology from the vantage points of boundries, limits, territories, memberships, etc. (to which there have been whole threads devoted here), is fundamentally flawed;
It is authentic theology (the expression of the encounter with God, who is always Saviour, the one who loves the world, and whose love is active so as to save it), that undergirds genuine ecclesiology;
Authentic theology is grounded in the encounter of God which leads to right apprehension and experience of him, as disclosed in the life of Christ;
Ecclesiology as centred in this experience of Christ makes it universal, not because it, as a ‘model’, encompasses all sorts of things, but because it calls all the world, all the universe, into this encounter which transforms, transfigures, and saves.


INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Mary]

This is, in point of fact, precisely what others had been saying. There are few who would deny that in the main body of Christian traditions, humanity encounters Christ – the one Christ, the true Christ. But encounter involves not only the who, but the how. Christ’s life is filled with example – litanies in the Gospels – of those who encountered him, for whom that encounter filled them with full truth and life (Mary Magdalene, the Centurion), contrasted with those who encountered him, for whom the encounter offered less (the rich man) – or for whom the encounter bred falsehood (the Pharisees), or for whom it bred death (Judas). All encountered the one Christ, but the how how that encounter rendered its experience fruitful in different ways..... INXC, Dcn Matthew

This is so totally powerful! I never thought to look at it this way. All these people did encounter the True Christ, and even in a similar context (face to face) and yet, in Judas, it bred death! That is such a sobering thought!

The only thing that comes to mind is: Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner!

Thank you, Fr Dcn Matthew!

In Christ,
Mary.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Basically though we must be very careful with how we interpret what we read on these forums. We shouldn't interpret what we read here about the Orthodox Church as implying a condemnation or denigration of some other Christian body. Remember that just to say that the Orthodox Church is the True Church does not tell us anything in itself yet about how we consider other Christian bodies.

Indeed this could well be a most significant aspect of our ecclesiological sense: that to say what the Church is, or even to situate it, does not imply for us that what is not identical to this is lost in the nether regions.

We are not caught in an either/or and paradoxically it is the Church itself which allows this for the Church is that living Body of Christ Who is the beginning and end of all creation. The Church represents the end point for all of creation but it is also its reference point now. There isn't really an either/or to this reality since nothing is complete yet.

However we must not go to other other extreme and overlook the role of choice & desire when it comes to salvation. No matter where we situate this choice and desire has consequence. This consequence does not disappear simply by trying to cast the net of the Church wider and wider beyond the fact of choice & desire.

This alerts us to the fact that the main impulse of the 'new ecclesiology' ( this is said in general and not in relation to specific posts here) has always been to deny the role of choice and consequence and to see these things as completely open-ended. In the 'new ecclesiology' the individual with his individual will is sovereign of all creation.

Although a result of this viewpoint is to deny the Oneness of the Church interestingly there is no need to deny this since the One Church in the realm of logic (but not in that of Truth of course) could still exist in this false universe where choice and consequence are all relative. One suspects the rejection of the One Church by such people is more a matter of prejudice since in the past of course the One Church has always been tied so closely to the rejection of self-will.

It's no surprise then that this topic gets Christians so intensely involved. To acknowledge the worth of all Christians along with the rest of humanity seems so implicit in Orthodox Christianity that it seems strange to have to assure others it is already part of our lives. But the difficulty arises exactly when we get to the idea of One Church which appears exclusionary.

To repeat though the main points here: the Church stands at the center of Christ's purpose and promise for the entire creation. As someone like St Maximus the Confessor would have pointed out this purpose and promise is the definition of what creation is in the first place. And within this purpose man stands at the center tying together all that creation strives for. But this is accomplished only though his free will and not forced by God. Thus in terms of the Church what is exclusionary is actually only our rejection of God's will for us as worked out through the Church. By a misuse of free will and rejection of God's purpose through the Church we can end up excluding ourselves from God's purpose- the only real thing there will be one day.

The second point then stressed here is that the understanding of One Church also ties in to a Christian understanding of choice and consequence. It is in fact the Oneness of the Church which gives choice and consequence their reality. No matter where we may situate it without the One Church we sink into a world consisting only of relative choices having no consequence and hell defined as heaven.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Tom Cook,

You state:


This sounds very similar to modern Roman Catholic teaching, as set out in the Vatican 2 document Lumen Gentium.

As I suggested, earlier:


So far I base my line of thought on what seems to be a reasonable extension of St Justin Martyr's treatment of those outside of the Church.

If Roman Catholic teaching happens agree (and as I will soon argue, I think the connection between what I've said and the position put forth in the document are worlds apart), then I would find that to be a pleasant coincidence, but the text you bring forth is not one I have ever read before, and hence not one I have considered in the formulation of my post in question.

Reading over it, however, it is quite obvious that there are significant differences which overwhemingly outweight any points of commonality (which I am hard-pressed to find in the first place). Here are the following points of significant departure made by the document you bring forth which I have in no way suggested, and in no way condone:

1) That there is a definite link between the Church and those outside of her.
2) That the baptism of those outside of the Church is effective in uniting them with Christ.
3) That the Holy Spirit is certainly operative in some way in the sacraments of those outside of the Church.
4) That the plan of salvation necessarily includes those who "acknowledge the Creator", including Muslims etc.
5) That there are certain conditions which provide for definite means of being saved apart from the Church.

All this is significant alien to anything I've suggested.

I am glad to see that Dcn Matthew has understood the crux of my response, and that he has in turn responded with the sentiment that that crux is essentially agreeable with what he and others are saying (though I have some reservations with respect to whether this is really what all others are saying):


This is, in point of fact, precisely what others had been saying. There are few who would deny that in the main body of Christian traditions, humanity encounters Christ – the one Christ, the true Christ. But encounter involves not only the who, but the how. Christ’s life is filled with example – litanies in the Gospels – of those who encountered him, for whom that encounter filled them with full truth and life (Mary Magdalene, the Centurion), contrasted with those who encountered him, for whom the encounter offered less (the rich man) – or for whom the encounter bred falsehood (the Pharisees), or for whom it bred death (Judas). All encountered the one Christ, but the how how that encounter rendered its experience fruitful in different ways.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Dcn Matthew,

You state:


This is, in point of fact, precisely what others had been saying. There are few who would deny that in the main body of Christian traditions, humanity encounters Christ – the one Christ, the true Christ. But encounter involves not only the who, but the how.

But it seems to me that Fr. Raphael is clearly asserting that it not a question of how, but indeed, on the contrary, a question of "Who":


What is actually the same is the fact of people's encountering, not Who they encounter. (emphasis mine)

I wonder how this statement can be read as saying anything other than that other Christian traditions outside of the Church are not encountering Christ? The emphasis is clearly on a different "Who" and not merely a different encounter of the same "Who." And this, ofcourse, raises the question: If an RC is not encountering the same "Who" as the EO, from the EO perspective, then just "Who" could they possibly be encountering? As I suggested in my last post, it seems that the only two options this position leaves, is that an RC is encountering a demon or simply no "who" in reality--only a figment of their imagination.

If I am missing something, I would surely like to be corrected, but it seems like the above-quoted statement from Fr. Raphael is quite clear and explicit in its intent.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

Athanasius raises one of the points which has puzzled me lately in this interesting discussion; are you and Fr. Raphael actually saying (as it appears) something different, or is there a level on which you are saying the same thing?

When you write:

encounter involves not only the who, but the how
that is certainly true, and I have already said that I accept that there is a level at which the how of the encounter is obviously different; it takes place for each of us within an ecclesial body, its traditions and teaching. So at that level the answer to this:
Do we assert that today there is a uniformity of experience that did not exist even with Christ ‘in the flesh’ as recounted in the Gospels?
is no.

But if ecclesiology is about a doctrine of the Church, then the OO, EO, and I think the RCC, all hold what, for example, the Anglicans do not, and that is that there is ONE Church; they differ on where they believe its location is; but at that level, is there not the same ecclesiology stemming back to the same reading of St. Cyprian?

Stated thus:

the encounter retains the potential for varying types of experience, and varying pastoral outcomes of that encounter, just as it always has. And if the implications of this make us uncomfortable, so be it there is complete agreement between us.

So this:

theology is not simply about encounter, but about authentic encounter would seem to be the point which might be profitaby discussed a little further.

You write:

Authentic theology is grounded in the encounter of God which leads to right apprehension and experience of him, as disclosed in the life of Christ; which again, those of us in the OOC, and the RCC would raise a cheer or even all three (demonstrating at least a basic similarity in a fuindamental ecclsiological position that there is ONE Church).

My understanding of what Fr. McGuckin is saying (and as I have said, I am sorry I cannot give the whole piece, but I have gievn the full bibliographical reference) concurs with your:

Ecclesiology as centred in this experience of Christ makes it universal, not because it, as a ‘model’, encompasses all sorts of things, but because it calls all the world, all the universe, into this encounter which transforms, transfigures, and saves

I should be interested in your bringing that alongside what you write about an 'authentic' encounter; do they sit happily together, do you think? I can see how they can, but wonder if you think they need to?

It is that little word 'authentic' which gives pause for thought.

If I buy a ticket to go to see the Terracotta warriors at the British Museum and it is 'authentic', then when I have undergone the ordeal by public transport which going to London involves, I can expect, if my ticket is 'authentic' that I will be seeing them at 2.30 as it says on my ticket; if, however, the site from which I bought it is not genuine and my ticket is inauthentic, then I shall be turned away empty handed.

So when there is talk about 'authentic encounters' is one going beyond what I still think is dangerously close to relativism in saying 'my belief is that within my ecclesial community I shall find the authentic encouter with God?' Indeed, is that what one is saying when one talks about an 'authentic encounter'?

Here, when you have the time (and as a long-standing departmental head, you have all my sympathy taking on such a demanding role at a new institution in a new city - and I wish you all the best for the coming term, and indeed, academic year), it might be useful if you can recur to some of these points.

As ever, my thanks to you for your patience. Theology is not my academic discipline, and I am conscious that I bring to it a deep-seated historian's mindset - as well as an Anglican background in comprehensiveness; but one learns - at least one hopes one does.

In Him,

John

[Mary]

I wonder how this statement can be read as saying anything other than that other Christian traditions outside of the Church are not encountering Christ? The emphasis is clearly on a different "Who" and not merely a different encounter of the same "Who." And this, ofcourse, raises the question: If an RC is not encountering the same "Who" as the EO, from the EO perspective, then just "Who" could they possibly be encountering? As I suggested in my last post, it seems that the only two options this position leaves, is that an RC is encountering a demon or simply no "who" in reality--only a figment of their imagination.

If I am missing something, I would surely like to be corrected, but it seems like the above-quoted statement from Fr. Raphael is quite clear and explicit in its intent.

In IC XC
Athanasius

Dear Athanasius,

I do not know about the RCs but I do know about other denominations. Outside the safety of the Church, you could encounter either Christ, or the demons, and you wouldn't know the difference. In the Church, we have boundaries which enable us to interpret out encounters. We have our spiritual fathers and the Fathers of the Church, who teach us how to recognize and understand our experiences.

Why do I speak with so much certainty? (It could be a delusion, please let me know if it is!) When I was in nursing school, in India, we had travelling evangelists come through and set up meetings in our town. The rage at the time, seemed to be 'speaking in tongues'. After some singing and preaching, there'd be a time of prayer. (always the same pattern). The freakiest part was the prayer time. It would last for at least a half hour, and I could feel the undercurrent. It would start with people praying aloud, and properly, taking turns. But then, something would start to build up, that seemed to hypnotize everyone present, and there'd be people crying and praying all over the place, and there'd be a buzzing sound that got louder and louder, till it reached a peak, and then the tension would break, and everything would tumble down.

My first year in nursing school, I attended these meetings and I was impressed with the spiritual fervor of these people, who could pray with such abandon for such a great length of time, and my prayer was that God would teach me how to pray with my whole heart, like they did. By the next year, I hated my life and everyone in it and turned into an all time hardened skeptic, I didn't want to have anything to do with God or these hypocrits who called themselves Christians. Going to those meetings as a skeptic taught me a lot, and one in particular taught me everything I needed to know. At this meeting, folks lined up to get prayed for, by the evangelists. And I overheard the prayer request of the girl in front of me. She wanted to speak in tongues and she was having trouble. What should she do? The advice she received: Let you tongue loose and dont worry about what to say or what you're saying. The Holy Spirit will give you the words.

My hackles rose and I left the line, didn't want that man to pray for me! IF you let your tongue loose and dont' care what you say, how can you know if it's the Holy Spirit or a demon who is taking control of your loose and mindless tongue?! And why would this Holy Spirit contradict himself and allow all these people to speak in tongues when there was no one to interpret? And why would this Holy Spirit only be present during prayer but not in the rest of their lives? After that, I still went to the meetings, but with my feelers on. And I noticed that everything was ok, till the prayer times began. Then, the warm night air turned chilly, and the most uncomfortable tingle would crawl over my skin... it would build up to a peak and then break... in perfect time with the loose tongues around me. At those meetings, I thought I met the demons, and the others thought they met Christ. Who was right? Could both be right?

I wasn't in any way more sincere or more obedient than those others who wanted to speak in tongues. One of them was in my class and got really good at it, and I did make friends with her, and there was nothing about her that suggested to me that she wasnt' interested in worshipping God with her whole heart. In fact, she wasn't half as rebellious as I was. But, I just couldn't understand how anyone could let go of their tongues, not knowing who or what is going to pick it up! When there are no True Fathers and Teachers, the Sheep are not safe.

In the Church, I know I'm safe. I may still get deluded and imagine all sorts of things, but I will confess them, and my spiritual father will tell me how deluded I am and bring me back to earth.

In Christ,
Mary.

[James Aubuchon]

Mary's strawman argument does not really hold up. In most pentecostal denominations, all experience is grounded in the Triune God and in the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. I don't believe that most pentecostal experience has any real merit, but neither do I assume that demons are inspiring it.

A good book to read on all of this is Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. Yes, it is by a Protestant, but it does try to get at the root of various emotional experiences within Christianity.

Let me give an example. How does an Orthodox Christian discern that they have been given the gift of tears, and it is in fact not something inspired by demons?

In Christ,

Jim

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Mary,

I certainly did not mean to imply that every "spiritual" encounter outside of the Church is necessarily a genuine encounter of Christ, and I would certainly agree with the idea that the demons can delude certain people into thinking they are having, or have had, a true and genuine encounter with the true God when they in fact are not (Muhammed the prophet of Islam would be a prime example in this regard). I do not presume to know when and where such instances exist, but I do not think it proper that "encounter with Christ" vs. "encounter with someone other than Christ" is appropriate insofar as drawing a general distinction between the encounter of those within and those outside of the Church, respectively, goes. I think it more appropriate to focus on notions of degree and quality (particular insofar as Christian traditions are concerned), and given your positive response to Deacon Matthew's positive response of that very sentiment of mine as expressed in my initial post on this matter, I presume you would agree? (this is not a rhetorical question; please do correct me if need be).

Needless to say, the idea that one can rest-assured of who they are encountering within the Church is presupposed in my very explicit affirmation of the fact that one can trust that they have access to the "fullest" and most intimate possible encounter with Christ within the Church.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Athanasius,

The "Who" that Father Raphael and other Eastern Orthodox Participants here have been speaking about is "authentic". While other groups or individuals may make claims that they also encounter the authentic Christ even at "clown masses" "rock worship services" or through the guidance of "the Successor of Christ" we would say that such encounters are not right. The aforementioned are extreme examples as is Mary's' when she was with them, I think, but nevertheless there are many that participate in such different ways.

While accusations can be hurled, when they are unsubstantiated they can not be bound, that is in truth. So the recipients of those accusations having been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The armour of Christ, is truth and prayer is like a helmet. If the accusations are lies and bound, meaning a soul binding falsehood individually or through a group that is in error or heresy, then in due time just the "Who" they could be encountering would be known.

Perhaps this will of some help in understanding encounters. I think it important to mention that personally I have never known any Orthodox Churchmen not desiring that schisms are healed. This comes naturally for Bishops, Priests and Deacons etc. for the Church is a place of reconciliation. As such comments suggesting that some are not interested in pursuing such a path are not at all accurate.

We can read the comments of Blessed Theophylact on a passage from the Gospel of Saint Matthew below.

Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

"In the previous parable he spoke of the fourth part of the seed which fell on the good soil, while in this parable He shows that the enemy does not allow even that part which fell on the good soil to remain uncorrupted, because we sleep and grow indolent. The field, then is the world, or, each one's soul. the sower is Christ. The good seed is good people, or, good thoughts. The tares are heresies, or, evil thoughts. The one who sows them is the devil. The men who were sleeping are those who by their indolence give entry to heretics or evil thoughts. The servants are the angels, who are indignant that there are heresies or any wickedness in the soul, and wish to seize and cut off from this life the heretics and those that think evil thoughts. But God does not allow the heretics to be destroyed by wars, lest the righteous suffer and be destroyed along with them. Likewise neither does God wish to cut down a man on account of his evil thoughts, lest the wheat be destroyed with them. If for example Matthew had been cut down when he was a tare, the wheat of the word which was latter to spring up from him would have been cut down with him. Similarly with Paul and the thief. While they were tares they had not been cut down, but were permitted to live so that their virtue might grow. Therefore He says to the angels, At the end of the world you will gather the tares namely, the heretics. But how? Into bundles, that is binding them hand and foot. For at that time a man will no longer be able to do anything, but all his power to act will be bound. The wheat, namely the Saints will be gathered by angelic reapers into heavenly granaries. So it is with the evil thoughts that Paul had when he persecuted: they were burnt in the fire which Christ came to light upon the earth, while the wheat that is the good thoughts, was gathered into the granaries of the Church."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Athansius,

I have only just now begun reading through last night's posts and have quite a ways to go yet. So then just to clear up a point in your post above before I forget:

You wrote:


Originally Posted by Fr Raphael Vereshack:
What is actually the same is the fact of people's encountering, not Who they encounter. (emphasis mine)

This was actually meant as the point of view I was questioning, not what I was agreeing with.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Athanasius wrote:



I wonder how this statement can be read as saying anything other than that other Christian traditions outside of the Church are not encountering Christ? The emphasis is clearly on a different "Who" and not merely a different encounter of the same "Who." And this, ofcourse, raises the question: If an RC is not encountering the same "Who" as the EO, from the EO perspective, then just "Who" could they possibly be encountering? As I suggested in my last post, it seems that the only two options this position leaves, is that an RC is encountering a demon or simply no "who" in reality--only a figment of their imagination.

If I am missing something, I would surely like to be corrected, but it seems like the above-quoted statement from Fr. Raphael is quite clear and explicit in its intent.

I see I need to respond to this as it connects with a point I think needs to be made.

Yes we must all be careful about how we communicate with each other about the following. But I think it disingenuous past a certain point to deny that many of us (here especially) have come to the Church we are in because we believe it does represent the true Faith and the most authentic expression of Christ and participation in Him. Why else, unless we were here unconsciously, would we be here? We examined, we chose and now we are here which we consider to be a true home in terms of the goal of salvation.

Now there's good reason why this is not normally part of our discussions at Monachos (or elsewhere for that matter). Simply put the way in which we bring this up often produces no helpful or good fruit. But still that's no reason to speak here as if this sense of the Church was not with us or as if it is something shameful that should have no place in our understanding of the Church. Rather I would assume this attitude is part & parcel of the attitude of most well meaning Christians.

So what does this mean for us here? Again I think it proper to assume that most any Christian will consider themselves to be in the True Church however they formulate this. Does this imply something about how they perceive us who are Orthodox Christian? I would assume so- if something is correct then it only follows the other things are not correct. But why take offense at this or react as if this is an aberration from what they are part and parcel of & what they have committed to?

This attitude doesn't add up to a leveling off of all Christians as having the same faith or deny that others' belief is correct or incorrect and that there is a True Church one strives to be part of.

But I'm not sure this has to be our main motivation at all points of discussion. The only result is a leveling of all Christians in something they do not believe in.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Fr Raphael,



This was actually meant as the point of view I was questioning, not what I was agreeing with.

Well I am certainly glad we are on the same page with that one!


Again I think it proper to assume that most any Christian will consider themselves to be in the True Church however they formulate this. Does this imply something about how they perceive us who are Orthodox Christian? I would assume so- if something is correct then it only follows the other things are not correct. But why take offense at this or react as if this is an aberration from what they are part and parcel of & what they have committed to?

Indeed. And that's the very point I was trying to convey when I related the story about the Coptic Metropolitan's response on Egyptian TV to the Vatican's statement about all churches outside of her being "defective." He was not expressing agreement with the RC's actual claims, only empathy in consideration of the general ecclesiological principle that it is based on (i.e. that there is only one Church in which the fullest, surest, and most intimate encounter of Christ takes place, and that anything short of that--a limitation which necessarily exists outside the boundaries of the true Church, necessarily entails a "defectiveness" in experience and understanding of the Truth and the truths that emanate from the Truth).

I guess my only concern now, which may be the subject of a new thread, is how such an empathetic consideration should dictate one's approach to the sort of ecumenical dialogue that can truly said to be dialogue--and not, in effect, monologue, as many of the "anti-ecumenists" seem to advocate.

In IC XC
Athanasius

[Mary]

Dear Mary,

I certainly did not mean to imply that every "spiritual" encounter outside of the Church is necessarily a genuine encounter of Christ, and I would certainly agree with the idea that the demons can delude certain people into thinking they are having, or have had, a true and genuine encounter with the true God when they in fact are not (Muhammed the prophet of Islam would be a prime example in this regard). I do not presume to know when and where such instances exist, but I do not think it proper that "encounter with Christ" vs. "encounter with someone other than Christ" is appropriate insofar as drawing a general distinction between the encounter of those within and those outside of the Church, respectively, goes. I think it more appropriate to focus on notions of degree and quality (particular insofar as Christian traditions are concerned), and given your positive response to Deacon Matthew's positive response of that very sentiment of mine as expressed in my initial post on this matter, I presume you would agree? (this is not a rhetorical question; please do correct me if need be).

Needless to say, the idea that one can rest-assured of who they are encountering within the Church is presupposed in my very explicit affirmation of the fact that one can trust that they have access to the "fullest" and most intimate possible encounter with Christ within the Church.

In IC XC
Athanasius

Dear Athanasius,

I wonder if we're just saying the same things in different ways? Yes, I do agree with your comment about various degrees and quality of encounter - which in turn is a different angle on what Dcn Matthew had said - the HOW of the encounter breading different things in different people. The way he phrased it and the words he used were particularly powerful to me.

I think we also both agree that demons can give us immitation experiences, and that we do have more protection from such things within the Church. At least that's what I understand from your post above.

I'm afraid the depth of my explainations are going to be quite feeble, because I haven't read as much as most of you, and I mostly just relate to the posts here through my own limited experiences. In light of that, I'll have to say that my encounter with Christ was different outside the Church than it is inside. But I honestly have no way of knowing if all my encounters outside the Church were with Christ or with demons.

There are a few that I'm certain of: I know I was surrounded by Christ's Comfort at the time of my Dad's untimely death. I know it was from God because demons can't bring lasting peace, nor can they prevent bitterness from taking root and growing. I was indeed full of bitterness and anger for the first 3 days after my father's death... but it all vanished when God touched me. Then there was the time when He helped me forgive my dear friends who had, in a way, betrayed me. True forgivenss can only come from God, because I know I can't forgive. In fact, I didn't believe I had forgiven them, not to such an extent that I'd enjoy their company again. But He allowed us to meet, and I was pleasantly surprised that, not only was I glad to see them again, I'd even forgotten most of the incident that had hurt me so much. Such things in my life, I believe, were from God.

So, I agree with you, that there are 'degrees of encounter'... sort of like playing by the ocean... we all play in the waves, but those at the shore, encounter the ocean a lot less than those who surf the waves. Sigh. All pictures have their limits and this is one thing that I don't think I have even begun to comprehend. It even seems like I'm contradicting myself, because I can point to ways that God has worked in my life outside the Church, and yet, I say it's not the same as what He's doing in my life now.

Well, I hope you're not as muddled as I am. I believe, for me, who can easily get so tangled up, even in my own thoughts, there's no safer place than the Church.

Safely Befuddled in Christ,
Mary. =)

[Anthony]

...monologue, as many of the "anti-ecumenists" seem to advocate.


Dear Athanasius,

I think we should be careful of blanket terms here. It is (I would think) possible to be open to certain kinds of dialogue while rejecting the framework of ecumenism.

Anthony

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mary wrote:



Yes, I do agree with your comment about various degrees and quality of encounter - which in turn is a different angle on what Dcn Matthew had said - the HOW of the encounter breading different things in different people. The way he phrased it and the words he used were particularly powerful to me.

I think we also both agree that demons can give us immitation experiences, and that we do have more protection from such things within the Church. At least that's what I understand from your post above.

I'm afraid the depth of my explainations are going to be quite feeble, because I haven't read as much as most of you, and I mostly just relate to the posts here through my own limited experiences. In light of that, I'll have to say that my encounter with Christ was different outside the Church than it is inside. But I honestly have no way of knowing if all my encounters outside the Church were with Christ or with demons.

So, I agree with you, that there are 'degrees of encounter'... sort of like playing by the ocean... we all play in the waves, but those at the shore, encounter the ocean a lot less than those who surf the waves. Sigh. All pictures have their limits and this is one thing that I don't think I have even begun to comprehend. It even seems like I'm contradicting myself, because I can point to ways that God has worked in my life outside the Church, and yet, I say it's not the same as what He's doing in my life now.


Actually I think there's a very important point here which relates to the theme of this thread.

Nowadays especially there are two contradictory ways of seeing the Church- one that there is a distinct, unique and True Church defined by its apostolic faithfulness; the other that everything of 'good-will' or even humanly intentional is an expression of the Church. But we'd have to be unaware or dishonest to not see this hasn't had an affect on our own people also. These two views I think sweep across all outward categories east & west. So I'm not so sure about the title of this thread.

In any case, I think the second way of seeing the Church: that everything of 'good will' is the Church is that which would not make the distinction brought out in your post. Or if it did it would be as a proof that everything is the same.

And yet for us no matter how weak the words with which we express this much comes down to a different experience of God which we refer to as within and without the Church.

It's hard to make hard and fast rules about this. But without the Church we see that there is always something incomplete at the best of times & terribly mistaken at the worst.

This doesn't at all mean that God is not present without the Church. At the most basic level we know this is not so since without Him nothing would even maintain its existence. Also He instills within all and responds to the basic impulse towards good so that in that sense also He is continually present. He also powerfully responds to cries for aid and mercy.

But yet we are still not here speaking about the experience of God as within the Church and which is so basic that it often is the main reason for conversion. This is so basic but yet it still is so difficult to explain. It seems we have yet to really explore this in this discussion as a critical factor to explain the reality of the Church. In our present context it would seem the whole reality of the Church could stand or fall on the reality of this experience.

How indeed can God be truly present and yet more or less so? To keep on the topic of this thread to admit or recognize the distinction between 'more' or 'less' would be a sign for some that all is really already the Church. While for others this would be the distinct sign precisely of what is the Church. But how is this so?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

When you write:


Nowadays especially there are two contradictory ways of seeing the Church- one that there is a distinct, unique and True Church defined by its apostolic faithfulness; the other that everything of 'good-will' or even humanly intentional is an expression of the Church. But we'd have to be unaware or dishonest to not see this hasn't had an affect on our own people also. These two views I think sweep across all outward categories east & west. So I'm not so sure about the title of this thread.

That is precisely the point I have laboured to make. The RCC, the OC and the OO all have a common ecclesiology on the first model; they, of course, disagree on which ecclesial body is that True Church - but they are not holders of the relativistic position.

It is, as Athanasius has written, how ecclesial bodies holding that ecclesiology can talk each to the other in sincerity but charity which is next.

In Him,

John

[Mary]

In any case, I think the second way of seeing the Church: that everything of 'good will' is the Church is that which would not make the distinction brought out in your post. Or if it did it would be as a proof that everything is the same.

Dear Fr Raphael,

I feel like I should understand what you're saying, but I feel foggy and can't grasp the whole of your post. The above quote in particular, I couldn't understand.



But yet we are still not here speaking about the experience of God as within the Church and which is so basic that it often is the main reason for conversion. This is so basic but yet it still is so difficult to explain. It seems we have yet to really explore this in this discussion as a critical factor to explain the reality of the Church. In our present context it would seem the whole reality of the Church could stand or fall on the reality of this experience.


This makes sense. I've been talking too much of my experiences, and yet, I know that the Church is real whether my experience agrees with that or not. I also know that there's only One True Church, and although I can't explain it appart from experiences, I also know that I have indeed found the one True Church.



How indeed can God be truly present and yet more or less so? To keep on the topic of this thread to admit or recognize the distinction between 'more' or 'less' would be a sign for some that all is really already the Church. While for others this would be the distinct sign precisely of what is the Church. But how is this so?


I've been thinking more about 'varying degrees of encounter'. And, Athanasius, I know I said your thought seemed to be a different approach to what Dcn Matthew said. I thought it was only the way that he phrased it that hit me so powerfully. But I was wrong. It's not just the way he phrased it, but it's also because the way he said it is more accurate.

In saying "varying degrees of encounter" - it is implied that all encounters are similar in nature - in this case - all encounters with Christ are good, but only varying in depth and intimacy. But that is not true, and that's what comes out more accurately in the way Dcn Matthew phrased it:



Originally Posted by M.C. Steenberg http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=50705#post50705)
But encounter involves not only the who, but the how....

And he had those beautiful examples of all those who truly did encounter Christ, but different things happened to them. Judas and Peter, even had the same degree of encounter, but the results were not the same! So, although there are varying degrees of encounter, more importantly, all those encounters do not lead to life!

But I was also wondering, how much of this has to do with God, and how much of it has to do with us? While I was thinking last night, about why I thought there's 'more' or 'less' of God, it occurred to me that God is not the variable here. He's unchanging. So... He can't love me more now than He did when I wasn't orthodox.

So, why does there seem to be a difference? Is that just emotional? Or is it real? If it's true that the more I change, the more I'm aware of God's love for me, couldn't those changes have happened in me outside the Church as well?

While I know that's not impossible, I also know without a doubt that I need the Church in order for me to change. And honestly, that's not something I know how to explain, because it doesn't always seem to depend on my feelings, or on my knowledge, or on logic.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mary wrote:


I feel like I should understand what you're saying, but I feel foggy and can't grasp the whole of your post. The above quote in particular, I couldn't understand.


When I wrote:


In any case, I think the second way of seeing the Church: that everything of 'good will' is the Church is that which would not make the distinction brought out in your post. Or if it did it would be as a proof that everything is the same.

I meant that seeing all encounter with God as being the same, and from this ending up with the proposition that then there really is no One Church, overlooks the point you made in your post about the different ways we know God within or without the Church.

As you wrote:


In saying "varying degrees of encounter" - it is implied that all encounters are similar in nature - in this case - all encounters with Christ are good, but only varying in depth and intimacy. But that is not true,

This is extremely important.

You then added these comments:


But I was also wondering, how much of this has to do with God, and how much of it has to do with us? While I was thinking last night, about why I thought there's 'more' or 'less' of God, it occurred to me that God is not the variable here. He's unchanging. So... He can't love me more now than He did when I wasn't orthodox.

So, why does there seem to be a difference? Is that just emotional? Or is it real? If it's true that the more I change, the more I'm aware of God's love for me, couldn't those changes have happened in me outside the Church as well?

God's pre-eternal intention though which chiefly focuses on the Incarnation must be kept in mind. It is through the Incarnation that we understand & experience how God desires to meet with us. This is not in a general but rather through a most intimate and specific way of communion with humanity. Communion with humanity- better, in humanity- which is found within the Church flows from the Incarnation.

Thus it is that God's purpose for mankind is universal but centers on the Church. So the actual experience of mankind with God within the Church is most acutely different from that with God without the Church.

Which nicely brings us to your last comment.


While I know that's not impossible, I also know without a doubt that I need the Church in order for me to change. And honestly, that's not something I know how to explain, because it doesn't always seem to depend on my feelings, or on my knowledge, or on logic.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John,

You wrote:



That is precisely the point I have laboured to make. The RCC, the OC and the OO all have a common ecclesiology on the first model; they, of course, disagree on which ecclesial body is that True Church - but they are not holders of the relativistic position.

It is several who have been trying to show that they do not believe that B follows from A. Actual belief is what creates an ecclesiological body not just similar principles. If three schools say in principle, "let's be serious", it does not mean they all end up being identical in their way of life.

A second point- if we deny the particular in ecclesiology which comes from belief, on what basis does the expression of this belief have real importance?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Stickles]

Dear John,

You wrote:


That is precisely the point I have laboured to make. The RCC, the OC and the OO all have a common ecclesiology on the first model; they, of course, disagree on which ecclesial body is that True Church - but they are not holders of the relativistic position.

It is several who have been trying to show that they do not believe that B follows from A. Actual belief is what creates an ecclesiological body not just similar principles. If three schools say in principle, "let's be serious", it does not mean they all end up being identical in their way of life.

A second point- if we deny the particular in ecclesiology which comes from belief, on what basis does the expression of this belief have real importance?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I think the logical model provides a way to understand what each is thinking. Essentially, the arguments seem to be as follows (using shorthand):

RCC) The RCC is the True Church. There can be only one True Church. To be the True Church means "A"; to not be the True Church means to not be fully "A". Therefore, we are "A", and others are not fully "A".
EOC) The EOC is the True Church. There can be only one True Church. To be the True Church means "A"; to not be the True Church means to not be fully "A". Therefore, we are "A", and others are not fully "A".

One side seems to be saying that both sides are using the same premises (except, of course, for the first ones) and are using valid reasoning, therefore both arguments are valid; which one is true depends on whose first premise is true. The other side seems to be treating logical validity as not all that important in and of itself, and focusing on the fact that one argument is true and the other is not.

So, let me oversimplify: For group 1, "ecclesiology" is used to refer to premises #2 and #3, so they see the same ecclesiology in both arguments; for group 2, "ecclesiology" is being used to refer to all three premises together, so they see different ecclesiologies. It seems that some (maybe a lot) of the "talking past each other" has been due to difficulty in dealing with the vocabulary problem.

In Christ,
Mike

[Michael Stickles]

Thus it is that God's purpose for mankind is universal but centers on the Church. So the actual experience of mankind with God within the Church is most acutely different from that with God without the Church.

I like that way of looking at it. Thinking in terms of a center provides a bit of reorientation. The idea of "the True Church" usually is colored by thinking of "true" in logical terms, as in a true/false dichotomy, but I wonder if it's better understood in engineering terms, as "conformable to a standard or pattern; accurate". A communion which is "out of true" won't necessarily be totally non-functional, but it will at least be "defective" to some degree.

In Christ,
Mike

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I like that way of looking at it. Thinking in terms of a center provides a bit of reorientation. The idea of "the True Church" usually is colored by thinking of "true" in logical terms, as in a true/false dichotomy, but I wonder if it's better understood in engineering terms, as "conformable to a standard or pattern; accurate". A communion which is "out of true" won't necessarily be totally non-functional, but it will at least be "defective" to some degree.

In Christ,
Mike

Partly there's a question of the conceptual difference between languages. In Russian one speaks of the True Church as Istinnaya Tserkov (Истинная Церковь) which denotes fullness of truth & not just correctness as in a right or wrong answer.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anthony]

While there may well be important differences across languages, I am not sure that the English word "true" is confined to propositional truth either.


O perverse sex, where none is true but she,
Who's therefore true, because her truth kills me.


Just an illustration which happened to come to mind.

Mike's example is also a good one, I think.

[Rick H.]

I think the logical model provides a way to understand what each is thinking. Essentially, the arguments seem to be as follows (using shorthand):

RCC) The RCC is the True Church. There can be only one True Church. To be the True Church means "A"; to not be the True Church means to not be fully "A". Therefore, we are "A", and others are not fully "A".
EOC) The EOC is the True Church. There can be only one True Church. To be the True Church means "A"; to not be the True Church means to not be fully "A". Therefore, we are "A", and others are not fully "A".



Dear All,

Regarding recent comments (including Mike's above), I am reminded first of a piece by another which suggests that in regards to relation (and all relational ontologies), and communion, "the logical affirmation A = A is a dead logic and consequently a denial of being which is life." And, as we consider the life of the Church, or the Spirit of Life of the one true living Church, how much more true this is. And, to continue to borrow from the thinking of Zizoulas and adapt it to our present conversation here, to say without the concept of communion it would not be possible to speak of the being of the Church, because apart from communion the Church has no ontological content!

So a balanced view is needed here to be sure as we consider the only thing that would separate us--in our methodology and way of knowing--from the crazy post-moderns, who say one thing one minute and then talk in circles until they have just said absolutely nothing, is to strike a balance between the little formula, "A is A" and "If you have A, it is not non-A," and the knowledge that just as Zizioulas says, in regards to the being of the God 'who is there' we can easily say nothing at all even when we dogmatically assert Church is Church, (and we are the Church). And, herein lies a cosmic irony whereby the one's who would work to protect the Church from becoming all things in fact reduce it to no thing by means of a dead logic.

And, I hope to get back to Celinda's train of thought in the near future. In her first few posts in this thread which she initiated, she raised the crux of the issue here in my view. Her move to include pneumatology in this ecclesial thread was spot on; but, it was overrun almost immediately. I have noticed that almost all discussions here of this sort take a christological turn straightway (as they should really); however, I am not sure why there is seemingly little interest in the pneumatological dimension of an Orthodox ecclesiology on these boards. Possibly, as the Protestant Church that Celinda refers to focuses mainly on the pneumatological, the Orthodox Church focuses mainly on the christological when such ecclesial issues are raised? I'm not sure about this. In fact, I think Celinda has offered here and elsewhere some very helpful thinking about a balanced view of this matter which I hope to retrieve in the future. I have spoken in the past about an approach which fully incorporates a christological/pneumatology and a pneumatological/christology. And, possibly this alienates some from the conversation just as other pop culture references, but possibly this is an avenue to travel down in this conversation which seems to be petering out like the others. This one has been far superior to the others I think. But, in the end, once again we have only the end here. So for what it's worth, these comments about a middle way or possibly what may be considered by some 'a royal path' are offered. I think just as such things as faith and works can become "two poles of human delusion" when one is relied on exclusively to the negation of the other, there needs to be more of a balanced view here, and possibly more of a wider view that will allow one to see more clearly his or her's place of standing at this point in time, at this point in Church History.

In Christ,
Rick

[Celinda Grace]

to say without the concept of communion it would not be possible to speak of the being of the Church, because apart from communion the Church has no ontological content!

Thinking in terms of a center provides a bit of reorientation. The idea of "the True Church" usually is colored by thinking of "true" in logical terms, as in a true/false dichotomy, but I wonder if it's better understood in engineering terms, as "conformable to a standard or pattern; accurate". A communion which is "out of true" won't necessarily be totally non-functional, but it will at least be "defective" to some degree.

Dcn Matthew brought up the whole issue of differences of encounter, but so far no one has followed up on the nitty gritty of what those differences actually are. Where in each tradition is the center found? What is the heart of communion in each?

Here is what I see -for the RC the center of ecclesiology is located in the Pope and the church heiarchy. Where that authority extends to -this is where the church is.

For the PC the center of ecclesiology varies but in the best the center is located in knowing Jesus Christ. Those who have knowledge of and have responded in faith to the historical Jesus as presented in the gospels are seen as part of the church.

For the OC the center of ecclesiology is communion, koinonia, with and within the Trinity. It is this that is so clearly shown at the Eucharist.
I Cor 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing (koinonia) in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing(koinonia) in the body of Christ? 17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
How then do these different views effect our relationship, our encounter with God?

For the person in the RC who truly accepts their ecclesiology (and many don’t) God is encountered through the hiearchy. Thus many leave or loose faith when scandals and corruption become evident there.

For the person in the PC relationship with Christ becomes a one way deal --our response to our knowledge of God. Thus many vehemently defend their doctrines for their faith rests in their knowledge. Even for those who realize that Christ is beyond our knowledge, still the relationship consists primarily in their own action toward God not in a two way communion.

Only in the OC is communion with Christ in and through the Church as a whole, not just in the present time but in eternity. Thus corruption in the Church today does not cause one to see Christ as corrupt, merely the Body as not having reached the fullness of God's eternal plan. In the sacramental mindset and the understanding of grace as given in response to our action there is a true communion, a two-way understanding of the relationship. And even more in the common mind and action of the Church one is taken beyond the two way relationship, beyond fellowship with Christ and into the more intimate relation of participation/sharing in the life of Christ.

[Rick H.]

. . . the most authentic expression of Christ and participation in Him.

While other groups or individuals may make claims that they also encounter the authentic Christ . . .

. . . theology is not simply about encounter, but about authentic encounter

. . . the fruit of authentic truth.

Authentic theology is grounded in . . .

Authentic theological confession . . .

a notion of confession as authentic articulation . . .

. . . and authentic experience

. . . perhaps there is an authentic meaning




Dear All,

After reading through this thread there is a word that is used as a modifier over and over (5 times by one poster). This adjective functions to qualify such as found in the above, including not least Truth and experience/encounter with Christ.

And, this is a good word to use as people attempt to enumerate/recite the characteristics of the position which is adhered to. In fact anyone who would wish to characterize/describe a position in the beginning stages of an ecclesial discussion like this would naturally make a move to establish the genuineness of the position--especially, if there is a hope of being on a good footing in the latter stages of the same conversation.

Whereby, Celinda's point is well taken as she points to the fact that it has been pointed out (and agreed by most I think) that there are differences in experience/encounter; however, not much has been offered other than this. I wonder if some of the same ones who have written at length about these differences would care to put a little meat on those bones . . . or as Celinda has said follow up on this with some of the 'nitty-gritty?'

Also, it occurs to me that the word 'authentic' was not linked with the word 'faith,' or the word 'person.' As we consider such concepts as these along with such as trust, surrender, and hope, possibly there is a fertile field or two waiting to be tilled at the present. Especially as it relates to the ecclesiology of the OC and RCC in general and most definitely the different schools of thought to be found in what is called the PC (Protestant Church), I wonder if it is possible that a consideration of an "authentic personhood" which is based on the ground and implications of an "authentic catholicity" may yield a common denominator that brings together so called eastern and western ways. Or, possibly more to the point for the purposes of our discussion here I would ask as a possible discussion starter:

1.) When can we understand catholicity as an ecclesiological notion? [and when can we not?]

2.) Who gives catholicity? [is it something that is given?]

3.) How can catholicity be associated with Presence? [when can it not?]

4.) Do we recognize a pneumatological dimension in "a genuine catholicity" of the whole Body of Christ?

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

My, one goes away for a few days, and there are whole libraries to catch up on! I’ve enjoyed reading through the past page or so of posts. Forgive my own in-and-out participation.

I feel, having read back over some of the preceding as well, as if there is a certain circle being swooped - at least in my perception of the core of the discussion. This began with assertions there is a common ecclesiological pattern between two traditions (those brought up were the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches; but for the sake of the discussion it doesn’t really matter which), this commonality grounded in similar / same views on Church boundaries, limits, salvation as centred in the Church, etc. This then led into a discussion on the nature of ecclesiology as an expression of theological experience and confession, which in turn raised issues of authenticity of experience, subjects and means of experience, and so on. The point some made (and certainly, the point I laboured to make – effectively or otherwise) was that the nature of ecclesiology as theological expression meant that commonality could not be grounded in what are, in the end, secondary items – limits, boundaries, heritage, structure, and the like. Rather, a common ecclesiology can only stem from a common theology. As ‘Church’ is the corporate body of the encounter with Christ incarnate, the body made His body through that encounter, it is in the unity of that encounter that common ecclesiology resides – nothing else. The discussion on the nature of encounter—of the ‘who’, of the ‘how’, degrees and means, etc.—has followed on this a bit, to varying ends. But the root belief of the Orthodox Church is that right encounter intimately united to right expression and teac