How much of the Church's teaching must one accept to be Orthodox? [Archive]

Anna Stickles

11-12-2009, 03:37 PM

Speros,

Belief is not something we can force ourselves into, trying to force ourselves this way always causes insecurity, in whatever area of life we find ourselves doing it in. We grow into the truth.

One of my favorite quote is from a Protestant, George MacDonald, speaking to Reformed Christians who thought that the foundational thing that made one a true Christian was having a right belief. MacDonald's reply which very much agrees with the Orthodox approach is that practice and obedience has to come before belief.

‘Do I believe or feel this thing right?’—the true question is forgotten: ‘Have I left all to follow him?’ To the man who gives himself to the living Lord, every belief will necessarily come right; the Lord himself will see that his disciple believe aright concerning him. If a man cannot trust him for this, what claim can he make to faith in him? It is because he has little or no faith, that he is left clinging to preposterous and dishonouring ideas, the traditions of men concerning his Father. ...

I do not attempt to change your opinions; if they are wrong, the obedience alone on which I insist can enable you to set them right; I only pray you to obey, and assert that thus only can you fit yourselves for understanding the mind of Christ. I say none but he who does right, can think right; you cannot know Christ to be right until you do as he does, as he tells you to do; neither can you set him forth, until you know him as he means himself to be known, that is, as he is.

"If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by that same."

Observe what widest conceivable scope is given by the apostle to honest opinion, even in things of grandest import!—the one only essential point with him is, that whereto we have attained, what we have seen to be true, we walk by that. In such walking, and in such walking only, love will grow, truth will grow; the soul, then first in its genuine element and true relation towards God, will see into reality that was before but a blank to it; and he who has promised to teach, will teach abundantly. Faster and faster will the glory of the Lord dawn upon the hearts and minds of his people so walking—then his people indeed; fast and far will the knowledge of him spread, for truth of action, both preceding and following truth of word, will prepare the way before him.
There is plenty of room in Orthodoxy for those who believe differently if they are willing to follow the practices of the Church and trust Christ to help them grow into the truth. The Orthodox view of the Fall teaches us that we don't understand because of our lack of grace. We need to obey to grow in grace. When we grow in grace our minds are enlightened and the truth becomes clear.

On the priesthood

"All the righteous possess the sarcedotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests who do inherit here neither land nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually." St Ireneaus of Lyons

Priests and the priesthood aren't going to be perfect. We live in a fallen world. But within the Church we find a type or figure of the kingdom of God, and thus the priesthood serves this purpose of showing us a spiritual truth about the kingdom of heaven.

If we remove the priesthood, we mar the figure and never understand what it even means to "serve God and the altar continually". In an effort to make everyone priests, we lose any real experience of what it means that we are "the royal priesthood", since then there is no altar, and no one serving.

Nina

11-12-2009, 04:14 PM

Please keep in mind, I do not wish to convert you to my position or have you convert me. My hope is to help foster tolerance and mutual understanding.

Right. Our forefathers by the Grace of God fought to martyrdom for the Truth, and just an internet posting will convert us away from the Truth. God does not abandon us that easy.

Herman replied very good to you Spiros, but still you should not assume we are not tolerant and have no understanding.

May Saint Spyridon (Spiros) who celebrates this coming Saturday, intercede for you in your struggles.

Speros

11-12-2009, 09:23 PM

If we remove the priesthood, we mar the figure and never understand what it even means to "serve God and the altar continually". In an effort to make everyone priests, we lose any real experience of what it means that we are "the royal priesthood", since then there is no altar, and no one serving.

In the New Testament, "priest" is not used for an office of the church aside from the high priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of all believers.

The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as “a kingdom and priests.” In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can now approach God’s throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus’ death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15; 10:21), and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3), deacons (1 Timothy 3), bishops (Titus 1:6-9), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) – but not priests.

When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 to confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further, James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”

The Roman Catholic Church* bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition. Catholic do point to John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, e.g. the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus’ promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority. Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.

Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
http://www.gotquestions.org/confession-sin-priest.html

*What is stated of Catholic tradition in this articles applies to Orthodox tradition as well.

By relying on Jesus as the sole mediator between God and man, I've sought a relationship with Christ in a way that I hadn't before. I actually want to know Him personally, rather than relying on an institution for mediation. A pastor should serve the congregation as a facilitator, not as one who claims to have a special spiritual role that the laity themselves cannot potentially fulfill.

The early church was more egalitarian than the hierarchical structure which developed over time. For example, there is ample Scriptural evidence of women preaching in the early church that I've provided elsewhere:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=183155061919

Speros

11-12-2009, 09:31 PM

Sometimes "tolerance" is the most intolerant thing there is, because it demands I "accept" as equal to truth that which is clearly error. It refuses to allow disagreement, and refuses to acknowledge that the difference between right and wrong is not merely one of opinion.

We "understand" the teachings of other "belief systems". Many of us once advocated them ourselves, before we realized they were simply falsehood and we exchanged them for the Truth. To simply claim we "don't understand" and are "intolerant" I personally find condescending.

It's hard for me to describe the sense of freedom that I have now and didn't have before, in changing from dogmatism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogmatism) to perspectivism (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=163122906919). Instead of focusing on whether a particular doctrine is absolutely right and how this can be demonstrated, I care more about authenticating faith through manifesting God's love for others in one's own words and actions, that love is the ultimate standard. (1 John 2:3-11, Matthew 7:20)

By reading Nietzsche and others, I came to the realization that all human knowledge is fallible and subject to interpretation. I then started caring more about whether a church outwardly manifests God's love in real and concrete ways than whether it preserves a rigid orthodoxy.
"In essential things, unity. In doubtful things, liberty. In all things, charity."

I feel like a barrier has been lifted that prevented me from seeing people as people, rather than as adversaries, as "heterodox". In the words of Karl Popper, "Once we realize that human knowledge is fallible, we realize also that we can never be completely certain that we have not made a mistake."

I used to be a sectarian, insisting that my church is the only true church. I now think sectarianism fogs the mind, hardens the heart, and creates barriers between Christians. If a Protestant is any non-Catholic Western Christian, that could mean I have been Protestant for the past year.

And if I am attending a church that is historically Protestant, that might make me Protestant. But when I think of my relation with the Christian faith, I'm looking at it as a whole, as in catholic with a small "c". The words "catholic" and "ecumenical" are synonymous.

I feel like I could read a book of Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic theology and find it just as enriching as Donald Bloesch or John Howard Yoder. I feel like I can visit a prayer meeting with charismatic Catholics speaking in tongues and not be uncomfortable, and perhaps even feel at home.

So instead of changing from the Eastern Orthodox team to the Protestant team, I feel like I've transcended teams. Perhaps this is what Lewis was getting at with the term "Mere Christianity". It's a very serene place to be. It's an indescribable joy in Christ.

Speros

11-12-2009, 10:24 PM

Right. Our forefathers by the Grace of God fought to martyrdom for the Truth, and just an internet posting will convert us away from the Truth. God does not abandon us that easy.

On my father's side of the family, I have Greek Orthodox Christians going back for thousands of years, many of whom were persecuted by Turks for their faith. My mother side of the family, on the other hand, were English Protestants who may have come to this country on the Mayflower. Which forefathers am I to follow and why? Can I not respect both?

Please keep in mind, I would be a total hypocrite if I didn't tolerate your right to believe that Eastern Orthodoxy is the one true church. I'm interested in the best evidence you'd have to support that claim. I may not end up agreeing with your Orthodox faith, but I'd gain a deeper appreciation for why you believe it.

Paul Cowan

12-12-2009, 02:06 AM

A pastor should serve the congregation as a facilitator, not as one who claims to have a special spiritual role that the laity themselves cannot potentially fulfill.

Yes, this is why the EO priests face east when serving compared to the RC priests who face west when serving.

Ryan

12-12-2009, 03:08 AM

On my father's side of the family, I have Greek Orthodox Christians going back for thousands of years, many of whom were persecuted by Turks for their faith. My mother side of the family, on the other hand, were English Protestants who may have come to this country on the Mayflower. Which forefathers am I to follow and why? Can I not respect both?

Nina was speaking, I believe, about forefathers in the faith, not necessarily forefathers according to blood. It doesn't make sense to believe in something just because your ancestors did. I'd have to be some weird Roman Catholic/ Buddhist hybrid.

Please keep in mind, I would be a total hypocrite if I didn't tolerate your right to believe that Eastern Orthodoxy is the one true church. I'm interested in the best evidence you'd have to support that claim. I may not end up agreeing with your Orthodox faith, but I'd gain a deeper appreciation for why you believe it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tolerate", but I suspect it is approaching relativism. Your principle, that the different Christian "denominations" are just imperfect, human approaches to the same gospel, is not, in my opinion, qualitatively different from the idea that different religions are just imperfect, human ways of relating to the absolute.

I don't know about evidence or proof, but if you are a Christian, you believe there is one true God, who revealed the one true faith to mankind. Just as God became visible, so the Church he founded is visible, and visibly united. From the standpoint of the incarnation, it seems to me, it makes no sense to allow for multiple churches. Even before the incarnation, when God was only dimly known to man, the faith of the Israelites was undoubtedly superior to the other religions in the world, even if those religions apprehended some valid, if distorted, truths about God. Unless the faith is man-made, the Church cannot be man-made.

Kosta

12-12-2009, 04:26 AM

The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the Church of the Fathers and there is no other. The word denomination is a fairly new protestant invention of a few hundred years. There were plenty of splinter groups in early christianity but no one ever recognized them as denominations or branches of christianity. In fact the splinter groups themselves never conjured up such a theory to describe themselves in relation to the others. There is simply no historical evidence for such a concept.

The earliest canons of the ecumenical council for reception of the heterodox into the church, was either thru chrismation only or (re)baptism. Those members of splinter groups who practised baptism in triple immersion and in each name of the Trinity, such as the Arians, were still considered christians, but as cacodox orphans with no Mothers. Anotherwords their previous congregations were not considered the Church in anyway, even though some aspects of christianity was recognized in the individual. The other splinter groups on the other hand, such as the montanists, were recieved as heathens (not recognized as christians at all) and went thru the process as any pagan seeking conversion.

As you can see the Church has recognized in other groups who claimed christianity ( originally falling away from her bosom to create its own schism) depending on their trinitarian baptismal theology whether they should be recognized as christians or not, but this never extended to their congregation which was nothing more than a graceless body. There is NO historical evidence that denominationalism ever existed or was ever recognized. In fact protestantism itself needed time to come up with this novel innovation, to explain away their persuasions.

The type of Christ being crucified. Not a bone of him was broken. What does this mean? It means that Christs Body is not fractured, not in sections, not dividied. It is One and visible. The Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ not the denominations.

Speros

12-12-2009, 04:41 AM

Yes, this is why the EO priests face east when serving compared to the RC priests who face west when serving.

If you believe that only a priest can hear confession, provide absolution, and administer the sacraments, that entails a belief that a priest serves a distinct spiritual role from the laity. Where in the New Testament or clear historical evidence do you find support for such a belief?

Speros

12-12-2009, 04:56 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "tolerate", but I suspect it is approaching relativism. Your principle, that the different Christian "denominations" are just imperfect, human approaches to the same gospel, is not, in my opinion, qualitatively different from the idea that different religions are just imperfect, human ways of relating to the absolute.

There is a difference between perspectivism and relativism. While relativism claims that there is no real truth, perspectivism is honest enough to admit that humans will interpret the same truth in many different ways.

I don't know about evidence or proof, but if you are a Christian, you believe there is one true God, who revealed the one true faith to mankind. Just as God became visible, so the Church he founded is visible, and visibly united. From the standpoint of the incarnation, it seems to me, it makes no sense to allow for multiple churches. Even before the incarnation, when God was only dimly known to man, the faith of the Israelites was undoubtedly superior to the other religions in the world, even if those religions apprehended some valid, if distorted, truths about God. Unless the faith is man-made, the Church cannot be man-made.

Is the church a building or an institution or is it a mystical reality that transcends buildings and institutions?

Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven [is] my throne, and earth [is] my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what [is] the place of my rest?

The Jews believed that God is worshiped in a temple, and the Samaritans believed that God is worshiped on a mountain, and Jesus came to preach that worship transcends both.

John 4
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

This is an excerpt from Luther's catechism. I do not quote it as Gospel but as a basic example of what I'm getting at. -

The Church, the Communion of Saints

by Martin Luther

169. What is the holy Christian church?

The holy Christian church is the communion of saints, the total number of those who believe in Christ. All believers in Christ, but only believers, are members of the church (invisible church).

596 Eph.2:19-22 You are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in Him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit.

597 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.

598 Rom.8:9 If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

170. Why do you say, "I believe" in the church?

A. Because faith, which makes people members of the church, is invisible, the church is invisible to human eyes.

599 Luke 17:20-21 The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, "Here it is, "or "There it is, "because the kingdom of God is within you.

600 2 Tim.2:19 God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are His."
http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/church.htm

The early church met in houses or catacombs as a counterculture for Christ, standing and dying in defiance of worldly prestige, wealth, nationalism, and violence. In stark contrast, the imperial church meets in a domed building paid for with blood money. Can what begins as a grassroots movement against empire suddenly become the official religion of empire? Do you not see the tragedy in this?

Post-Constantinization, was humanity totally lost? No, because the Gospel could still be received and believed by the individual Christian, despite the corrupted nature of the institution to which he belonged. Martin Luther believed that restoring the first century church is impossible. The true church, being invisible, includes members of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant denominations as the mystical body of Christ.

I appreciate this exchange we are having. I hope to learn more from your point of view. If you can logically demonstrate that Orthodoxy is the one true church, I'd be very much interested.

Paul Cowan

12-12-2009, 06:53 AM

This is part of the challenge of the reformation. Solo Scriptora. It was not until after Luther some 1500 years after the Pentecost that people started saying "if it ain't in print, it ain't true."

Well St. Paul told Timothy to hold to the Traditions he was taught. What Traditions? they were oral Traditions. Those practised and known by all living in those times.

But to answer your question, how about Phillippians 1

1 Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ,

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

It seems St. Paul has aset apart the clergy for us. We also know a whole litany of the 70 that were Bishops of various regions. Read the OCA site on the lives of the saints.

You can also look at 1 Timothy 3

1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Qualifications of Deacons

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Not to say all our clergy meet this criteria, but it is supposed to be the standard. But as I was searching for more Bible based "proof" I also ran across this in Hebrews 6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away,[b] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

So maybe the burden is not on those that believe what the church has taught from the beginning but on those that have fallen away to reprove we are wrong? I am more apt to believe the early fathers with 2000 years practical experience than any belief system that is less than 400 years old; ie, the fruit of the reformation.

Paul

Owen

12-12-2009, 07:30 AM

John 20:19-25 (KJV)

19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD. 21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jonathan Michael

12-12-2009, 10:04 AM

Speros,

I would like to start with your antipathy toward the priesthood. I don't know if this is your prime reason for moving away from Orthodoxy, but your ecclesiology is certainly "protestant" in nature, and the protestant movement did start with a rejection of ecclesiastic authority. The other differences in theology, I believe, stem from this initial rejection, directly or indirectly.

The sacrament of ordination is, to the Orthodox, the most important Sacrament, because it is from this Sacrament that all the others flow: no priest means no Liturgy, no baptism, no confession. This is what you are rejecting of course, using the "priesthood of all believers" as justification. I will not dispute the veracity of this verse, but point you towards an account in Numbers 16:

Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; 2 and they rose up before Moses with some of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, representatives of the congregation, men of renown. 3 They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! All the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”

The part I have highlighted in bold is perfectly true: the congregation - the people of Israel - were holy, every one of them, as is repeated time and time again in the Psalms and the Prophets when referring to the Chosen People of Hebrews. From this true statement, Korah then asks the question - really a direct challenge of Moses - "why do some of you exalt yourselves over the others?" Can you believe this? Someone daring to challenge Moses - who talked face to face with God - and arrogantly ask "what makes you so special?" Well, we don't need to judge for ourselves whether Korah was acting correctly in challenging Moses and the priests, the story fills out the details for us: Korah is swallowed up directly into Hades for his rebellion!

Of course, we were once under the "Old Law" and now we are under Grace, but doesn't the striking similarity of Korah's reasoning to that of Luther not give pause for thought? Korah challenged Moses and Aaron the priest's authority using the disembodied fact: "All the congregation is holy"; Luther challenged the authority of the priesthood using the disembodied fact: "All believers belong to the priesthood". If Luther is right in his conclusions, then why was Korah wrong?

This is the first thing I would like to offer in this exchange. The evidence of a priesthood - an ordained clergy - in the New Testament is also there, but I don't want to overwhelm you, myself, or any one else.

M.C. Steenberg

12-12-2009, 11:06 AM

Dear friends,

This thread is already starting to encompass quite a wide range of different topics.

May I suggest, for the purposes of keeping discussions focused, that the opportunity be taken to start new threads or join existing threads on specific topics, while keeping this thread related to the basic question asked at its start - namely, 'am I required to believe that Orthodoxy is the one true church?' This question, and some of the specific qualifications associated with it in the first post, are important and interesting in their own right.

Questions of acknowledging the priesthood in the Scriptures, Church tradition, etc., are also valuable: but could perhaps be more fruitfully addressed in threads specifically dedicated to them.

Many thanks to all,

INXC, Dcn Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

12-12-2009, 01:31 PM

Herman Blaydoe

12-12-2009, 03:20 PM

There is a difference between perspectivism and relativism. While relativism claims that there is no real truth, perspectivism is honest enough to admit that humans will interpret the same truth in many different ways.

Until Jesus Christ the Lord came into the world, that was true. But Christ REVEALED the Truth to us in one very specific way, His Incarnation.

Is the church a building or an institution or is it a mystical reality that transcends buildings and institutions?

Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven [is] my throne, and earth [is] my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what [is] the place of my rest?

The Jews believed that God is worshiped in a temple, and the Samaritans believed that God is worshiped on a mountain, and Jesus came to preach that worship transcends both.

John 4
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

The Church is the Bride of Christ, the people of God, who worship God in spirit and in Truth, certainly.

This is an excerpt from Luther's catechism. I do not quote it as Gospel but as a basic example of what I'm getting at. -

The early church met in houses or catacombs as a counterculture for Christ, standing and dying in defiance of worldly prestige, wealth, nationalism, and violence. In stark contrast, the imperial church meets in a domed building paid for with blood money. Can what begins as a grassroots movement against empire suddenly become the official religion of empire? Do you not see the tragedy in this?

Can't you see the victory in this?

Post-Constantinization, was humanity totally lost? No, because the Gospel could still be received and believed by the individual Christian, despite the corrupted nature of the institution to which he belonged. Martin Luther believed that restoring the first century church is impossible. The true church, being invisible, includes members of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant denominations as the mystical body of Christ.

That is certainly a popular interpretation, but I do have some serious issues with it. It would seem that Luther is calling Christ a liar, since He promised us that His bride, the Church would remain spotless and not even the gates of hell would prevail against it. Therefore there is no need for it to be "invisible". And this "invisible" church goes against the writings of the Holy Apostles, who worked very hard to keep the Church "of one mind" and to avoid "other gospels". Some Protestant denominations do not teach the divinity of Christ! Are they still part of the invisible Church? Others do not believe that Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist and that it is only a memorial! Well, is He or isn't He? Can we maintain our intellectual integrity and claim both are true? I can't. I, for one, will happily try to be where I know the Church is and not recommend to others to wander where the Church might not be. But that might just be me.

We don't have to guess anymore. Christ is risen, Truth has been revealed, it is not a matter of speculation, or philosophy, or different ways. There is one God, one Christ, one Truth, one Church. We don't have to figure it out, we simply have to accept the revelation and conform ourselves to it. It really is that simple and we do not have to obfuscate it.

Herman the simple Pooh

Owen Jones

12-12-2009, 03:27 PM

Protestantism hasn't abandoned priesthood. Every man becomes his own priest. But, gee, I never thought I would see someone quote Karl Popper to defend his theology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jonathan Michael

12-12-2009, 05:13 PM

William and Catherine Both founded the Salvation Army to minister to the poorest of the poor because no one else would. They were people who honestly cared about being a living witness of the Gospel in action. The Salvation Army continues their work as a church that is Protestant but not fundamentalist, practicing a social Gospel without compromising the Gospel of the cross.

In your first sentence you are speaking in a universal manner on a very localized occurrence. The Booths did see a need to minister to the poorest of the poor, but were initially thinking of London, then England, before ever thinking of spreading their mission elsewhere. The establishment of the Salvation Army can well be seen as a reproach to the established churches in England at the time for their lack of "fruits" - but the established churches of 19th century were the Anglican and Methodist churches, not the Orthodox churches (even Roman Catholicism at that time was restricted). It is completely anachronistic to use the existence of the Salvation Army as a measuring stick for the charity of the Orthodox Church.

Yes, the Salvation Army displays very well how no one Protestant church contains the fullness of Truth: if it were not true then no para-church like the SA would ever have needed to be formed. However, in asking us to ponder the SA, it might also be useful to ponder why such a group did not develop in Orthodox countries (and why the SA only came to Greece, for example, in 2007). Indeed, I would even say that the Salvation Army could never have originated in the Orthodox East. This is not because Orthodox countries didn't care about their poor, and it certainly wasn't because poverty didn't exist there, but - I submit - because the "poorest of the poor" were already being ministered to there, and by the Orthodox Church no less.

Speros

12-12-2009, 09:33 PM

Dear Speros,

Your question on wishing to 'see the fruits' is a good one, and worthy of discussion. However, it is not directly concerning the question of this thread, which is that of how much of the Church's doctrine one needs to accept in order to be a part of her.

I would very much encourage you (and others) to raise this other, good, topic in a thread of its own, or in one of the several threads in the Community that already address it in various ways, perhaps continuing one of them. But let us try to keep this thread directly focused, so much as we are able, on the interesting question with which it began.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

This thread concerns whether Eastern Orthodoxy alone is the one true church. Jesus said that by their fruits you will know them as true. If other churches do a better job at living out Jesus' teachings, who is the true church? This is an important question and I don't meant to cause offense in asking it.

Speros

12-12-2009, 09:50 PM

Until Jesus Christ the Lord came into the world, that was true. But Christ REVEALED the Truth to us in one very specific way, His Incarnation.

If that is true, then the truth is a Person, not an institution.

The Church is the Bride of Christ, the people of God, who worship God in spirit and in Truth, certainly.

As such, the Church is beyond our sectarian divisions and squabbles. As it says in Scripture, God does not reside in temples made with human hands.

Can't you see the victory in this?

No, not at all. Constantine was a brutal dictator who usurped the Christian faith for the benefit of his empire. At his deathbed, he was baptized into Arianism, the very heresy he condemned at Nicea. After his death, Arianism became the official faith of the empire, and Athanasius was exiled. Where is the victory in this? The early church which lived by the Sermon on the Mount and the imperial church that meets in a domed building paid for with blood money are not one and the same.

That is certainly a popular interpretation, but I do have some serious issues with it.

My knowledge of church history, Biblical scholarship, and theology, both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant, is above average, though by no means complete. I've learned enough about early church history to know that the hierchical system you know as Eastern Orthodoxy is not what Jesus originally intended. Historically, it developed over time. If you'd like to learn more about what Jesus originally intended for his church and how they should live in the world, I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder. Constantinianism is not what Jesus founded.
The true church is not a state institution.

In the final analysis, does God want justice and righteousness or sectarianism?

Amos 5

21 "I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
[B]23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps. 24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Please keep in mind, I believe that Orthodox Christians are Christians. Nothing can make me change my mind about that belief. But the more I know about history, the more I see that Orthodoxy is one church among many.

M.C. Steenberg

12-12-2009, 11:09 PM

Dear friends,

Please allow me to re-iterate a bit more directly:

Please keep this thread focused on the question with which it began: To be an Orthodox Christian, am I required to believe that Orthodoxy is the one true church? To what extent am I to agree with the teachings of the church as authoritative and unquestionable?

Other issues, such as how various aspects of Orthodox teaching or practice are to be understood and analysed, can be discussed elsewhere as an if appropriate; but please keep all further posts in this thread focused on the above.

It is very easy for threads such as this simply to turn into argumentative tit-for-tat on various positions. Let us focus directly, positively, on this good question.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Herman Blaydoe

12-12-2009, 11:34 PM

If that is true, then the truth is a Person, not an institution.

Of course! I hope you are not confusing the Bride of Christ with Christ Himself! The Church is not the Truth, the Church is not Christ. Nobody here has said otherwise.

As such, the Church is beyond our sectarian divisions and squabbles. As it says in Scripture, God does not reside in temples made with human hands.

See above. The Church is not Christ, Christ is not the Church. But yes the Church, the Bride of Christ is not divided, even if you seem to think it is.

My knowledge of church history, Biblical scholarship, and theology, both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant, is above average, though by no means complete. I've learned enough about early church history to know that the hierchical system you know as Eastern Orthodoxy is not what Jesus originally intended. Historically, it developed over time. If you'd like to learn more about what Jesus originally intended for his church and how they should live in the world, I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder. Constantinianism is not what Jesus founded.

Many members of this forum have an "above average" knowledge of Church history. Welcome to the club.

The true church is not a state institution.

And I thought that I was the ultimate master of the obvious! I guess I have competition.

In the final analysis, does God want justice and righteousness or sectarianism?

Is this a trick question? And yes, we are relatively aware of what Holy Scripture teaches, really we are.

Please keep in mind, I believe that Orthodox Christians are Christians. Nothing can make me change my mind about that belief. But the more I know about history, the more I see that Orthodoxy is one church among many.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. So are you saying there is no such thing as the True Church? Or that all these competing churches, all these different Christs, are all equally "true"? Does this include the Mormon Jesus who is a separate God and not part of the Trinity? Does this include those who deny the divinity of Christ? Is Buddha just another version of Christ? Is Mohammed a true prophet? Where exactly DO YOU draw the line? Just trying to understand what you are saying here.

Kosta

13-12-2009, 04:36 AM

Dear Spero,

The Orthodox Church is the church of the Nicene Creed, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.. It is up to the individual christians to live to the standard, some do it better than others.

The church militant is NOT a gathering of only the righteous people in Christ who bear good fruits. Its the bosom of saints and the hospital for sinners. The church is both saints and sinners. If you find a perfect church dont join it because it wont be perfect anymore. It is in the Church triumphant where the wheat is seperated from the tares.

Trying to demonstrate that a particular congregation is more fruitful in virtue or deeds than another is hopeless. I am greek Orthodox and see my church as bearing fruits not protestantism. I see it in the close knit greek family structure, when abiding by the church concience, 'the phronema' and discipline is an impeccable guide to life, I see this strong structure in muslim families as well, but i dont see it in protestantism. Outside the Orthodox Church, which is predominantly protestant (where I am) i see family disfunction. The Ladies of Philoptochos is a wonderful Orthodox charitable organization, one of the largest religious charities in America, and the money they raise which stays in North America is not going to fellow Orthodox christians.

Instead, in protestantism i see them promoting condom use to curtail the Aids problems there community faces. I see them ordaining practising lesbians and homosexuals, I see that the bible belt has the highest rate of abortion, unwanted teenage pregnancies, and Divorce in North America. The Salvation Army is a wonderful organization, but it exists precisely because protestantism needs charity for themselves.

Now in a previous post you claimed that confession of sins is either unbiblical or non-historical. This is incorrect, you read into scripture what certain protestant groups cunningly decieved you into believing, No where in the bible does it explicitly claim to ptivately confess your sins directly to God, no where!. Passages which speak of confessing your sins means to confess them to another human being. Whats the value of confessing your sins directly to God? Now if you were familiar with church history you would know that in the early church, there was open confession.

Time would be set aside during the liturgy, where the laity would confess their sins in the prescense of all. When this was finished the priest would continue and recite prayers of foregiveness. It is in this context that 1 John 1.8-10 says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to foregive us our sins" . It means to confess to the community and acknowledge your sin.

Now lets look at James, Is anyone among you sick? Let him call the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins he will be foregiven.

Lets stop there for a second. Here we have the sacrament of Holy Unction It is the elders (bishops, presbyters, priests) who annoint the sick and pray over them. And it is their prayer which has the power to foregive sins.

James continues, "...Confess your tresspasses to one another, and pray for one another that you maybe healed. The fervent prayer of a rightoeous man avails much...

When do you suppose they can confess their tresspasses to one another, if there not gathered as a church? By telephone or email? It speaks of the very act of public worship. Confession of sins was incorported into the worship of the Church.
As the congregations grew as did the pressure of public confession, the priest alone would heaer the confession. The priest is just that, the royal priesthood of all believers for in confession, he represent all the people. Likwewise in church the priest leads the people in prayer, the prayer of the elder has the power to foregive sins.

Now i will prove this to you historically without any reasonable shadow of a doubt. In 95 a.d. there was written a christian manual known as the DIDACHE. it says:

" IN THE CONGREGATION, confess your sins and do not come to your prayer with an evil conscience. "

While privately confessing your sins before God is not forbidden, scripture teaches public confession, "And were baptised by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins."(Matt 3.6)

"And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds."Acts 19.18

The very word confession, means to make a public proclamation. When Peter proclaimed to Christ in the prescense of the other apostles, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Peter made a Confession of faith. Jesus said to confess Him before men and in return Christ will confess that person before God. Confessions are public statements.

Ben Johnson

13-12-2009, 04:38 AM

This may be a good reminder: http://www.gettoknowtheoriginal.net/

Owen Jones

13-12-2009, 02:37 PM

MY answer to the question is "yes," but one then has to ask the question, what is the Church. (BTW, don't see anyone responding to the quote I posted much earlier. But that's OK, I'm not offended. I lost 75 IQ points on another thread). The Church functions as a representative of God to all mankind, and acts as a representative for all mankind to God. So it serves a mystical function for all mankind, not just believers.

Speros

13-12-2009, 11:45 PM

Protestantism hasn't abandoned priesthood. Every man becomes his own priest.

In the New Testament, "priest" is not used as an ordained office of the church. There is only the high priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of all believers.

Question: "What does the Bible say about confession of sin to a priest?"

Answer: The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5-9 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Peter%202.5-9) describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Revelation%201.6) and 5:10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Revelation%205.10) both describe believers as “a kingdom and priests.” In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can now approach God’s throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Hebrews%204.16)). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus’ death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Hebrews%204.14-15); 10:21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Hebrews%2010.21)), and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Timothy%202.5)). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3), deacons (1 Timothy 3), bishops (Titus 1:6-9 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Titus%201.6-9)), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Ephesians%204.11)) – but not priests.

When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20John%201.9) to confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/James%205.16) speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/James%205.16). Further, James 5:16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/James%205.16) does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”

The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition. Catholic do point to John 20:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2020.23), “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, e.g. the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2020.23) nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2020.23) nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus’ promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority. Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2016.19) and 18:18 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2018.18) (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.

Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20John%201.9)). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. 1 Timothy 2:5 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Timothy%202.5), “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
http://www.gotquestions.org/confession-sin-priest.html

If you are able to refute the above article with Scripture or by plain reason, as in actual historical evidence from the first century, please do so. My mind is open for it.

But, gee, I never thought I would see someone quote Karl Popper to defend his theology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since God alone is infallible, theology is provisional and correctable. The truth is a divine-human person and theology is our human effort to understand Him.

Anna Stickles

14-12-2009, 12:04 AM

Is the church a building or an institution or is it a mystical reality that transcends buildings and institutions? ...

This is very good, we can all agree on this statement, but then we have to ask the question, What is the nature of this mystical reality and how can we identify it?

The original question was: To be an Orthodox Christian, am I required to believe that Orthodoxy is the one true church? To what extent am I to agree with the teachings of the church as authoritative and unquestionable?

I guess to be an Orthodox Christain one must not reject what Orthdoxy says about this mystical reality and what the Fathers teach that it is.

In a couple of your posts, you said that you used to identify this mystical reality by right dogma, and now have discovered the problems with insisting on this - it leads to lack of compassion and hardness of heart - And certainly this spiritual malady is present in various Orthodox Christians as well as many from other traditions as well.

But, in posts 14, 20, 26, 32 you are basically postulating that we can identify this mystical reality by looking at people's moral condition.

However, is Ghandi part of the One True Church? How about the millions of good moral people who are Buddhist, Islamic, or Hindu? Maybe we need more for being the One True Church?

What do the Scriptures and the Fathers teach is the most fundamental condition for recognizing the presence of the One True Church? I think that neither moral goodness nor right belief are the primary criteria, neither is personal faith - although all three of these are certainly important.

The most fundamental condition for the Church to be present is that Christ is present. And if it is a mystical reality, Then Christ must be really present.

Peter M

14-12-2009, 03:36 AM

To be an Orthodox Christian, am I required to believe that Orthodoxy is the one true church?

My feeling is, no. I became Orthodox because I sensed that there was more to this Church than any other Christian organization I had frequented. I have been a Catholic (catechumen), a Protestant (baptist), and now an Orthodox, and I now do believe that it is the One, True Church.

I was once part of another Christian organization (believing in sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers, etc) that claimed that it was the real Christian church that had been invisible for much of the last 2,000 years. But upon closer inspection of the history of that organization, I realized that the history that they claimed and the real history did not match up.

Still, that wasn't enough to move me into the Orthodox camp. What did move me was a love for its liturgy, its music, and what I believe is its faithfulness to God.

The Church is charged by Holy Scripture to remain undivided. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor 1:10)

This is definitely a call to Orthodoxy. That means, one of us must be right.

Matthew 16:18 has the Lord saying to Peter, that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against" the Church. So thus, there is a continuously existing Church that would survive persecutions, heresies and so forth. It would be one body existing in the years 120, 902, and 2009.

It would also be a Church that uses both Scripture and Tradition to carry on its doctrines.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (II Thessalonians 2:15)

This also instructs us to seek out Scripture and the words of God as spoken through the traditions of the Church, which includes the liturgies, the councils, and the Holy Fathers. The Church also says this in its Sunday of Orthodoxy service:

To those who reject the Councils of the holy fathers and their traditions, which are agreeable to divine revelation and kept piously by the Orthodox Church, Anathema!

I do believe that after learning just a few slivers of precious knowledge through these means, I am now completely convinced that I am a part of the One, True and Holy Orthodox Church. But I didn't need to believe this to get the process of faith started!

Perhaps, though, seeking proof is not the best way to find the true Church. But by examining what is in the Church and then embracing it is the most-surefire way. St. Tikhon of Moscow said this in his farewell address on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/473) in 1907 (NYC):

The Church of Christ is the kingdom not of this world. It does not possess any of the attractions of the earthly world. It is persecuted and slandered. Yet it not only avoids perishing in the world, but grows and defeats the world! This happens everywhere, and here in our land as well. “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4.20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Acts+4.20;&version=;)).

It is true that our Church here cannot boast of the quantity of its members, neither of their erudition. Just like the “preaching of Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1.23 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1+Cor.+1.23;&version=;)), for some it seems lowly and contemptible, and for others it seems simple and foolish, but in reality “God’s power and wisdom” (1 Cor. 1.24 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1+Cor.+1.24;&version=;)) are concealed in it. It is strong and rich with the authenticity of the doctrine which has been preserved unaltered, with full adherence to the guiding regulations of the Church,3 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../content/patristics/patristictexts/473#footnotes_473) a deep sense of liturgical service, and a plenitude of grace. And with all of this it is gradually attracting the hearts of people, and it is growing and getting stronger more and more in this country.
May God richly bless you in your pursuit of more insight on this topic.

M.C. Steenberg

14-12-2009, 08:49 AM

Dear friends,

Despite my recent appeals for contributions in this thread to remain on topic, I awoke this morning to find a whole series of new posts in this thread, only two of which had any direct bearing on it.

I've since moved most of the other new posts, as well as a few of the older, to other threads that already exist in the Discussion Community, where these other topics (e.g. 'sola scriptura', the role of Constantine) can be better discussed in their own proper context; and I've also created a thread entitled 'You shall know them by their fruits: What are the fruits of Orthodoxy?' to house the few posts on that discussion.

This thread will remain for the discussion of the questions: To be an Orthodox Christian, am I required to believe that Orthodoxy is the one true church? To what extent am I to agree with the teachings of the church as authoritative and unquestionable? To clarify, these are not questions over specific teachings (e.g. 'What do you think about priesthood?' 'What about worship?'); these questions, as first posed, are over the issue of whether there is a '100% clause' in belief before one can/should be received into the Church, or whether it is possible/advisable to be received if one yet does not accept or believe all that the Church teaches. This is an important subject, and deserves open, dispassionate consideration in its own right.

I would encourage members to follow the recent lead of Peter, Anna, Owen, etc., who have directly replied to the topic.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Father David Moser

14-12-2009, 04:28 PM

After reading this thread since its beginning and looking at the numerous spinoffs I have but one question. If you don't want to believe what the Orthodox Church believes why would you want to be a part of it? The original question is, from a pastoral point of view, moot.

I image that there might be a response something along the lines of "if Orthodoxy claims to be the only true Church then how do people get to heaven if they disagree with one small point?" or something like that. But that question is simply irrelevant because if you don't want to embrace what the Orthodox Church teaches about the reality of the Kingdom of God then why would you want to follow the path to get there, or if you acknowledge that it might be true, but don't want to pay the price (embracing the teaching of the Church) then you have already made a choice to reject it. I just don't see the sense in this question - it sets up a straw man (I've given up red herrings for lent) and creates a dilemma that has no anchor in reality.

If you don't believe that the Orthodox Church is the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" then why would you want to be part of it and if you do believe that the Orthodox Church is the "one holy cathoic and apostolic church" then would you not, as the Savior tells us in the parable of the pearl of great price, "go and sell all that you have that you might acquire it". If the Orthodox Church is what she says she is, then is she not the pearl of great price and would we not willingly give everything we have (including our cherished personal opinions) to acquire this treasure? If that is true, then the whole first question is nonsense. If, on the other hand the Orthodox Church is not what she says she is, then the first question is irrelevant because who, in their right mind, would give anything for something that was not the real deal.

The parables in Matt 13:34-36 do not refer to material wealth (for the Kingdom of heaven cannot be purchased with money) but refer to our spiritual possessions - all that wisdom and righteousness and and so on that we think we have. If we want to acquire the kingdom of heaven then we must rid ourselves of all that, forget everything that you think you know and become like a little child, learning the basics all over again from scratch. We bring nothing but ourselves to the Kingdom of God and we receive everything from it. If the Orthodox Church is the one true Church (the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God), then when we come to her, it is best to relinquish all that we have so that we might receive all that she has to give. If she is not the one true Church, then the question is irrelevant.

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

14-12-2009, 10:31 PM

. . . If the Orthodox Church is what she says she is, then is she not the pearl of great price and would we not willingly give everything we have (including our cherished personal opinions) to acquire this treasure? . . .
Fr David Moser

Oh, I believe and would willingly give [up] everything to acquire the treasure; but I am weak and sinful, and the passions prevent me.

Paul Cowan

15-12-2009, 01:38 AM

If she is not the one true Church, then the question is irrelevant.

Fr David Moser

THANK YOU Fr. David for your post. If I might go one step further and say "if the Orthodox Church is not the one true church", then Jesus is a liar since the gates of hell have surely prevailed against her. It means nothing for a faith that formed 1500+ years after Pentecost to say "the church was in hiding all these years and we are it resurfaced". Or "now we are in a more intellectual state of mind, we can understand more of what "really" was meant 2000 years ago." Hogwash.

If Jesus is a liar then what St. Paul said is true about his resurrection, that our faith is worthless. But since He has resurrected and ascended and the gates of hell have not prevailed against her as hard as they have tried even to this very day, we can say the OC is the One True Holy Apostolic and Catholic (universal) Church.

The Bible can be used to attack or defend a position. It is NOT the sole authority. Holy Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. One does not make sence without the other as they were not used in biblical times without the other.

Paul

S. Rey

15-12-2009, 07:03 AM

To be an Orthodox Christian, am I required to believe that Orthodoxy is the one true church? To what extent am I to agree with the teachings of the church as authoritative and unquestionable? If I have doubts on the perpetual virginity of Mary or petitionary prayer to the saints, would that exclude me from being Orthodox?

The times when I tried to agree with the Orthodox Church 100% were also times when I was the most judgmental and insecure. I cared more about agreeing with church teachings with absolute exactitude than living out my love for Jesus and others. Since I honestly no longer believe that the Orthodox Church or any church is infallible, I'm not sure if I have a place in it.

Speros,

It may be quite significant that in this question you seem to consider the faith as a legalistic matter, which one needs to follow in order to obtain salvation, and the Church as an authoritarian institution which one must not disobey under penalty of excommunication and eternal fire. Such attitude has, alas!, been the bane of the Church in the West for at least a millenium.

No one is required to believe that the 'Orthodox Church' is the One True Church, because the Church is not a body of laws to which we must conform (and here I put Orthodox Church in quotation marks because the 'Orthodox Church' is not just one church among many, one denomination which we must follow among others which profess different beliefs to which we may equally and alternatively submit). We ought on the contrary to approach the Church for what it is, a eucharistic community between the faithful between themselves, and between themselves and Christ Himself, as a mysterious encounter in continuous prayer and repentance between us all and Him. Then only will one see the Truth professed by the Church, and will one see the reason for everything that is done. Wat the Church professes is simply what She experiences and lives every day and in every one, and not, as in the West, a series of laws and speculations.

As you confessed at the beginning of the second paragraph of your post, you force yourself to believe, and you seem to struggle with this even now. This often results in considerable loss and wreckage, with many eventually abandonning Christianity and 'organized' religion, even belief in God altogether. But it is not by forcing yourself to believe that you will discover the Truth embodied in and professed by the Church; it is by looking at how it prays that you will see it.

Anna Stickles

15-12-2009, 02:28 PM

One of the things that Speros has brought up several times is the Protestant idea that we can go directly to Christ as the only mediator between God and man without needing to worry about any kind of relationship to the Church. He also brought up the idea of the "invisible church"

Rom 12:5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

I Cor 10:17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

I Cor 12:12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.

Can we be in relationship to Christ, without being in relationship to His Body? Is the arm attached directly to the head? And of course I Cor 10:17 is another Eucharistic reference. The Orthodox idea of the Church is grounded in the Eucharist. In every parish the bread though physically separate loaves, are mystically one loaf, because that loaf is Christ who cannot be divided.

Eph 1:23 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Nowhere in scripture does it say the Church is invisible, rather in Scripture it teaches that the Church is the body of Christ. And Christ in the Incarnation took on a body in order to become visible. Where Protestant and Orthodox conceptions of the Church differ is that Protestants see the Church primarily in the sense of being made up of individuals.

Orthodoxy defines the Church in several different ways, but in reference to itself, when it says that it is the "One True Church" it means that in it's worship, life and beliefs it manifests the fullness of Christ, the Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Spotless Bride.

That doesn't mean that those individuals outside are entirely excluded, but that what exists outside Orthodoxy doesn't incarnate this reality in its fullness.

Speros

17-12-2009, 11:58 AM

M.C. Steenberg

17-12-2009, 03:43 PM

The statement of presumption is itself presumptuous, insisting on only one criterion for determining the truth of a thing: i.e., whether a person can argue it from his or her interpretation of the Scriptures.

This is not the only way. It is not, in fact, a reliable way. It certainly isn't a patristic way.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Herman Blaydoe

17-12-2009, 04:10 PM

How presumptuous it would be, if it cannot be proved by Scripture or by plain reason, to claim that Eastern Orthodoxy alone is the one true church and that there is no salvation outside of it, especially if a majority of the world's Christians are outside your church, belonging to the very religion you claim to follow.

It is you making this claim, not us. We do not claim that salvation is impossible outside the Orthodox Church, but we are also not willing to endorse specifically that it is possible or to advocate any source outside the safe haven of the visible Church as an "alternative". We are not willing to say that the "evangelical" path is "just as good" as Orthodoxy. We know where the Orthodox Church leads. We don't presume to know where other paths lead and are loath to endorse them as equivalent to the fullness of the Holy Orthodox Church. Many of us here have already trod these paths and have found them wanting, that is why we are here.

We are in the "Ark of Salvation" that is the Orthodox Church. If you prefer to cross the ocean in a dinghy, then God be with you. But do not be surprized of some of us express concern with such a choice and if we are reluctant to recommend it to others.

Herman the nautical Pooh

S. Rey

17-12-2009, 09:15 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

17-12-2009, 10:55 PM

If there is not one Church, but many, with as many different beliefs, and no one should claim to possess the fullness of Revelation, then were Arians correct? Were Marcionites and Sabellians just two other different Churches? Perhaps also the Docetists were just as right...

To be consistent with this position we must accept that evil is also correct since we are saying that all beliefs are correct.

Christ then Who only can be personally found within His Church is the only answer to this inevitable pitfall of individual journeys of good.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Paul Cowan

18-12-2009, 01:37 AM

I'll repeat what I have said in another thread, or perhaps it was earlier in this one. If the Orthodox Church which was established at Pentocost by the Holy Spirit is not the Church, then Jesus lied when He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. If this is the case and manknid in all his infinite wisdom had to wait to the Reformation to "find" the church, then our God is a sham. If God is a sham, then all religions are false and the athiests are right. What's the point?

If however Jesus was correct and the gates of hell have not prevailed aginst her, then everything after the split is heresy.

Paul

S. Rey

19-12-2009, 01:27 AM

It seems that, after all these posts, a central issue arises: Speros obviously sees the Church as an institution, man-made and unscriptural. Obviously he and the rest of us do not understand quite the same thing by Church. The central question then is: What is the Church, and, following this, how are Scriptures to be interpreted? Perhaps should we open a new thread to discuss this?

Speros

19-12-2009, 03:33 AM

Olga

19-12-2009, 07:25 AM

Mary

19-12-2009, 07:49 AM

In the Salvation Army, there is a kneeler at the church altar called the mercy seat. If you kneel there and pray, someone will come to pray with you and for you. Never in the six years of attending Orthodox churches did anyone volunteer to pray with me. This is one more example of how a church that is not Orthodox can nonetheless be more Christian in practice.

Dear Speros,

It seems to me, that you've already made up your mind about the Orthodox Church. From what I understand, you have had negative experiences in the Church, particularly with legalism and lack of love. So, you think you have found freedom and love outside the Orthodox church, among others who call themselves Christians. So... please help me understand. What are you hoping to gain from your discussions here? Obviously, you don't want to change your mind about the Orthodox Church. So, are you trying to justify, for yourself, why you left? Are you trying to prove to yourself, that your decision to leave, was a good one? Is there a tiny, nagging doubt deep in your heart? Are you hoping to find legalism and lack of love here, so you can be happy that you left the Orthodox Church?

Because you see, there are so many of us here who have become orthodox, and we've found true freedom in the Orthodox church, precisely through the very things that to you, seem to be legalistic. So we could go back and forth forever, sharing our experiences, and we won't get anywhere. As far as I know, none of us are lying about our experiences. So then, what's the point of sharing our experiences? On the surface, they sound the same. What you've experienced outside the Church, we've experienced inside.

I have no desire to go back to my protestant family and friends and share my experiences with them - unless I want to be obnoxious and annoying and have an urgent need to be engaged in an argument. I have even less desire to go to a protestant website and talk to total strangers about my experiences in the Orthodox church. I don't need to justify my conversion, because in my heart I know I've done the right thing. My confidence only grows with every Divine Liturgy, with every confession and every service I attend. I won't gain anything by finding a bunch of protestants to share my experiences with. I might make some enemies. I might turn them away from Orthodoxy. But nothing good comes of idle talk.

So... I'm wondering... what are you hoping to gain?

in Christ,
Mary.

Mary Emily Hamilton

19-12-2009, 02:39 PM

Here is how to experience mercy in the Orthodox Church. There's a handy device, invented by (I think) a Scots Presbyterian called Alexander Graham Bell. It's called the telephone!

Here's what we do:

We pick up the telephone. We dial the number of the parish office. We ask to speak to the pastor.

Then we say, "Father, I am having a tough time with my sins. May I make an appointment to make my confession and receive your counsel and absolution?"

The pastor will then help you set a time convenient to you both. Of course, Confessions are heard in Orthodox Churches on a regular basis, often after vespers on Saturday evenings or before Matins/Divine Liturgy on Sunday mornings...but I am a sinner who does not make as full a confession if I am in a hurry, so I make an appointment very often. That way, I have plenty of time to get everything together.

And when we confess our sins, there are many unseen ones, besides the pastor himself, who pray there with us. And the angels rejoice in heaven!

Best wishes and prayers,

Mary Emily

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-12-2009, 03:35 PM

In the Salvation Army, there is a kneeler at the church altar called the mercy seat. If you kneel there and pray, someone will come to pray with you and for you. Never in the six years of attending Orthodox churches did anyone volunteer to pray with me. This is one more example of how a church that is not Orthodox can nonetheless be more Christian in practice.

This is a good question.

In Orthodoxy we are assured of other's prayers because this is precisely what the service already is- the common prayer of all for all, not only on this visible plane as restricted to the people present within the church you are praying in. But also including those of all ages both Old & New Testament. That is why we see the services- especially the Liturgy- as being cosmic; it brings us into communion with all of those of all times & all places.

The 'how' of this though is crucial. To know of the above we must also graft ourselves into this overall prayerful reality as found during the services. To do this we must engage in a fully spiritual life, doing what others have already referred to in other posts. Especially however we must cease blaming others, for unfortunately when we do this we deprive ourselves of grace. We are deprived of the ability to see the very prayerful reality we seek.

The answer then to these questions is to humbly engage ourselves in the life of the Church and to be aware of the thoughts which bring us to accusation instead of participation.

I mean all of the temptations mentioned here as roadblocks to the Church already occurred among the Apostles and apostolic community. Was turning away from Christ the answer or was taking up one's cross and following Him through an admittedly very difficult path?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Anna Stickles

19-12-2009, 07:27 PM

I mean all of the temptations mentioned here as roadblocks to the Church already occurred among the Apostles and apostolic community. Was turning away from Christ the answer or was taking up one's cross and following Him through an admittedly very difficult path?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I suppose we can see this clearly when we look at the history of the liturgical worship of the Church. We see in the NT how vehemently St Paul rails against the legalistic attitude of many of the Christians in the circumcision group, and yet the Church did not abandon the Jewish forms of worship in order to solve the problem. Rather the apostles and teachers of the Church continued to work at reforming hearts, persevering toward peace through the power of the cross.

Eph 2:11-18 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

Speros

20-12-2009, 01:17 AM

This is a brief explanation of my spiritual journey that is from the heart:
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5653&page=5

I don't want to proselytize for Protestantism and I don't think that's my responsibility. To me, being Protestant just means you are a non-Catholic Western Christian. It's just something a Western Christian is by default if he's not Orthodox or Roman Catholic. If I have a message that I hope you might follow, it's just to be open minded and loving toward Christians who are not of your church tradition, while being the best Christian you can in whichever church tradition you choose.

S. Rey

21-12-2009, 12:20 AM

When I came home from college and reflected on my experiences and my mistakes, in how I offended fellow Christians, I came to realize that Christ is beyond our sectarianism. As I've said before, I haven't moved from the Orthodox team to the Protestant team. I feel that I've transcended teams to rely on Christ alone. (1 Tim 2:5) I do not claim that Protestantism is the only true way to understand the Christian faith. I'd only contend that it's one legitimate interpretation among several possible interpretations. All that matters is your love of Christ and whether you follow his commandments.

The central point of the Protestant Reformation, that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as found in Scripture alone, is firmly supported by the early church fathers. Luther and Calvin were among the most well read patristic scholars of their time and often appealed to the fathers in their writings. Based on careful research, the Reformers sincerely believed that they were restoring ancient Christian faith. They did not rely on themselves for Scriptural interpretation, but defended what they found to be the early patristic witness.

Dear Speros,

No one will deny that Luther and Calvin were both well versed in Patristic literature. The problem, of course, is how we interpret them. You seem to insist on the fact that if something is not in the Scriptures, then it is a distortion of the faith, including for instance the holy Orders. Now there is a discrepancy here, since many of these same Fathers were precisely Bishops and Patriarchs. Are we then justified in citing them when we reject who they were and the Church that they defended? I would doubt it.

Yes, following the commandements are indeed essential, and no one among the ORthodox would deny it. Yet, it is not something that must be done separately, each according to our own interpretation. Because the Christ was incarnate, He became a historical reality, and so is His Church. You cannot simply "follow Christ's commandements" while overlooking the historicity of the Church, and make the Church simply something outside history, as if it were the product simply of our a scientific investigation. Likewise, you cannot go simply back to the Fathers while rejecting the Church which they served, sometimes at the cost of their lives.

Christ is indeed above all denominations. The Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church is not a denomination--it existed before the Reformation and the denominations we have today. The Reformation can only be understood in the context of medieval Western Catholicism, and the reaction against the abuses of Rome--therefore it is not, and cannot be universal, since it arose out of particular circumstances, in a Church which we also believe had lost a lot of the original apostolic faith.

Adrian

21-12-2009, 05:27 AM

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6114

Speros

26-12-2009, 10:08 PM

No one will deny that Luther and Calvin were both well versed in Patristic literature. The problem, of course, is how we interpret them. You seem to insist on the fact that if something is not in the Scriptures, then it is a distortion of the faith, including for instance the holy Orders.

What I insist is that if a doctrine cannot be proved by Scripture or by plain reason, as in historical evidence from the first century, then Christians are not obligated to follow it. This is the same point that Luther made at the Diet of Worms. From a historical perspective, the hierchical structure of deacon, priest and bishop was established neither by Jesus nor by the apostles. It developed over time. While this form of church governance might be useful in an Orthodox context, it is not the only way for a church to operate. The New Testament mentions Christ as the high priest and the priesthood of all believers, not a priesthood as a church office distinct from the laity.

Christ is indeed above all denominations. The Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church is not a denomination--it existed before the Reformation and the denominations we have today. The Reformation can only be understood in the context of medieval Western Catholicism, and the reaction against the abuses of Rome--therefore it is not, and cannot be universal, since it arose out of particular circumstances, in a Church which we also believe had lost a lot of the original apostolic faith.

The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches mutually excommunicated each other. Which side is right depends on whose arguments you choose to believe. If you choose to see the truth as a Person rather than an institution, you might look at the church post-Constantine and see that it's different from the church as described in Scripture and the early historical record.

I hope this season is a time we can lay our differences aside and joyfully proclaim that God is with us. As an American with freedom of religion, I am under no legal obligation to be an Orthodox Christian. And as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am under no obligation to uphold one church alone as the one true church. I'm sorry if I've given a different impression, but I sincerely believe that Orthodoxy is deserving respect as a Christian church, even if I don't feel obligated to it.

Given how much Protestantism is growing around the world in the present, especially in the Global South but also in regions that are traditionally Orthodox, it need not be seen as nothing more than a Western reaction to medieval Catholicism. Protestants honestly believe that they are following that which is contained in Scripture and the earliest Christian tradition. You may not share their belief and I don't expect you to, but I hope that we can all have peace together in Christ.

Andreas Moran

27-12-2009, 01:28 AM

If you choose to see the truth as a Person rather than an institution,

We do . . .

you might look at the church post-Constantine and see that it's different from the church as described in Scripture and the early historical record.

I do not see the Church post-Constantine as different from as it is described in Scripture and the early historical record. If you assert that it was different, you must cite authority.

Kosta

27-12-2009, 02:13 AM

Spero, i guess your reading a different bible than me and different history books, as well. As far as protestantism growing, I beg to differ, it is shrinking. Its dying in Europe which was the birthplace of the reformed movement. They cant get a foothold in Africa where the spread of Islam and catholicism dominates. Latin American protestantism is just a fusion of indegenous beliefs and folklore and american christianity. When its all said it done they still view the roman catholic church as their main church. When its time for a church marriage or funeral they always return to the romans.

M.C. Steenberg

27-12-2009, 12:26 PM

Dear friends,

Please note that I have changed the title of this thread to refer more directly to the key question originally posed. I've done this because since yesterday a series of posts were submitted (several of which had to be rejected as being entirely outside the scope of the forum) which attempt to carry forward with a basic Orthodoxy-vs-Protestantism, etc., approach. Such topics are simply outside our scope here.

I've re-named the thread in a 'last ditch' attempt to reclaim it for constructive patristically-orientated discussion of an interesting and important question. However, if it continues to attract more of the above, we'll simply have to close it for the time being.

Thanks to all for working to keep our discussions on topic.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Ben Johnson

27-12-2009, 07:37 PM

Paul Fowler

27-12-2009, 09:05 PM

Speros,

I have read through the wole of this thread carefully and also some of your othercomments elsewhere and have to say I wonder what you are actually asking? You present what is fundamentlaly a Protestant ecclesiology and then challenge us to agree with you. At risk of sounding incredibly obtuse I must ask, why? You clearly do not wish to become Orthodox yourself, so are you attempting to convert us?

Your presentation of Church History is primarily Fundamenatlist Protestantism and I wonder if you have ever read (for example) Fr Alexander Schmemann on Church History?

The responses posted here seem to me to have answered your questions but still you keep on. Which is why I ask the question: what are YOU actually asking? Are you seeking further clarification on Orthodox Ecclesiology, and if so which particualr aspect do you struggle with? Or, are you engaging in inter-confessional polemics, with a view to scoring points?

Forgive me for sounding harsh, I have actually found the thread most enlightening in terms of Orthodoxy but in reality wonder where it is going.

In XC

Paul

Eric Peterson

28-12-2009, 02:32 AM

The answer to the question in the OP is "all of it."

Fr Raphael Vereshack

28-12-2009, 11:21 PM

Isn't Orthodox teaching in its fullness something that we must with open mind & heart be working towards?

In other words there is so much that we do not yet grasp due to weakness and sinfulness on our part. But the Church accepts this as long we understand how this is connected to our deficiency. Then we can still grow in Christ and repent.

However let's say we turn from the Church's teaching out of hard-heartedness & pride. Then this changes everything for the road to struggle and growth in Christ has been closed by our own self-will.

In this predicament we endanger our very participation in the Body of Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Christopher Sajdak

16-07-2010, 03:53 AM

How much do you have to believe to be an Orthodox Christian?

Everything what the 7 Ecumenical councils have taught.
Everything the church today defines as dogma.

=)

Sacha

16-07-2010, 07:12 PM

How much do you have to believe to be an Orthodox Christian?

Everything what the 7 Ecumenical councils have taught.
Everything the church today defines as dogma.

=)

Does that mean that the Oriental Orthodox are not considered Orthodox by the Eastern Orthodox?

Herman Blaydoe

17-07-2010, 09:26 PM

We are not in communion because the Oriental churches do not accept all seven councils.

Christopher Sajdak

18-07-2010, 01:43 AM

Does that mean that the Oriental Orthodox are not considered Orthodox by the Eastern Orthodox?

Not 100% Orthodox ;)

Sacha

20-07-2010, 09:24 PM

Not 100% Orthodox ;)

My understanding is that the EO do not know if the OO are truly on the path to salvation. Is that correct? In other words, the EO church cannot say with certainty that the OO are truly on the path to salvation? Or I am missing something?

Paul Cowan

24-07-2010, 08:34 PM

The EO say we know where the True Church is and the path to salvation. As for other faiths, we say we God knows.

Father David Moser

24-07-2010, 10:47 PM

The EO say we know where the True Church is and the path to salvation. As for other faiths, we say we God knows.

I am getting to the point where I cringe whenever I see this saying. It is, in one sense, a true statement of the Orthodox belief - but it has been so misused over the years that I think it is no longer a useful statement. We know that there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that it is the Body of Christ and therefore in order to share in the life of Christ one must be joined organically to that Church. Will those who remain outside the Church in this life be joined to her in the next - God knows, we do not judge. But if you wish to be saved you must be an organic part of the Orthodox Church. The Oriental Orthodox Churches have separated themselves from this organic union in this world - will those who are in the OO be joined to the Church in the next, only God knows. The same goes for those who are part of the Roman Catholic confession or any one of the multitude of the protestant Christian confessions or even for those who are ignorant of Christ altogether. But we do know that the only sure path to salvation in this life is the Orthodox Church and even in the next life, if one is not joined to the Orthodox Church then one will not share in the life of Christ. We do not judge who will be saved that task is reserved for God alone - but we do bear witness that there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that it is the Orthodox Church.

Fr David Moser

Daniel Monroe

26-07-2010, 04:17 AM

I am getting to the point where I cringe whenever I see this saying.

Part of the problem is that while it is necessary in practice to accept the humble opinion that "we know where the true church is" etc., it is tempting to turn this into categorical and doctrinal claims that seem to follow (such as "Such and such heterodox Christians are probably saved").

The danger of such a conversion of a necessary opinion into a categorical statement is illustrated by arguing (in the precipitously hilly and frequently foggy Oregon coast) "Since I do not know whether such and such a road is safe or will lead me off a cliff, I can probably take it."

The ecclesiological humility which follows from our human limitations ought to make us more careful and not more "generous" about other churches.
Why take the risk?
Daniel

Antonios

27-07-2010, 07:56 AM

The ecclesiological humility which follows from our human limitations ought to make us more careful and not more "generous" about other churches.
Why take the risk?
Daniel

Because love endures all things.

Daniel Monroe

29-07-2010, 02:54 AM

Because love endures all things.

I do not doubt that I must love my non-Orthodox brother.
I do not doubt that I must hate his non-Orthodox theology.

To fancy that I can speak about my non-Orthodox brother's salvation with any certainty or hope is confuse what we must love (his soul) and hate (his non-Orthodox theology). That is just like advising a sick man that he will probably recover even though he won't take his medicine.

Really, it seems to me that we can neither say "Such-and-such a non-Orthodox Christian is probably going to Heaven" nor the opposite, since we cannot judge. All we can say is that we are grateful to be Orthodox.

Anyway, returning the Thread's question, the question of how much is interesting.
Suppose that the use of incense was opposed by bishops in the early centuries, then that the use of incense was accepted and finally that the use of incense was regarded as essential. Suppose further that we can break church history into three phases--opposition to incense, acceptance of incense and insistence on incense. Which of the three phases exhibit "the Church's teaching" that one must accept? Or is the question confined strictly to dogma?

Daniel Monroe

30-07-2010, 01:34 AM

Because love endures all things.

Suppose I am driving south on 101 on a foggy night and someone in the car says, "Daddy, since you do not really know where all those other unlit and unmarked roads lead to, isn't it really okay to take them? Why should your ignorance of them be a bar to our use of them?" Should I leave a lit, marked out and clearly mapped road and charge off along the coastal cliffs in the fog because love endures all things? Or should I exercise prudence, admit that love denies certain impertinent requests and stay on the road?
By the same token, when someone inquires about Orthodoxy, I do not tell them that because I cannot be sure about their salvation, it is probably okay for them to stay where they are or go somewhere like it; I congratulate them for coming home and do everything I can to get them going in the right direction.

Rick H.

02-08-2010, 05:57 PM

Michael Stickles

02-08-2010, 06:08 PM

Antonios

02-08-2010, 09:39 PM

Dear Daniel,

I thank Michael for noticing that perhaps we misunderstood one another. My reply was in response to why one may at times take such risks in how they communicate and prosyletize amongst their fellow neighbors.

A parent often must at times mix the needed medicine for their child in the particular fruit juice they are accustomed to in order for it to be accepted and swallowed. This also applies in certain circumstances with those who are babes in the faith.

Do we take such risks if we are severely allergic to that fruit juice?

We bear with our neighbor because we serve the Lord by serving them.

Love endures all things, including risks. The martyrs and Apostles being prime examples of those who have such love and endured such risks.

Thus, while it is good and noble and in line with the commandments of the Lord to lay out a well lit path with a map for those who are driving in a fog, it is greater still to sit next to them in that same car and help them find the correct path, even if it may lead you off a cliff.

Of course, not everyone is of strong enough faith to take such a risk (myself being one of them), but to those who do and remain true to the faith, even to death off a cliff, they will be called great in the Kingdom of God.

Herman Blaydoe

03-08-2010, 02:32 AM

How much of the Church's teaching must one accept to be Orthodox? I think a better question is who determines the answer to this question?

Is it you?

How much of the Church's teaching can one reject and not feel like a hypocrite? But there are times when someone says "The Church teaches this" and another says "no the Church teaches something else". But THAT is exactly why we have bishops, that is why they get to wear the funny hats. That is why we pray at every Divine Liturgy that God "... preserve them for Your holy churches in peace, in safety, in honor and in health for many years, so that they may faithfully dispense the word of Your truth."

Is that so hard?

Rick H.

03-08-2010, 03:26 AM

But there are times when someone says "The Church teaches this" and another says "no the Church teaches something else". But THAT is exactly why we have bishops, that is why they get to wear the funny hats.

In my experience, in such times, the bishop and his funny hat are like motorcycle doors.

Daniel Monroe

03-08-2010, 05:25 AM

I have a relative who used to drive a logging truck down from the mountains on the logging 'roads' in Oregon. One night after he and his family, and I and my family, made a dash home from Spirit Lake in separate vehicles I mentioned to him that there were times when I was pretty uncomfortable with the trip back. It was at this time he told me about some of his experiences driving a semi fully loaded down some of the logging roads in Oregon. Especially with his stories of coming down the mountain on narrow muddy roads, with drop-offs at every turn he concluded, "Sometimes you just have to do the best you can."

We are not all on the same path at the same time.

How much of the Church's teaching must one accept to be Orthodox? I think a better question is who determines the answer to this question?

Is it you?

If there were no Orthodox church--God forbid--then your relative's advice would be the best that can be offered.

The fact that Orthodoxy is offered to us freely means that salvation is not a matter of luck.

Now, as for who determines the answer to this question, I hope it is not me.

If I thought I knew the answer, I would not be interested in this thread.

Daniel Monroe

03-08-2010, 05:50 AM

I'm getting to the point where, like Fr David, I cringe when these things come up, although for me it's because I'm anticipating the rounds of misunderstanding and talking past each other that almost inevitably ensue (I suspect that Daniel and Antonios' subsequent posts might be a case in point). Beyond that, though, we seem to have drifted a bit off-topic.

(This should be where I make some comments that bring us back on-topic, but I really don't have much to say on this one, except that the question itself seems to have problems that I'm having trouble untangling - I think the overall focus is off and needs to be shifted before it can really make sense)

Michael, you are right about people talking past one another. (Sorry, Antonios!)

As for getting back on topic, is everything about the church essential? For example, are the hat worn by the bishop and the language used in the liturgy just as crucial to the church as her Christology?

If not everything about the church is essential, where does one draw the line? I suspect that hats and languages are accidents of history, but what about incense or iconostases?

One problem with this line of reasoning is that the Vatican II RCC has come off looking very sorry for having pursued it.

Sacha

03-08-2010, 07:20 AM

I do not doubt that I must love my non-Orthodox brother.
I do not doubt that I must hate his non-Orthodox theology.

To fancy that I can speak about my non-Orthodox brother's salvation with any certainty or hope is confuse what we must love (his soul) and hate (his non-Orthodox theology). That is just like advising a sick man that he will probably recover even though he won't take his medicine.

Really, it seems to me that we can neither say "Such-and-such a non-Orthodox Christian is probably going to Heaven" nor the opposite, since we cannot judge. All we can say is that we are grateful to be Orthodox.

Anyway, returning the Thread's question, the question of how much is interesting.
Suppose that the use of incense was opposed by bishops in the early centuries, then that the use of incense was accepted and finally that the use of incense was regarded as essential. Suppose further that we can break church history into three phases--opposition to incense, acceptance of incense and insistence on incense. Which of the three phases exhibit "the Church's teaching" that one must accept? Or is the question confined strictly to dogma?

Daniel,

Would you say, in the light of the above, that the Oriental Orthodox are illegitimately using the name 'Orthodox' in their appellation?

If one truly believes that one does not know whether the other paths necessarily lead to damnation, why emphasize one possible outcome over the other? Doesn't "we don't know" mean "we don't know"?

Rick H.

03-08-2010, 12:19 PM

I wonder if anyone really thinks this question (How much of the Church's teaching . . .) is one that can be answered? I wonder if anyone has considered why someone would even ask such a question or be interested in pondering such a question? I think the motivation to even consider such a question is interesting.

Looking back at the original poster who posed this question, and seeing he is not an Orthodox Church Member, I would share that one's journey is not a matter of luck, much as Daniel has said, but it is a matter of Grace and to a certain extent timing . . . and again, not all people are on the same path at the same time. I know there are just a small handful of posters here on this website, but it never ceases to amaze me how many of the posts here on monachos seem to be ignorant of the fact that one cannot expect the end of a process during the middle of the process or at the beginning. Forceful proclamations from on high only mock, revile, and repel those who are doing the best that they can.

I think Herman the Simple has provided a perfect answer to this question in the Spiritual IQ thread yesterday. Good job with that question by the way Pooh! In my book you got an "A" on that test.

How much of the Church's teaching must one accept to be Orthodox? "It is best to know Christ."

Herman Blaydoe

03-08-2010, 01:53 PM

Michael, you are right about people talking past one another. (Sorry, Antonios!)

As for getting back on topic, is everything about the church essential? For example, are the hat worn by the bishop and the language used in the liturgy just as crucial to the church as her Christology?

The tool is not the teaching, but the tool can be essential for teaching. Christology is a teaching. A mitre is a tool, a symbol that helps convey the teaching. The Church is the medium, Christ is the message. We must be careful not to succumb to a McLuhanian medium becoming the message. And we must be careful not to lose the message just because we want to "spiff up" the medium. Changing the medium CAN change the message presented. If changes are made, it must be to better present the message, the Good News, the Gospel.

The Church HAS changed through the centuries. It does adapt in certain ways to the cultural milieu it finds itself in, but it is there to transform the milieu, not to allow the milieu to transform it as has happened with other confessions.

If not everything about the church is essential, where does one draw the line? I suspect that hats and languages are accidents of history, but what about incense or iconostases?

Incense has been part of worship since Cain and Abel. The iconostas is a continuation of Temple tradition. Is it "essential"? It is a teaching tool, it symbolizes the separation of God and man. It ALL has a meaning, and it ALL works to preserve the Apostolic Witness. Anything that works to preserve the Apostolic Witness is essential, anything that detracts from it, perhaps not so much.

Can things be changed to BETTER communicate the Apostolic Witness? I suspect so, but we really need to understand the WHY of the change, and decide if it really does improve our communication. Merely eliminating things to make it "easier" to deal with, like shorter services where much teaching is left out, or more "modern" music to add entertainment value, might not be the best way to go forward, for instance.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that the Vatican II RCC has come off looking very sorry for having pursued it.

It was change for the sake of change, not change to communicate Christ better. Things were given up that took away meaning and nothing really was added to better express that meaning.

Daniel Monroe

04-08-2010, 04:55 PM

Daniel,

Would you say, in the light of the above, that the Oriental Orthodox are illegitimately using the name 'Orthodox' in their appellation?

If one truly believes that one does not know whether the other paths necessarily lead to damnation, why emphasize one possible outcome over the other? Doesn't "we don't know" mean "we don't know"?

I am not competent to judge Oriental Orthodoxy.
I believe my appeal to consequences (if I do not know, then why take a chance) replies to your second and third objections. However, keep in mind that it is crucial to my appeal to consequences that Orthodoxy is the right road. If this crucial point is dismissed, then naturally I am frozen in a confession of ignorance: maybe the Baptists are right, maybe the Methodists are right, maybe the Catholics are right etc.

Sacha

04-08-2010, 09:21 PM

I am not competent to judge Oriental Orthodoxy.
I believe my appeal to consequences (if I do not know, then why take a chance) replies to your second and third objections. However, keep in mind that it is crucial to my appeal to consequences that Orthodoxy is the right road. If this crucial point is dismissed, then naturally I am frozen in a confession of ignorance: maybe the Baptists are right, maybe the Methodists are right, maybe the Catholics are right etc.

By my understanding, you have already judged Oriental Orthodoxy because if not, then there's a logical contrariety in your argument. But, please discount my opinion, it is not worth much and certainly not authoritative. I was inquiring for my own understanding only. Thanks.

Daniel Monroe

04-08-2010, 09:31 PM

I wonder if anyone really thinks this question (How much of the Church's teaching . . .) is one that can be answered? I wonder if anyone has considered why someone would even ask such a question or be interested in pondering such a question? I think the motivation to even consider such a question is interesting.

It seems as though this question comes up in two contexts: converts who feel uneasy about shouldering 2000 years of Orthodox tradition and anyone examining ostensibly unsustainable claims.
The former context needs no comment for anyone who has converted; Orthodoxy can be overwhelming. The latter context needs an example--the pia fraus.

I once heard a priest repeat some stories concerning the Septuagint, including the story that the 72 translators had miraculously produced the same translation. I strongly suspect that if I had expressed my rejection of these stories, he would have been as aggravated as if I had rejected the Nicene creed. To him, what to me are apocryphal fables are vital to Orthodoxy, particularly if repeated by a saintly source.

In short, my motive is not how little can I believe and still get away with it, but how much must I believe when putatively unhistorical or anachronistic stories and practices are claimed by some to be binding on all Orthodox Christians.

Paul Cowan

05-08-2010, 06:28 AM

Take what you like and leave the rest. Everyone else does. God knows the heart. He will judge. What's important? This is what you should know. I think it was St. Paul who said whatever is kind, whatever is just, whatever is lovely etc, think on these things. (ie Christ)

Paul

Jason H.

09-08-2010, 07:48 PM

Owen

09-08-2010, 10:15 PM

For the time being, take what you like; leave the rest to be worked on as you mature.

Jason H.

09-08-2010, 10:57 PM

I say take what you have questions/doubts/concerns about and approach them either through research, reading, talking with a Priest, or a monk, and using what you love about the Church to keep you motivated.

Ignatius, a sinner

Herman Blaydoe

10-08-2010, 12:22 AM

How much of your spouse must you accept to be married?

Herman the very married Pooh

Daniel Monroe

10-08-2010, 01:01 AM

This sounds like what all my former liberal Episcopalians used to say. (Not saying you are a liberal)

My angle on the question of how much must one accept of church teachings is confined to items comprehended by the pia fraus. I am sure that Paul takes it for granted that dogma is excluded from consideration.
The question of how much one must accept only arises when pieties are given the same weight as dogma.

Paul Cowan

12-08-2010, 06:07 AM

This sounds like what all my former liberal Episcopalians used to say. (Not saying you are a liberal)

Nor am I Episcopalian. Liberal or otherwise.

My point was if someone is so immature (young) in the faith as to have to ask this question, this person is drinking milk. They are not nor capable of eating meat. If we force down someones throat the hardcoreness of our faith, they will run away. Love and charity to all and a gentle (most of the time) education process will help people grow in their Orthodox faith.

We are called to pray. Quality is not important. Quantity is. If a new comer or even an old timer has problems with a serious portion of what they believe, but they fully embrace some other aspect of it, then they should embrace that. God will work on their heart for the other. I am not saying if someone rejects a part of what we believe. That is a whole different matter.

Jeremy Troy

14-08-2010, 09:05 PM

To be Orthodox, for a layperson, is to receive the sacrament of chrismation and participate in the life of the Church. Why a person would want to do these things if they did not believe the doctrines of the Church to be true is beyond me.

Jeremy

Angelos

14-08-2010, 11:13 PM

Are all baptized considered Orthodox, even if they have committed mortal sins (that they have not confessed)? What if they go to Church only twice a year?

What does it take to be part of the Body of Christ, the way the Orthodox Church defines it? Are some non-Orthodox part of the Body of Christ, if they follow God's will on earth?

Was Mother Teresa, part of the Body of Christ? (as an example of a non-Orthodox person who thried her best to follow Jesus' commands)

Angelos

15-08-2010, 12:34 AM

This thread concerns whether Eastern Orthodoxy alone is the one true church. Jesus said that by their fruits you will know them as true. If other churches do a better job at living out Jesus' teachings, who is the true church? This is an important question and I don't meant to cause offense in asking it.

There is one way to answer this in the negative. Any Church that has a platform in direct contradiction to God's will does not speak of God and does not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and soon Methodists, do not speak for God today. They promote a pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay-ordination, pro-fornication lifestyle that is contrary to what God commanded. I have read their official positions on these issues and I was horrified. Abortion is a "right" when there's no easy access to contraceptives!! Marriage is redefined as between any two persons!! Cohabitation is blessed; who needs marriage. Openly gays are ordained Bishops!!

By their fruits we know them indeed.

Jason H.

15-08-2010, 09:44 PM

There is one way to answer this in the negative. Any Church that has a platform in direct contradiction to God's will does not speak of God and does not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and soon Methodists, do not speak for God today. They promote a pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay-ordination, pro-fornication lifestyle that is contrary to what God commanded. I have read their official positions on these issues and I was horrified. Abortion is a "right" when there's no easy access to contraceptives!! Marriage is redefined as between any two persons!! Cohabitation is blessed; who needs marriage. Openly gays are ordained Bishops!!

By their fruits we know them indeed.

The same can be applied to the Roman church just by some of the teachings/dogmas. They are in direct contradiction with the Original Church, the Orthodox Church.

Angelos

16-08-2010, 02:59 AM

The same can be applied to the Roman church just by some of the teachings/dogmas. They are in direct contradiction with the Original Church, the Orthodox Church.

There's a huge difference between promoting the exact sinful behavior that God explicitly condemned and disagreeing on how to explain Mary's sinlessness or the secondary source of the Holy Spirit

Herman Blaydoe

16-08-2010, 04:16 AM

A gentle reminder that the purpose of this forum is not to disparage other faiths. There are plenty of other places out there for inter-faith discussions, this is not one of them. This thread in particular is not about other faiths, it is particularly about the faith of Orthodox Church and the acceptance of its teachings. The teachings of other faiths is off-topic.

Herman

Hieromonk Ambrose

15-10-2010, 11:33 PM

How much of the Church's teaching must one accept to be Orthodox? The *ideal* answer is, all of it. Orthodoxy looks on the faith as a united and organic whole. Converts may have doubts in the beginning about one or two aspects of the faith but it is hoped and expected that they will grow into its fulness.

"Speaking of the Anglo-Russian Theological Conference at Moscow in 1956, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, expressed the Orthodox viewpoint exactly:

‘The Orthodox said in effect: ‘…The Tradition is a concrete fact. Here it is, in its totality. Do you Anglicans accept it, or do you reject it?’ The Tradition is for the Orthodox one indivisible whole: the entire, life of the Church in its fullness of belief and custom down the ages, including Mariology and the veneration of icons.

"Faced with this challenge, the typically Anglican reply is: ‘We would not regard veneration of icons or Mariology as inadmissible, provided that in determining what is necessary to salvation, we confine ourselves to Holy Scripture.’ But this reply only throws into relief the contrast between the Anglican appeal to what is deemed necessary to salvation and the Orthodox appeal to the one indivisible organism of Tradition, to tamper with any part of which is to spoil the whole, in the sort of way
that a single splodge on a picture can mar its beauty."

(‘The Moscow Conference in Retrospect,’ in Sobornost, series 3, no. 23, 1958, pp. 562-563).

In the words of another Anglican writer: ‘It has been said that the Faith is like a network rather than an assemblage of discrete dogmas; cut one strand and the whole pattern loses its meaning’

(T. M. Parker, ‘Devotion to the Mother of God,’ in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall)

Robin Elizabeth

31-10-2010, 01:18 AM

So, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and soon Methodists, do not speak for God today. They promote a pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay-ordination, pro-fornication lifestyle that is contrary to what God commanded. I have read their official positions on these issues and I was horrified. Abortion is a "right" when there's no easy access to contraceptives!! Marriage is redefined as between any two persons!! Cohabitation is blessed; who needs marriage. Openly gays are ordained Bishops!!

Please take more care before issuing blank statements like this. I don't know about the official position of the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches, but I do know that the Lutherans have 3 major synods in America (the equivalent of our jurisdictions) and only one of those accepts the "pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay-ordination, pro-fornication" lifestyle. The other 2 are adamantly opposed to all of these, and have said so publicly.

Michael Stickles

01-11-2010, 03:54 PM

Presbyterians and Episcopelians (at least the last time I checked) are similar to the Lutherans in that regard; I don't know about Methodists. I do know it's often difficult to say anything definitive about any of the major Protestant denominations without specifying which subdivision(s) you're referring to. And that's not counting the denominations with strong grassroots movements opposing various official positions.

All of which is another reason why interdenominational issues are normally outside the scope of the forum (though not, of course, the primary reason). Many of us have been amused and/or appalled at various Protestant mis-understandings of what the Orthodox actually believe; we Orthodox probably do not do much (if any) better trying to present the beliefs of Protestant groups we've not had serious personal involvement with. Best to get back on topic and focus on our own faith, as the thread's question does.

Rick H.

01-11-2010, 04:24 PM

. . . we Orthodox probably do not do much (if any) better trying to present the beliefs of Protestant groups we've not had serious personal involvement with.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Father David Moser

01-11-2010, 05:24 PM

Many of us have been amused and/or appalled at various Protestant mis-understandings of what the Orthodox actually believe; we Orthodox probably do not do much (if any) better trying to present the beliefs of Protestant groups we've not had serious personal involvement with.

Which is why I usually begin religious discussions with prots by saying, "What do you think about ...?" and then working off their answer rather than what I think they believe or what I have heard they believe.

Fr David

Kenneth Evans

06-12-2010, 11:10 PM

In the New Testament, "priest" is not used for an office of the church aside from the high priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of all believers.

Hi Speros, and All --

Is it not the case that the Church wrote and therefore has the right to interpret the Scriptures? Church came before Scripture, not the other way around. The events of the Scripture tell the story of the Church, but the Bible itself is a divinely-inspired creation of the Church.

If this is the case, then the Church has more authority than the text -- the text is one of the things which gives the Church its authority, but the Church also gives the text its authority (as in when the Church has included or excluded gospels, et.c)... no?

So the "New Testament" cannot alone be an agent that determines the activities of the Church.

That sounds radical, now that I write it down like that -- but is it not the case?

Angelos

07-12-2010, 02:54 PM

Mr KD Evans

You do have a point, as long as by the "Church" when it comes to interpreting Scripture you mean the Ecumenical Councils. Otherwise I do not think that individual priests or Bishops have the authority to re-interpret Scripture in a binding way (of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but then it is just that, an opinion and it does not represent the totality of the Church)

Michael Stickles

09-12-2010, 08:27 PM

You do have a point, as long as by the "Church" when it comes to interpreting Scripture you mean the Ecumenical Councils. Otherwise I do not think that individual priests or Bishops have the authority to re-interpret Scripture in a binding way

Well, yes and no (or, to keep it in order, no and yes). The Church's authority to interpret Scripture goes well beyond the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils. However, it's true that it is not a matter merely of the statements of individuals; rather, true interpretation is found in the consistent testimony of the Church across time and space - the writings of the Fathers, the testimony of the Saints, and the accepted hymnography and iconography. Where these agree, you find the mind of the Church.

Anna Stickles

10-12-2010, 12:18 AM

There are a lot of threads here dedicated to this issue, but my reading in City of God today had a good quote in relation to this. In talking about his own interpretation of Gen 1 and the possibility of other equally valid interpretations St Augustine says this, "The matter is so profound that it may give rise to many interpretations which are not in conflict with the Rule of Faith"

It's this Rule of Faith with which the Church has been entrusted and which it must faithfully proclaim, not a single right or "inerrant" interpretation of Scripture. This is what is contained, as Michael notes, in the writings, the hymnography, iconography etc. of the Church.

Xenia Moos

10-12-2010, 03:18 AM

IMO, one must believe all that one can and pray for the grace to believe all the rest.

Antonios

10-12-2010, 07:16 AM

IMO, one must believe all that one can and pray for the grace to believe all the rest.

"Lord I believe, help my unbelief!"

Keri

19-12-2010, 08:41 PM

Speros,

I am always skeptical about believing in things that aren't provable. I don't know if there is a God. Or, perhaps it's the definition of God that confuses me. Part of me thinks God is our conscience. God is the goodness of our souls. Another part of me thinks that God is the creator of all (even if it is simply a higher being). I always wonder if once we pass, we simply just go to sleep and never wake up. Regardless of all the possibilities I believe that if there is a God, then He is not racist. Meaning He will not hold a lower spot in heaven for you just being you have a different faith. If there is a God, He wants you to be good. He wants you to love and be a good friend, family-man, neighbor, etc. I don't believe that God will be angry if you do not fast, or do not attend church. I think that if you are forgetting the teachings of Jesus and you forget how to be a good person, then maybe attending service will help keep you in the right direction. If you don't see the point in fasting (I don't) then don't feel guilty if you break it. If Orthodoxy is not your faith then don't be Orthodox. More importantly, don't feel guilty. If there is a God, he loves us all. Just be a good person. Help others. Love your family. God will love you.

Herman Blaydoe

20-12-2010, 12:26 AM

Suffice it to say that this does not really answer the question on what it takes to be considered "Orthodox".

Paul Cowan

20-12-2010, 12:45 AM

No, but it is a great definition of Mormonism.

Besides, Jesus Himself told us to fast.

Matthew 6:16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Paul

Speros

29-12-2010, 07:54 AM

I am sorry to anyone I may have offended in this thread. I never intended on converting anyone away from Eastern Orthodoxy. I love many things about Eastern Orthodoxy, including its contributions to liturgical music, mysticism, theology, and iconography. I simply no longer believe that it is the one true church. At the same time, I appreciate what it's done for the spiritual lives of millions of its members.

While I still attend a Protestant church, I wouldn't consider my views exclusively Protestant. Instead, I try to learn from perspectives from whole the whole of the Christian faith, rather than just one expression of that faith. There are certain things I believe that the Reformation got right, like that Jesus, not the church hierarchy, is the one mediator between God and man. On other things, the Reformers were wrong and later Protestant leaders like John Wesley corrected them.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

29-12-2010, 03:49 PM

Speros wrote:

the church hierarchy, is the one mediator between God and man.

Speros- this isn't Orthodox teaching either.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Speros

30-12-2010, 12:37 PM

Speros wrote:

Speros- this isn't Orthodox teaching either.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I am posting this in answer to your statement and I am sorry if it offends anyone:

Question: "What is sacerdotalism?"

Answer: Sacerdotalism is the belief that priests are essential mediators between God and man. The word sacerdotal comes from the Latin word for “priest” and literally means “to make sacred.” Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican forms of worship are sacerdotal.

Sacerdotalism teaches that the priesthood is a special class of churchman and is a necessary part of worship. People cannot approach God on their own, but must come through a priest, whether it is for confessing sin, taking communion, or receiving grace. Any divine blessing conferred upon an individual comes through the Church; that is, through the Church’s ordained priesthood.

The Old Testament law placed the Jews under a sacerdotal system. Aaron and his sons were divinely selected to be the first priests to minister to Israel (Exodus 28:1). The priestly duties included offering sacrifices for the atonement of sin (Hebrews 5:1); representing the nation before God (Exodus 28:9-12); and teaching the people God’s Word (Ezekiel 44:23).

The Old Testament priesthood was a picture of the future ministry of Christ, who fulfills all that the Levitical priesthood anticipated. The book of Hebrews, especially chapters 5-10, presents Jesus Christ as the perfect High Priest and the fulfillment of the Old Testament law. In Christ, the entire legalistic system of sacrifice and ritual, including the priesthood, is made obsolete (Romans 10:4).

The New Testament does not support a sacerdotal system of worship. As Martin Luther points out in The Private Mass and Consecration of Priests, the Holy Spirit has “in the New Testament diligently prevented the name sacerdos, priest or cleric, from being given even to an apostle or to various other offices.” In other words, the Bible never uses the word priest in relation to church leadership; rather, the Bible teaches the universal priesthood of all believers.

When Jesus offered Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin, God tore the veil in the temple in two, indicating open access to His presence through the body of Christ (Hebrews 10:19-20). Jesus now occupies the office of eternal High Priest, making constant intercession for His people (Hebrews 7:24-25).

Sacerdotalism insulates people from God, erecting human barriers where the New Testament places none. The Scripture is clear that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Biblically speaking, every believer is a priest “offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
http://www.gotquestions.org/sacerdotalism.html

Herman Blaydoe

30-12-2010, 01:59 PM

Excuse me Speros, but this is NOT from an Orthodox source, this is an example of twisted "truth". To the Orthodox, this is meaningless. As Father has already said, it is NOT ORTHODOX, this particular quote was written by someone who does not understand Orthodoxy, who obviously has an anti-sacramental agenda.

Please do not come into an Orthodox forum using outside sources to tell us what we believe.

Understand?

George Kay

30-12-2010, 04:42 PM

Dear Speros

Your question reminded of the time when my wife, baptized Lutheran, converted to Orthodoxy. She too was worried about how much she had to agree to before becoming Orthodox. The answer was: the Nicean Creed. The Priest answered that all she had to believe in was written in the Nicean creed. As a Lutheran born and raised she had no problem with that.

After a short Chrismation ceremony she became Orthodox. It was quite simple actually. She did not have to debate a council of Bishops on the merits of this or that dogma, nor state her opinions about the virginity of the Theotokos, but I am willing to bet that she could do so today.

I am assuming from your first post that you were baptized in the Orthodox Church and that you currently go to a Lutheran church. That at some point in your life you practiced the Faith within an Orthodox environment. A good conversation with an Orthodox Priest ought to be enough to get you back into the Church.

My understanding is that - and please, readers and moderators, feel free to correct me if I am wrong - the only thing needed to be a member of the Orthodox Church is to be baptized in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church practices infant baptism so it follows that the baptized is not even required to be able to speak, let alone understand the particulars and reasoning behind the dogma.

The Church knows that there are many things that cannot be known from “outside” the Church. Orthodoxy is not a philosophy or a world view whose tenets were constructed through debate and consensus. It is a foretaste of Heaven on Earth, it is a mansion where our beloved Christ dwells, and where our brothers and sisters edge one another onward to the Divine bridal chamber. One learns what these things mean by doing them. One learns to be someone’s son or daughter, brother or sister, by living in his parent’s house, not by reading about these things.

Finally I wish to add that I recognize myself in your struggle. I was baptized Greek Orthodox, but my parents went to Church only once a year, on Palm Sunday (not counting funerals, baptisms, etc…). As a boy, I was sent to a private catholic school, where I learned to hate God, Christianity, and the Church with a passion. It took me 20 years to remember my Baptism and rediscover the Orthodox Church. The Jews had to spend 40 years in the desert, so I consider myself lucky, and I pray that your sojourn in the waste land of western theology will be much shorter.

My best wishes for a blessed new year.
George

Speros

30-12-2010, 04:43 PM

I am posting this in answer to your statement and I am sorry if it offends anyone:

As I said, my purpose here isn't to tell others what to believe. It's just that there are Scriptural reasons why Protestants don't accept the authority of the priesthood.

Father David Moser

30-12-2010, 06:01 PM

As I said, my purpose here isn't to tell others what to believe. It's just that there are Scriptural reasons why Protestants don't accept the authority of the priesthood.

Actually, as a former Protestant, I think it is more accurate to say that Protestants (for the most part - since Anglicans and Lutherans are also "protestants" and yet have a priesthood - and Methodists and Presbyterians are also very "priestly" in their structure) don't accept their idea of the priesthood. As for the scriptural reasons, they are the same reasons that Orthodox Christians reject the twisted ideas that some hold of the priesthood while upholding the true priesthood.

Fr David Moser

Jason H.

30-12-2010, 06:25 PM

As I said, my purpose here isn't to tell others what to believe. It's just that there are Scriptural reasons why Protestants don't accept the authority of the priesthood.

Speros,

If you are not here to tell us what to believe then why do post things that are not Orthodox teachings? Also, make statements as to why your institution disregards the Holy Priesthood.

I guess I should say, it's better to ask simple questions than to post heterodox statements.

-Ignatios

John Gabriel Corcoran

31-12-2010, 02:06 AM

I was impressed by a non-orthodox speaker at a conference about addiction. He was talking about Alcoholics Anonymous and had been sober for over 25 years. He quoted the writings of Bill Wilson about how very sceptical alcoholics eventually realised that their problem could be solved in this Fellowship which approaches the problem in a Spiritual way and requires acceptance of the concept of a God or a Higher Power. The relevance of this reference was that Wilson had written that after AA had grown in size from 8 or 9 members to a movement of world wide dimensions with hundreds of thousands of successful transitions from active alcoholism he realised that there was a simple lesson that he and AA had learned about members coming to believe that God would and could cure their addiction. It was that, and I paraphrase ' I thought that changing my thinking would change my actions, in fact we found it was the opposite. By changing our actions we changed our thinking'.

I believe that unless one puts aside any attempts to tick every box before you come to believe in Orthodox thinking, you will never get past the vestibule. As Wilson indicated , and I believe he was an insightful Christian, though not an Orthodox, that it is participation and involvement in an organisation of other human beings eventually brings a change in your thinking.

Waiting for your thinking to change first, just encourages prevarication, get involved , and if you find that if your thinking doesnt alter, then theres always an exit door. But you wont be able to alter your outlook unless you allow involvement and participation in a community to alter your thinking...

Herman Blaydoe

31-12-2010, 03:09 AM

As I said, my purpose here isn't to tell others what to believe. It's just that there are Scriptural reasons why Protestants don't accept the authority of the priesthood.

Those aren't really Scriptural reasons, they are specious reasons, based on a very limited and incorrect understanding of Scripture. It is relatively easy to take small snippets of Scripture in isolation and assign to them meanings that the writers of that Scripture never intended. It is called proof-texting. Text without context is pretext.

Herman the contextual Pooh

Anna Stickles

31-12-2010, 04:17 AM

Just to be clear here, Orthodoxy has priests, but it also clearly teaches and proclaims the priesthood of all believers. Certainly we can find in Scripture the fact that these two - having priests mediating the worship and yet also having the people being the priesthood - is not contradictory. Israel had priests and yet the whole nation in Exodus 19:5-6 is called a nation of priests. St Peter in I Peter 2 where this is mentioned, is clearly, in context, not proclaiming something new for the Church, but rather emphasizing the parallel between the Church and Israel.

It might be interesting to start a thread with quotes and teachings from the Fathers on the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer as found in Orthodoxy. And maybe also on the position of the Orthodox priest in the liturgical worship and in his sacramental role. It is something that is generally misunderstood by those who have not taken the time to learn about it, but have rather gone by hearsay.

Speros

31-12-2010, 10:24 PM

If you look at Paul's early letters, the first Christian communities were free form in their worship, rather than hierarchical.

Herman Blaydoe

31-12-2010, 10:51 PM

Actually, if you look at the evidence without an agenda, you will find out that the first Christian communities were liturgical in their worship, and not "freeform" at all.

Rick H.

31-12-2010, 11:06 PM

Happy New Year Pooh!

1.) What do we mean when we say the first Christian communities?

2.) Where would we see that the first Christian communities were liturgical in their worship Herman?

3.) Are you passing out some of your Glen Fiditch (sp?) or whatever (the good stuff is called) for all posters tonight?

Herman Blaydoe

31-12-2010, 11:43 PM

1) I mean the first Christian communities, you know, the ones described in the Bible?

2) Acts 13. In verse 2, the Greek the word "leitourgounton" is used. Actually look in the Didache, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, they all refer to liturgical worship. And how about Hebrews 8:5 and 9:23 where St. Paul talks about how God told His people to worship in ways patterned after things in Heaven. Did the Hebrews worship in a "freeform" manner? Not hardly. I dare anyone to "prove" that "freeform" worship was described in either the Old or New Testament. If there is ANY "form" of worship that resembles "things in Heaven" how could be anything but the Divine Liturgy, practically wrested from the pages of Revelation?

3) Sure come on over. I got a nice new bottle of Glen Fidditch from my boss for Christmas (yeah, he owed me big time).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YmMNpbFjp0

Paul Fowler

01-01-2011, 12:00 AM

Happy New Year-and Many Happy New Years!!

I found the book "Orthodox Worship" by Benjamin Williams & Harold Anstall (pub Light & Life, 1990) very useful. It is a scholarly look at Orthodox ecclesiology and counters the Evangelical approach to the Early Church-which I was brought up on.

At my house we have Sancerre, not Glen Fidditch

Reader Paul

Rick H.

01-01-2011, 12:54 AM

It looks like it's almost a straight shot over to Maryland but I wouldn't get there until about 4:30 AM. Oh well, maybe next year. Is Maryland a state? The other day someone was trying to tell me that Delaware is a state.

We are getting wild and crazy here tonight. I actually just ordered pizza with Jalapenos on it.

I like the easy button! :0) . . . for some reason though, for you Herman, I think you should have a "Why a duck? button.

Happy New Year to you Rdr. Paul. Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll check it out. Thanks for your response Herman, I do not feel inclined to take issue with any of it tonight. I have wondered about this before though. Maybe it is not unreasonable to think there was a time when the earliest Christian communities began in the beginning they didn't have either priests or liturgy in their worship. But, again it depends on what one means when one speaks of the early Christian communities. I would think there was a time when the earliest Christians did not have printed out liturgies that were recited.

Yes, why a duck?

PS Paul--notice my writing in that thread made heavy use of the past tense . . . but, then again maybe once a red neck always a red neck! Okay, what the hell pass me one of those bottles that are going around tonight.

Herman Blaydoe

01-01-2011, 01:27 AM

Rick, Rick, Rick. Why are you bringing up that old canard? :P

Of course Maryland is a state, it is a very spiritual state of mind!

Christian communities as described in Holy Scripture had elders and deacons, appointed to their roles by the laying on of hands, even as the Apostles themselves were appointed by Christ our Lord Himself. Sounds positively sacramental to me.

And I think it easier to imagine a relatively simple Liturgy would be much easier to do, particularly among people who were able to memorize much better than our current MTV short attention span generations, than having to make it up as you go each and every time, don't you think? Of course Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy did not spring up fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. It DEVELOPED over time, but not ex nihilo. It was based on Jewish Temple worship. You do realize that the first "early Christians" were Jews right? And that they followed a rather prescribed worship as ordained by GOD, yes? Why wouldn't this carry over in some form into their worship as Christians, hmmm?

Makes more sense than that propaganda that the Protties produce, claiming "free-form" worship. What an idea!

Herman the liturgical Pooh

Anna Stickles

01-01-2011, 03:30 AM

The faithful, after hearing the teaching, after the prayers and the communion of the sacraments, when the assembly was now over, did not leave at once for their homes, but the wealthy and well-off brought food and provender from their homes, called the poor, and offered communal tables, communal dinners, and communal banquets inside the church itself. In this way, the love between them was strengthened by the sharing of the table and by the piety exuded by the place and on all sides. As a result, they were on the one hand happy, and on the other greatly benefited. Indeed, the poor took great comfort and the wealthy won the favor both of the people who ate and of God, for whom they did all these things. And having received much divine grace, they returned to their homes. (Homily 27 on 1 Cor 11:17) John Chrysostom

St John here gives a description of the agape meals. Over time, though, the meal part was dropped and just the prayers, readings, communion etc were left. You can see in the writings even in the NT, and also in Tertullian, who mentions the agape meals as still going on in his time, that abuses and disorder started occuring and this, along with practical reasons due to church growth, seems to be the primary reason the meal was dropped.

I did some research awhile ago tracing the development of the worship in the early church from the agape meal described here to the type of liturgical worship that was fully developed by St John Chrysostom's time. As best as I could discern with the limited time I spent, the early agape meals were very much like the type of seder meal that the Jews still celebrate today. It included a specific order of lighting of candles, a blessing, prayers, readings, etc. Their are four cups that are drunk at different times in the seder meal and of the four, two are mentioned in the gospel accounts of the meal that Jesus ate with his disciples. One can do research on the history of the Jewish seder and find information on what this was like during the Roman period. Also a there is a considerable amount of information on the development of the liturgy from it's earliest forms based in Jewish worship to the type of liturgy we celebrate today. This has been well researched.

'freeform' worship was unheard of either among the Jews or the pagans of the time. The festal meals of the Jews, the prayers, etc, all had certain 'rules' in their composition. These were not written down, and the rabbis (and early bishops in the Christian church) had a lot of leeway in composing these prayers. (researchers have noted that the prayer included in the Didache follows the form of the typical Jewish prayers of this time, except with Christian themes) In the early church the liturgical prayers were not written. The bishop had the freedom to compose his own. Eventually though the standard written liturgy was adopted because heretical bishops were using this flexibility to introduce their heresies into the church.

As far as priests in worship- well the earliest writings outside the NT mention that the bishop offered the gifts, and bishops are mentioned in the NT.

Just a note on trying to make the Bible the authoritative source for early Christian worship

"In Protestant biblical studies it is taught (and I think correctly taught in this instance) that when you study the Bible, among many other considerations, you must consider the genre (or literary type) of literature that you are reading in a particular passage, because different genres have different uses. Another consideration is of course the subject and purpose of the book or passage you are dealing with. In the New Testament we have four broad categories of literary genres: gospel, historical narrative (Acts), epistle, and the apocalyptic/prophetic book, Revelation. Gospels were written to testify of Christs life, death, and resurrection. Biblical historical narratives recount the history of God's people and also the lives of significant figures in that history, and show God's providence in the midst of it all. Epistles were written primarily to answer specific problems that arose in various Churches; thus, things that were assumed and understood by all, and not considered problems were not generally touched upon in any detail. Doctrinal issues that were addressed were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines,4 matters of worship were only dealt with when there were related problems (e.g. I Corinthians 11-14). Apocalyptic writings (such as Revelation) were written to show God's ultimate triumph in history.
Let us first note that none of these literary types present in the New Testament have worship as a primary subject, or were meant to give details about how to worship in Church. In the Old Testament there are detailed (though by no means exhaustive) treatments of the worship of the people of Israel (e.g. Leviticus, Psalms) — in the New Testament there are only meager hints of the worship of the Early Christians. Why is this? Certainly not because they had no order in their services — liturgical historians have established the fact that the early Christians continued to worship in a manner firmly based upon the patterns of Jewish worship which it inherited from the Apostles. 5 However, even the few references in the New Testament that touch upon the worship of the early Church show that, far from being a wild group of free-spirited "Charismatics," the Christians in the New Testament worshiped liturgically as did their fathers before them: they observed hours of prayer (Acts 3:1); they worshiped in the Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1, 21:26); and they worshiped in Synagogues (Acts 18:4)."from An article on Sola Scriptura (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx)

Jason H.

01-01-2011, 03:41 AM

Makes more sense than that propaganda that the Protties produce, claiming "free-form" worship. What an idea!

I saw a shirt on-line that said, "100% Orthodox, NO SUBSTITUTIONS"

Paul Cowan

01-01-2011, 06:30 AM

We are getting wild and crazy here tonight. I actually just ordered pizza with Jalapenos on it.

PS Paul--notice my writing in that thread made heavy use of the past tense . . . but, then again maybe once a red neck always a red neck! Okay, what the hell pass me one of those bottles that are going around tonight.

I hope you all have had your bowl of fresh black eye peas tonight with cornbread. If not then for breakfast in the morning. Can't expect the new year to be of any use to you without these.
(My family comes from a part of Texas that grows black eye peas and the town holds a black eye festival every year. So I suppose it is just our local tradition?)

Paul

S. Rey

01-01-2011, 12:56 PM

It seems to me, quickly brushing over the conversation above, that most arguments against "church hierarchy", and everything that goes with it, is based on false presumptions and assumptions. Nothing in the New Testament justifies "church hierarchy?" For 2 millenia, the church, through the mouths of the fathers, fought against all kinds of heresies, Gnosticism, Sabellianism, Marcionism, Valentinianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, it fought against imperial encroachment as in the iconoclastic crisis, they fought to set straight the doctrine of the Church in all matters (Christology, ecclesiology, and so on), all this by constantly going back to and quoting more extensively from the Scriptures than even their distant contemporary Protestant academics, and yet, you say, the Church was deceived and utterly unable to see the error and fallacy of a church hierarchy, and we today are smarter and better in realizing this distortion? This is either vain presumption and arrogance or pure ignorance which can be corrected.

When you say--I am especially addressing Speros--that "the imperial church meets in a domed building paid for with blood money", can you even prove that? What blood, therefore, was spilled to pay for such buildings? Can you show it? Can you prove it? It is not by claims like this that you yourself "logically demonstrate" the truth of your tenets, but it shows rather that you fail to understand not only church history but the substance of the argument.

Rick H.

02-01-2011, 06:07 PM

After reading the above post, I'm reminded that it's hard to say 'what an attitude' without having an attitude that's in need of adjustment.

Otherwise, when Speros wrote:

There are certain things I believe that the Reformation got right, like that Jesus, not the church hierarchy, is the one mediator between God and man.

This is correct (and not inflammatory) when one understands the Reformers were not attempting to reform Eastern Orthodoxy but Roman Catholicism.

Herman Blaydoe

02-01-2011, 11:58 PM

I am not sure that our friend understands the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, many Protestants do not. If these posts are specifically directed towards Roman Catholicism then they may be beyond the scope of this forum since the Monachos.net Discussion Community is not an interfaith forum for discussions on Orthodoxy with respect to other Christian churches, denominations or religious faiths (taken directly from the online Community Handbook (http://www.monachos.net/forum/faq.php?faq=mb_tos#faq_tos_part1)). If, however, they are statements directed towards the Orthodox Church, they deserve to be responded to, since they do not accurately reflect our teachings or understanding.

Irrespective of mediatory roles, the Church, as founded by Christ the Lord, was hierarchical in its structure if one is willing to accept the Scriptural record. The Lord called out specific individuals to be apostles, they appointed specific people to be bishops/elders and deacons with the laying on of hands. This denotes some sort of hierarchy with specific roles for the administering of the Church, however one chooses to define it.

Anna Stickles

03-01-2011, 12:38 AM

"Hence it is that the true Mediator in so far as he 'took the form of a servant' and was thus made 'the mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus') receives the sacrifice 'in the form of God' in union with the Father, with whom he is one God. And yet 'in the form of a servant' he preferred to be himself the sacrifice than to receive it, to prevent anyone from supposing that sacrifice, even in this circumstance, should be offered to any created being.Thus he is both the priest, himself making the offering, and the oblation. this is the reality, and he intended the daily sacrifice of the Church to be he sacramental symbol of this; for the Church, being the body of which He is the head, learns to offer itself through Him. This is the true sacrifice; and the sacrifices of the saints in earlier times were many different symbols of it. This one sacrifice was prefigured by many rites, just as many words are used to refer to one thing, to emphasize a point without inducing boredom." City of God, Bk 10, ch 20

Here is one of the most beautiful descriptions of the Orthodox belief of Christ as mediator that I have thus far run across. And this too addresses why we have priests that offer the bread and the wine become body and blood. Our liturgy itself is a living picture, participable remembrance of Christ's sacrifice.

Christ at the passover meal celebrated with his disciples told them, "do this in remembrance of me". That meal itself was a living picture of God's redemption of the Jews from the slavery of Egypt*, and we know that Christ had in his mind at that meal the fact that his death and resurrection were a redemption of the human race from the slavery of sin and death. The four cups of the passover Haggada (retelling/remembrance) are (1) "I will take you out of Egypt", (2) "I will deliver you from Egyptian slavery", (3) "I will redeem you with a demonstration of my power", and (4) "I will acquire you as a nation".**

We are told in Luke 22:20 that it was the cup after supper at which Christ said, "This is the new covenant of my blood which is poured out for you." The cup after supper is the 3rd cup, the Cup of Redemption.

So in all of this we can see that the Church has developed her liturgy as a means of keeping the essence of Christ's command to 'remember', not just mentally, but as a living symbol. And that an accurate remembrance must include a priest and an offering, and an altar. Even in Hebrews it mentions, "we have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat" (Heb 13:10) For more patristic commentary on this see the post here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?7816-St.-Ignatius-of-Antioch-on-Judaism&p=101546&viewfull=1#post101546).

*not only was the passover lamb slain and eaten, but bitter herbs were eaten with saltwater symbolizing the tears of the people in bondage, (we've mostly seen horseradish used and this really does make one tear up ;)) and many other things were included as a way to make the eternal realities of God's work present to the senses.

**here is a quote from a Jewish website explaining the cups "The Four Cups of wine used in the Pesach / Passover Seder primarily symbolize the four distinct redemptions promised by G-d to the Hebrews as told in Shemot or Exodus 6:6-7. (1) "I will take you out of Egypt", (2) "I will deliver you from Egyptian slavery", (3) "I will redeem you with a demonstration of my power", and (4) "I will acquire you as a nation". Since each of these cups of wine symbolize an action that was performed by G-d, Jewish people fill a small cup or small wine glass with wine at four different points in the Passover Seder and drink each cup of wine. Drinking from The Four Cups also tells us that we can actively pursue these goals ourselves, meaning that we can actively free ourselves from whatever enslaves us. ... There is a fifth cup of wine called "The Cup of Elijah" and it is reserved for Elijah the Prophet, who is believed to visit each Passover Seder that takes place around the world. In Shemot or Exodus 6:6-8, following the aforementioned Four Expressions of Redemption, there is a Fifth Expression of Redemption. A Fifth Cup of Wine symbolizes this expression of redemption for all humanity upon the arrival of Messianic Times and because this has not occurred yet, the Fifth Cup of Wine is not drunk."

another comment about the Seder that I have seen several places is thatit is a Jewish tradition to invite strangers and the needy to the Seder. Here again we can see in this the roots of the agape meal.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

03-01-2011, 03:37 PM

Yes, it's interesting that we would not see that the Church was intensely hierarchical from the time of Christ and the Apostles. After all it is deeply implicit in the congregation of the Apostles around Christ from the first moments of His preaching. And then the early Church spreads in the same basic image as again is strongly implied (and commanded openly at points) in the Epistles.

But then hierarchy has now come to mean something that stands in the way rather than the Orthodox meaning of mediation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Anna Stickles

04-01-2011, 01:00 AM

We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority. Instead, we were like young children among you. Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, 8 so we cared for you. I Thess 2:6-7

So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than tearing you down, I will not be ashamed of it. II Cor 10:8

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.Heb 13:17

The Apostles had authority, but used it in accordance with Christ's humility and gentleness. "My yoke is easy and my burden is light, come to me and you will find rest for your souls." But when that authority is abused, and abusive as it was in a widespread way in the west leading up to and at the time of the reformation (and abusive it can be anywhere and at anytime, in Orthodoxy too, after all we live in a fallen world) then the people are challenged as to whether they will act according to the Biblical command, bearing the cross, trusting in God, and reaping a reward from God -- or rebel against and complain of God's providence which He sends them for their correction and/or greater good.

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. 18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters , not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

Two wrongs don't make a right and rejection of the church hierarchy because it has gone wrong does not lead to God's will and we can see the fruit of that in the confused mess we have today.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

04-01-2011, 02:34 PM

I also meant that Christ begins His ministry by gathering the Disciples & Apostles around Himself. Why? According to the world's standards Christ could have begun by gathering 'everybody' around Him. This would seemingly have been more 'immediate' and 'equitable' if His aim was to preach the Word directly to people. And yet this is not at all what our Lord does.

Instead then the Lord gathers the disciples around Himself as a sign of how those drawn to Him only do so out of obedience. This is what the gathering of the Apostles in effect is as a sign of what the Church itself will be. ie: that Body of willing listeners gathered in obedience around Christ.

But in turn, to achieve this, the people come to Christ through the Apostles as He sends them out to preach (notice for example that at the miracle of the loaves & fish, Christ has the disciples give the miraculous food- ie Christ's word- to the gathered people and then gather up the remaining fragments afterward). Since nothing of our Lord's actions is without purpose, then it is no surprise to see that from this Apostolic method of drawing people to Christ, at the head of each local gathering as the Church spreads, will stand someone appointed by the Apostles. This person or overseer will preside at the Eucharist but also over the local gathering. And from here as these local communities grow in each area, the position of the bishop comes into being.

All of this growth of the Church then is in the image of Christ surrounded by His disciples and apostles and gathered in obedience to His Word. In other words, hierarchy as we know it, is intimately linked to the original obedience to Christ's word and what obedience actually means. Without obedience- to bishop, to priest, to father, to our fathers in Christ, or whomever- no real hearing of Christ's word occurs, except perhaps in some outward fashion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Archimandrite Irenei

04-01-2011, 08:23 PM

Dear friends,

It is also significant to note that all our early archaeological evidence of early Christian worship is of a distinctly liturgical sort (and, as a connected matter, deeply connected to the employment of sacred images); and all our earliest texts that speak on Church ministry and order describe a distinct and ordered hierarchy of one form or another (even the Didache's presentation of charismatic apostolic ministers acknowledges that these fit into an organised structure that includes bishops, presbyters, etc.).

There is, quite to the contrary, little to no evidence of so-called 'free form' worship in the early Church. This is really a pre-supposition that has no textual, historical, or other support. What we see in the New Testament is the continuation of (liturgical) Temple and Synagogue worship (mentioned explicitly in the Acts of the Apostles), with an ordered and ordained hierarchy of ministerial roles (described in detail by St Paul; seen nascently in the Gospels and the Acts); the writings from the next generation describe the ministerial hierarchies in even greater detail; and both text and archaeology reveal that the highly liturgical worship of the first generations was maintained in all subsequent.

INXC, Fr Irenei

Speros

11-01-2011, 07:02 AM

Herman Blaydoe

11-01-2011, 01:45 PM

It is a good thing to love Christ, and not simply our idea of what Christ should be, or what we have constructed. That is, indeed, an idol, and the writings of the Fathers and the teachings of the Church convey this very idea in very clear terms. You might want to read some of the writings of Fr. John Romanides (http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness _of_rel.01.htm).

Archimandrite Irenei

11-01-2011, 06:11 PM

There is no such thing as rejecting religion and accepting or embracing God. This is a great myth that has been promulgated for the past few centuries. It is an impossibility, a nonsense.

A god embraced apart from the Church that is God's Body, is in that same degree an idol.

Christina M.

11-01-2011, 09:50 PM

Let me just say that this is my first post to this forum, and I LOVE this thread! Thank you to all of the Orthodox responders who have the Orthodox phronema. I learned a lot just from reading this thread alone. No offense to Speros, but he has been clearly proven wrong 10 times over, yet he seems to be (as is the case with many supporters of heresy) very stubborn and close-minded. Again, please don't take personal offense to this statement, as I say it with brotherly love. The great theologian Fr Theodoros Zisis said that it is not love to allow someone to go astray, but rather it is love to inform them of their mistakes, so that they can get back on the right path.

As a final note, I had given up on trying to find a good Orthodox forum, because all of the others that I had found were full of Ecumenists. I'm so thankful to see that monachos.net has a good traditional mindset! God bless you all

Sacha

12-01-2011, 03:48 AM

Jason H.

12-01-2011, 06:20 AM

Fr Irenei, I have read the Didache, but am not familiar with the archaelogical evidence for early christian worship, including the use of sacred images. Is there a book, video or any other related resource you can point me to containing this information? Thanks.

Sacha,

Read up on the ancient Churches in Cappadocia. Or perhaps about the Churches that sprang up around the river Jordan where Christ was Baptized. All these have early beginnings, around 3rd or 4th Century. The mere structure of the Church suggests Liturgical worship.

Olga

12-01-2011, 09:18 AM

but am not familiar with the archaeological evidence for early christian worship, including the use of sacred images.

The church at Dura Europos dates from the second century. Its walls are covered with sacred images. Let's also not forget that the Jewish temple also contained sacred images, made under God's instructions to Moses.

Angelos

12-01-2011, 06:03 PM

It is idolatry when we place what we consider the "right" Christan beliefs and the "right" Christian practices as more important than our relationship with God. We need to repent of religion and embrace Christ, loving as he loves instead of using religion as an excuse to judge others and puff ourselves up.

Many Protestants claim that they are already 100% and forever saved and they do not need any Church because as they say "I looooove Jesus, he's my friend. I'm a sinner, but that's OK because my Jesus bought my Salvation with His blood. Praise the Lord, I can go on sinning, but I'm saved" Unfortunately this "belief" is in most cases delusional. Most of these people just love the certainty of being eternally saved

Angelos

12-01-2011, 06:06 PM

Sacha

12-01-2011, 06:12 PM

The church at Dura Europos dates from the second century. Its walls are covered with sacred images. Let's also not forget that the Jewish temple also contained sacred images, made under God's instructions to Moses.

I thought Dura Europos was from the third? I would need evidence from the 1st century to believe that this was ancient practice.

Also, to me, it's not sufficient to say that images were there. My second question is this: was there any veneration of images taking place among the first disciples and believers, within the first 50-100 years of Jesus' death? So far, I haven't found evidence supporting this. If anything, in the book of Acts, we read of both St Peter and St Paul, who upon performing miracles and having people fall at their feet to worship them, prompty admonished them, saying I am but a man, get up. This immediate and pointed reaction leads me to believe that it is not unreasonable to believe that they would have been uncomfortable at the veneration of their images, painted on an icon. Further, this could be one of the reasons why we don't see icons in the archaeological data showing up until centuries had passed.

As far as I know, there is no evidence to the claim that Jewish sacred images were venerated in the temple. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sacha

12-01-2011, 07:04 PM

Many Protestants claim that they are already 100% and forever saved and they do not need any Church because as they say "I looooove Jesus, he's my friend. I'm a sinner, but that's OK because my Jesus bought my Salvation with His blood. Praise the Lord, I can go on sinning, but I'm saved" Unfortunately this "belief" is in most cases delusional. Most of these people just love the certainty of being eternally saved

I'm not Orthodox, but neither am I protestant, since I would be rejected in those denominations as well. You are right that this mindset characterizes much of protestantism. But I am thankful for the Grace that has taught my heart to fear. The most powerful passage I know of that speaks to the real danger of apostasy by genuine believers is Hebrew 6:4-6. I have never seen a response to this passage by those who support OSAS or the doctrine of the 'perseverance of the saints'.

Archimandrite Irenei

12-01-2011, 07:13 PM

I thought Dura Europos was from the third? I would need evidence from the 1st century to believe that this was ancient practice.

It is hard to say precisely when the house church at Dura-Europos began to function in a Christian capacity, though scholars have been able to give a fairly definitive date to parts of it as c. 230/235 (certainly we can say the images that line the walls were in place by that time). The town itself was far older, of course, and it is hard to know when precisely Christian worship in the place began. Surely if a dedicated building with a frescoed interior established for regular / permanent worship were in place by AD 235, this means that it represents a Christian worshipping presence that will have had to be there for some time earlier.

In any case, the house represents the earliest archaeological evidence for what is sometimes called a 'house church' (given that it was a converted residential house) anywhere in the world; and what is revealing of the site is that it not only gives evidence (as Olga mentioned) of richly image-laden worship (there are frescoes of the Good Shepherd, the three Marys, Christ healing the paralytic, Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, etc.), but also of distinctly liturgical worship. The rooms of the house, laid out as is traditional of the period in a square ring around a central courtyard, are adorned and decorated in such a manner as to make very clear that the Christian worship there was liturgical and processional: the faithful gathered in the first room to hear biblical instruction; they moved to the next, adorned with images of Christ and salvation, to hear a homily on the Gospel; the procession to the next room was for the holy Eucharist, and in an additional room was a baptistry for the reception of converts. The worshipping liturgical procession ended in a room for a common meal.

Sacha, you've indicated an unwillingness to consider the original Christian Church either liturgical or accepting of images unless certain criteria of your own devising are met. There is little point in trying to reply or meet your criteria, which represent an ideological opinion much more than any actual grasp of evidence or data.

I would urge you merely to reflect, in your own time and way, on certain facts that can be documented very clearly:

First, the common assumption amongst certain groups, that 'house churches' met in the early period with a free-form worship and no ministerial structure, is a claim for which there is (a) no written evidence, (b) no archaeological evidence, and (c) no historical evidence or record in Christian memory until the exegetical 'explanations' of certain brief passages in Scripture that began to be made in the 16th century. Second, and to the contrary, must be put the fact that (a) our earliest actual find of a Christian house church is clearly image-laden and liturgical in design, (b) our earliest documents recount Christian worship with structured ministerial offices (including the writings of St Paul and the Apostolic Fathers, from the 1st/2nd centuries), and (c) even our archaeological evidence outside the phenomenon of house churches gives evidence of both image-laden and liturgical worship -- e.g. the catacombs, which include both Christian images of Christ and the saints, as well as liturgically-designed niches for worship, Eucharist, etc.

Again, I am not trying to 'persuade' you by these remarks, since I know that is not possible. The position you've outlined as yours is an ideological stance, and such things are little influenced by actual evidence. But it is worth noting that the position you are arguing against is one that benefits from an abundance of evidence of various sorts, while the position you are trying to maintain is in fact one that has no concrete evidence whatsoever -- only circumstantial arguments that can be made from how one might or might not interpret the theoretical ramifications of a certain reading of a selected biblical verse, etc. But there is not one written record, not one archaeological find, not one piece of evidence of any kind that gives any direct or concrete support for this position.

INXC, Fr Irenei

Angelos

12-01-2011, 07:35 PM

I thought Dura Europos was from the third? I would need evidence from the 1st century to believe that this was ancient practice.

Also, to me, it's not sufficient to say that images were there. My second question is this: was there any veneration of images taking place among the first disciples and believers, within the first 50-100 years of Jesus' death? So far, I haven't found evidence supporting this. If anything, in the book of Acts, we read of both St Peter and St Paul, who upon performing miracles and having people fall at their feet to worship them, prompty admonished them, saying I am but a man, get up. This immediate and pointed reaction leads me to believe that it is not unreasonable to believe that they would have been uncomfortable at the veneration of their images, painted on an icon. Further, this could be one of the reasons why we don't see icons in the archaeological data showing up until centuries had passed.

As far as I know, there is no evidence to the claim that Jewish sacred images were venerated in the temple. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dear Sacha,

The Jewish people venerated, and still venerate, the Torah scrolls in their temples. The early (really early, as in 50 AD) Christians venerated the Eucharist which is "the Body of Christ". So both the Jews and the very early Christians venerated "things" that they consider(ed) sacred. Is this "idolatry"? Of course not. Is venerating sacred icons today any different (as a concept)? Of course not.

As early as the author of Hebrews (12:1) the Church was aware of the Saints "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us"

That Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombss with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups is too obvious and too well known for it to be necessary to insist upon the fact.

The idea that the Church of the first centuries was in any way prejudiced against pictures and statues is the most impossible fiction. After Constantine (306-37) there was of course an enormous development of every kind. Instead of burrowing catacombs, Christians began to build splendid basilicas. They adorned them with costly mosaics, carving, and statues. But there was no new principle. The mosaics represented more artistically and richly the motives that had been painted on the walls of the old caves, the larger statues continue the tradition begun by carved sarcophagi and little lead and glass ornaments. From that time to the Iconoclast Persecution holy images are in possession all over the Christian world.

Christina M.

12-01-2011, 07:41 PM

Thank you, Father. Information like this is even very helpful for us Orthodox who don't know as much.

Sacha

12-01-2011, 08:35 PM

It is hard to say precisely when the house church at Dura-Europos began to function in a Christian capacity, though scholars have been able to give a fairly definitive date to parts of it as c. 230/235 (certainly we can say the images that line the walls were in place by that time). The town itself was far older, of course, and it is hard to know when precisely Christian worship in the place began. Surely if a dedicated building with a frescoed interior established for regular / permanent worship were in place by AD 235, this means that it represents a Christian worshipping presence that will have had to be there for some time earlier.

How much earlier is impossible to say, so I cannot rely on this data to revise my beliefs.

In any case, the house represents the earliest archaeological evidence for what is sometimes called a 'house church' (given that it was a converted residential house) anywhere in the world; and what is revealing of the site is that it not only gives evidence (as Olga mentioned) of richly image-laden worship (there are frescoes of the Good Shepherd, the three Marys, Christ healing the paralytic, Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, etc.), but also of distinctly liturgical worship. The rooms of the house, laid out as is traditional of the period in a square ring around a central courtyard, are adorned and decorated in such a manner as to make very clear that the Christian worship there was liturgical and processional: the faithful gathered in the first room to hear biblical instruction; they moved to the next, adorned with images of Christ and salvation, to hear a homily on the Gospel; the procession to the next room was for the holy Eucharist, and in an additional room was a baptistry for the reception of converts. The worshipping liturgical procession ended in a room for a common meal.

It is a non sequitur to argue that the existence of frescoes and images necessarily implies that veneration was rendered unto these, as it is done unto icons today in the Eastern Church.

Sacha, you've indicated an unwillingness to consider the original Christian Church either liturgical or accepting of images unless certain criteria of your own devising are met. There is little point in trying to reply or meet your criteria, which represent an ideological opinion much more than any actual grasp of evidence or data.

I am very willing to consider the original Christian Church to be liturgical, and absolutely believe that is was, based on the evidence of the Didache among other documents that are very early in origin. However, my point in my prior post was that I do not see any evidence for the 1) the presence of icons in the first century earliest church and 2)veneration of icons in the Didache and/or other document. This does not lead me to reject the liturgy that is clearly described in the Didache, in fact, I fully embrace it and I am as much opposed to 'free form' worship as you are. I simply do not see icon veneration as part of that liturgy.

I would urge you merely to reflect, in your own time and way, on certain facts that can be documented very clearly:First, the common assumption amongst certain groups, that 'house churches' met in the early period with a free-form worship and no ministerial structure, is a claim for which there is (a) no written evidence, (b) no archaeological evidence, and (c) no historical evidence or record in Christian memory until the exegetical 'explanations' of certain brief passages in Scripture that began to be made in the 16th century. Second, and to the contrary, must be put the fact that (a) our earliest actual find of a Christian house church is clearly image-laden and liturgical in design, (b) our earliest documents recount Christian worship with structured ministerial offices (including the writings of St Paul and the Apostolic Fathers, from the 1st/2nd centuries), and (c) even our archaeological evidence outside the phenomenon of house churches gives evidence of both image-laden and liturgical worship -- e.g. the catacombs, which include both Christian images of Christ and the saints, as well as liturgically-designed niches for worship, Eucharist, etc.

As explained above, I am not a proponent of 'free form' worship and even less of no ministerial structure. You said earlier: "your criteria, which represent an ideological opinion much more than any actual grasp of evidence or data". You say there is no evidence to support free form worship, I agree with that. But notice that you make an appeal to evidence to make the claim. Why is your appeal to evidence or lack thereof kosher whereas my requiring evidence ideological opinion?
Could it be that there is a genuine difference between you and I over what constitutes evidence? Again, the existence of images from the 3rd century and even from catacombs does not necessarily imply that christians bowed down before them and venerated them. It could merely be that the images were graphical reminders of the truths of scripture in a time where illteracy was widespread.

Again, I am not trying to 'persuade' you by these remarks, since I know that is not possible. The position you've outlined as yours is an ideological stance, and such things are little influenced by actual evidence. But it is worth noting that the position you are arguing against is one that benefits from an abundance of evidence of various sorts, while the position you are trying to maintain is in fact one that has no concrete evidence whatsoever -- only circumstantial arguments that can be made from how one might or might not interpret the theoretical ramifications of a certain reading of a selected biblical verse, etc. But there is not one written record, not one archaeological find, not one piece of evidence of any kind that gives any direct or concrete support for this position.

I am not trying to convince anyone either, but rather merely expressing the reasons behind my disagreement. I am actually open to evidence. But to me, it has to be like that of the Didache, for instance, which is very precious to me. At any rate, I will likely not convince you to refrain from qualifying my stance in such harsh terms, and I fully expect others to jump in with similar comments. At any rate, it's all welcome.

Sacha

12-01-2011, 08:44 PM

Dear Sacha,

The Jewish people venerated, and still venerate, the Torah scrolls in their temples. The early (really early, as in 50 AD) Christians venerated the Eucharist which is "the Body of Christ". So both the Jews and the very early Christians venerated "things" that they consider(ed) sacred. Is this "idolatry"? Of course not. Is venerating sacred icons today any different (as a concept)? Of course not.

Nowhere did I say that this was idolatry. My disagreement with the EOC is over the anathema to anyone who disagrees with icon veneration. I do not feel comfortable with icon veneration, but fully recognize that others might be very comfortable and might be led to a closer experience of God. To me, it is an issue similar to the one of those who ate meat and those who didn't for St Paul, and he clearly called for respect for both sides, and love for the one whose faith was weaker.

Coming back to Jewish practices: is there any evidence for the practice of veneration of images?

Angelos

12-01-2011, 09:01 PM

Angelos

12-01-2011, 09:13 PM

Coming back to Jewish practices: is there any evidence for the practice of veneration of images?

In the Old Testament there are inanimate objects that became a medium by which God worked to teach, speak to, encourage and heal the Hebrew faithful.

Examples include the graven images of cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-22) which God instructed Moses to make, the embroidered figures of cherubim angels which God told Moses to make on the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle tent (Exodus 26:31), or the bronze serpent mentioned in the book of Numbers "And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any person, when he beheld the serpent of brass, they lived"(Numbers 21:9).

Also "Jacob bowed to the ground before Esau, his brother, and also before the tip of his son Joseph's staff (Genesis 33:3). He bowed down, but did not adore. Joshua, the Son of Nun, and Daniel bowed in veneration before an angel of God (Joshua 5:14) but they did not adore him.

Sacha

12-01-2011, 09:13 PM

Dear Sacha,

There's no religion on earth (Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity) where the faithful put statues or icons inside a House of worship without venerating them. Buddhists venerate (NOT worship) the statue of Buddha. Hindus venerate their own statues. Muslims who explicitly do not venerate statues or icons do NOT have them inside their Houses of worship. It is very silly to suggest that the early Christians were some kind of odd exception to this Universal religious rule and painted icons of Saints and Jesus on their places of worship as an interior decoration!!

I think your polemic comes from a fundamental inability to distinguish between veneration and worship of icons and statues - two very different things

Your argument contains a logical fallacy: the appeal to popularity.

I believe I understand the difference between veneration and worship, thank you.

And I surely am not interested in polemic, but evidence. (The tomb was empty, that to me is contributing 'evidence' towards the belief that the Lord had risen.) Is there any evidence that Jews ever venerated images?

Angelos

12-01-2011, 09:23 PM

Sacha

12-01-2011, 09:29 PM

In the Old Testament there are inanimate objects that became a medium by which God worked to teach, speak to, encourage and heal the Hebrew faithful.

Examples include the graven images of cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-22) which God instructed Moses to make, the embroidered figures of cherubim angels which God told Moses to make on the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle tent (Exodus 26:31), or the bronze serpent mentioned in the book of Numbers "And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any person, when he beheld the serpent of brass, they lived"(Numbers 21:9).

Also "Jacob bowed to the ground before Esau, his brother, and also before the tip of his son Joseph's staff (Genesis 33:3). He bowed down, but did not adore. Joshua, the Son of Nun, and Daniel bowed in veneration before an angel of God (Joshua 5:14) but they did not adore him.

I do not see any venerating of these graven images you mention, in the Old Testament. Not the cherubim, nor the serpent. Their existence does not pre-suppose veneration. It was sufficient to look upon the serpent to be healed, not to venerate the serpent.

The examples of Jacob, Joshua and Daniel bowing to these other beings, to me, do not constitute support of the veneration of images. I could just as easily cite the people who bowed down before St Paul and St Peter, but failed to make the distinction between veneration and worship/adoration, instead worshipping the apostle and disciple. They were quickly rebuked by both St Paul and St Peter.

Sacha

12-01-2011, 09:47 PM

Dear Sacha,

My argument is based on fundamental human nature. Humans either painted icons and built statues in their houses of worship to venerate them, or they explicitly prohibited the practice. No exceptions - zero.

On the other hand, your argument goes "The early Christians were unique among ALL the peoples of the earth across ALL times and across ALL places, in painting religious icons in their Houses of worship just for the fun of it"!!!

Yes, that is precisely my argument:that the earliest Christians were the church, the ekklesia, the called out ones, called to be set aside for God's purpose and plan, and therefore, unique across time and place.

Angelos

12-01-2011, 10:35 PM

Yes, that is precisely my argument:that the earliest Christians were the church, the ekklesia, the called out ones, called to be set aside for God's purpose and plan, and therefore, unique across time and place.

Your argument also implies that the after 200-300 AD Christians were somehow corrupt because they magically stopped painting icons for fun and started venerating the icons they painted, somehow against "God's purpose and plan".

It's good that we have people like you (and some of the other Protestants) though to restore God's original plan that has been corrupted for about 2000 years now!! Apparently, God was sleeping for 1500 years and waited for brother Luther (a German anti-Semitic nationalist) to restore Christianity as it was originally envisioned by God... I heard that joke before.

Olga

12-01-2011, 10:44 PM

Sacha

13-01-2011, 01:00 AM

Your argument also implies that the after 200-300 AD Christians were somehow corrupt because they magically stopped painting icons for fun and started venerating the icons they painted, somehow against "God's purpose and plan".

No, the argument does not 'also imply' that. In your haste to ridicule me, you have not read what I wrote earlier.

It's good that we have people like you (and some of the other Protestants) though to restore God's original plan that has been corrupted for about 2000 years now!! Apparently, God was sleeping for 1500 years and waited for brother Luther (a German anti-Semitic nationalist) to restore Christianity as it was originally envisioned by God... I heard that joke before.

Is sarcasm a fruit of the Spirit too? I do not recognize Luther, but I will not be his judge. I would especially not be his judge, if the church I belong to has been guilty of anti semitism itself at certain points of its history.

Olga

13-01-2011, 01:02 AM

I do not see any venerating of these graven images you mention, in the Old Testament. Not the cherubim, nor the serpent.

Was not the Ark of the Covenant considered one of the holiest objects to the people of Israel? Were there not carved images part of its construction? Was this object not venerated and honoured?

You are trying to say that the early Christians not only had no tradition of venerating images and holy objects, but that they, alone among ancient peoples, chose to reject their veneration. Impossible.

Sacha

13-01-2011, 01:04 AM

To deny the place of icons in the life of the Church is to deny the very incarnation of God. I can think of no more succinct statement than this in the defence of iconography which also proclaims the Incarnation, written by the inestimable St John of Damascus:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

Iconoclasm is nothing new, yet every era has those who try to reinvent this wobbly wheel, be they Origen, the iconoclast emperors, John Calvin, etc.

Olga,

To me, that's a non sequitur. I don't deny the incarnation of God just because I feel uncomfortable bowing before a painted icon. And again, I don't believe that you are engaging in idolatry by doing so.

It is unfair, in my view, to equate those who peacefully disagree with icon usage with iconoclasts who used violence to express their disagreement. It is also unfair, in my view, to proclaim as anathema anyone who will not venerate icons.

Administrator

13-01-2011, 01:09 AM

Herman Blaydoe

13-01-2011, 01:26 AM

When I became Orthodox, I "accepted" icons. I didn't really "get" them, they were strange looking, out of proportion, with strange perspective angles and "primitive" figures. But I figured there must be something to them and it is certainly hard to imagine being Orthodox without icons.

Then one Sunday at Divine Liturgy, not too many years ago actually, I was just looking at the icon of the Theotokos and it seemed like scales literally fell from my eyes. I felt like I actually SAW the icon for the first time. There is indeed an extra depth and dimension that this bear of little brain cannot adequately explain. But icons have not looked the same to me since and I would not care to imagine a Church without them. How comforting to know that the Church is never really empty, that through these windows we see the saints who have gone before, who pray for us and with us and we are not really separated by death.

Perhaps our friend Sacha has never pledged allegiance to a flag, or paid respects to dignitaries like standing up when a national leader or a judge enters the room. These too are forms of veneration. Are they wrong? If a soldier, far from home, kisses a picture of a loved one while on the battlefield, is this worship? Is kissing an icon that different?

Sacha

13-01-2011, 01:37 AM

Was not the Ark of the Covenant considered one of the holiest objects to the people of Israel? Were there not carved images part of its construction? Was this object not venerated and honoured?

You are trying to say that the early Christians not only had no tradition of venerating images and holy objects, but that they, alone among ancient peoples, chose to reject their veneration. Impossible.

The ark was indeed honored, but it wasn't considered by them to be a 'carved image' in its totality, but rather as the object over which God revealed Himself to them. There is no parallel, to me, with a painted image, because the Shekinah Glory does not appear over a painted image.

What I have said, on this thread, is that I do not see evidence for the use of icons and icon veneration by Christians living in the first century.

Sacha

13-01-2011, 01:42 AM

Herman Blaydoe

13-01-2011, 02:00 AM

I promise, this will be my last post on this subject. If you go into an Orthodox Church and choose not to venerate the icons, nobody is going to "anathematize" you, nobody is going to ask you to leave. The anathemas came about as the Church emerged from a terrible time of persecution. People were being tortured and killed for venerating icons. The anathemas were against those who persecuted the iconodules, who destroyed or defaced the icons, who condemned those who venerated icons.

If you don't do these things, the anathemas don't apply to you. All you do is miss out on an opportunity to receive a blessing. Beyond that, what is the problem, exactly?

Rick H.

13-01-2011, 02:14 AM

What I have said, on this thread, is that I do not see evidence for the use of icons and icon veneration by Christians living in the first century.

Well, now you have me interested. I don't have time to read this thread. Did anyone present Sacha with evidence for the use of icons and the veneration of icons by Christians living in the first century.

This is a fair question.

Herman Blaydoe

13-01-2011, 02:23 AM

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Much was lost in the persecution of the early Church. We know that images were a part of Christian worship as early as the second century which is the earliest evidence of any church and it just happens to have images, not to mention the use of many images in the catacombs where the early persecuted church worshipped.

If there is no other "evidence" so what? Does that mean we chuck the icons? I prefer something more "evidential" before I go that far.

Rick H.

13-01-2011, 02:28 AM

I take it the answer is no.

Sacha

13-01-2011, 02:30 AM

Sacha

13-01-2011, 02:38 AM

Archimandrite Irenei

13-01-2011, 02:40 AM

What is germane to this discussion is not actually the issue of whether one can offer 'evidence' for a certain practice at a given point in history, suitable to persuading a doubting or suspicious mind of its validity. What is germane to the question, 'How much of the Church's teaching must one accept to be Orthodox?', is the issue of coming to believe that the Church's testimony and responses to questions are authentic and truthful, and acknowledging the Church's authority in responding to issues for which one's own personal struggles for answers are on their own inadequate.

The progression of this conversation has been interesting. Beginning with a question on how much of the Church's teaching must be 'accepted' in order to be considered Orthodox, it proceeded into the arena of a certain set of teachings (those on early Church worship) that certain people struggle to accept. From this point, the discussion changed. No longer was it focussed on how much of the Church's teaching one 'had to accept', but on the question of whether it is possible in a non-ecclesiastical context of historical reading to come to a conclusion that mirrors the Church's teaching. This a very different question, and -- when one actually stops to think about it -- one entirely superfluous to the original question. Whether one can or cannot employ non-ecclesiastical means of 'history' and interpretation to come to a conclusion identical to the Church's, and thereby come to 'agree with' the Church's position, is a question antithetical to that of accepting the Church's teaching.

Part of being Orthodox, a critical part of the Orthodox mindset, is to allow the intellect to be shaped by the divinely-guided ministry of the Church. The question is not, 'Can I "prove" this by some other means, and thus satisfy myself that what the Church says is true?', but rather, 'Can my mind be shaped by the Church so that I understand reality - including history - as revealed in her light?'

If the answer to the second question is not 'yes', then it does not matter -- at all -- what sort of intellectual adventures can be set upon by the first.

INXC, Fr Irenei

Archimandrite Irenei

13-01-2011, 02:45 AM

Dear Rick, you wrote:

I take it the answer is no.
Quite to the contrary, I think the answer is a clear 'yes'. But whether or not one will accept that to be the case, depends wholly on one's approach to the Church's testimony of history, versus one's own intellectual and ideological predilections towards historical reading. One can give evidence of images involved in Christian worship from the first, second, third century, etc.; but if one's own ideological interpretation of their place and role is set as the highest interpretive tool (above, for example, the heritage of the Church as to what these mean), then there is no such thing as a 'proof' that will get past this.

Jason H.

13-01-2011, 03:01 AM

It is time to re-focus this thread on its topic: "How much of the Church's teaching must one accept to be Orthodox?"

Specific questions of any one member's rejection or acceptance of specific Orthodox views should only be the focus of discussion if and when they shed light on an approach to the theme of the thread.

Sacha,

Let's get back to the point of the original post. This is an Orthodox site, followed by Orthodox Christians expressing the love and TRUTH of our Faith.

To paraphrase Jesus, "You believe because you have seen, but I tell you that it is better for those who have not seen and yet believe."

Tonight our parish started Catechism class and one thing he mentioned that was told to him by a Bishop was that when it comes to becoming Orthodox, it is not so much learning as it is more unlearning what you have been forced to believe.

Olga

13-01-2011, 03:09 AM

I do not see evidence for the use of icons and icon veneration by Christians living in the first century.

Sasha, may I be so bold as say this: You choose not to see the evidence for the use of icons and icon veneration by Christians living in the first century. I, and others, have given sterling evidence, including evidence that the catacombs were full of images, that images were, indeed, venerated, from the earliest days of Christendom. Why do you fight so hard to deny this?

Sacha

13-01-2011, 03:34 AM

Sasha, may I be so bold as say this: You choose not to see the evidence for the use of icons and icon veneration by Christians living in the first century. I, and others, have given sterling evidence, including evidence that the catacombs were full of images, that images were, indeed, venerated, from the earliest days of Christendom. Why do you fight so hard to deny this?

Olga,

As far as I'm concerned, you are conflating two things: the existence of images, and the veneration of images. It is not enough for me to say, look here are the images, therefore there must have been veneration going on. To me, that is a non sequitur, again. Let me flesh it out a little more: in some churches today, there are frescoes and images painted on walls, and stained glass, but no one bows to venerate them. Do you get my point?

Secondly, re the catacombs, I am aware of 4th century images in Roman catacombs. What 1st century evidence is there?

The Didache is wonderful evidence for the practices of the earliest christians. I am merely seeking evidence regarding icons from the same time period in which the Didache was written. And there is nothing about icons in the Didache.

Sacha

13-01-2011, 03:57 AM

Sacha,

Let's get back to the point of the original post. This is an Orthodox site, followed by Orthodox Christians expressing the love and TRUTH of our Faith.

To paraphrase Jesus, "You believe because you have seen, but I tell you that it is better for those who have not seen and yet believe."

Tonight our parish started Catechism class and one thing he mentioned that was told to him by a Bishop was that when it comes to becoming Orthodox, it is not so much learning as it is more unlearning what you have been forced to believe.

As far as I'm concerned, I have not been forced to believe anything. If anything, it is the Orthodox church that imposes the veneration of icons on potential converts.

Paul Cowan

13-01-2011, 06:10 AM

Olga

13-01-2011, 07:41 AM

Secondly, re the catacombs, I am aware of 4th century images in Roman catacombs. What 1st century evidence is there?

Fourth century? These would be rather old, my dear Sacha. Most catacomb art dates from well before the Edict of Milan, and a good amount is indeed from the first century.

in some churches today, there are frescoes and images painted on walls, and stained glass, but no one bows to venerate them. Do you get my point?

It may be difficult to physically venerate by bowing and kissing these icons on the wall, but your statement only betrays your limited understanding of the place of icons in Orthodox devotion, the theological basis of iconography, and the ancient, actual, and easily verifiable practice of Orthodox Christians.

Have you ever attended an Orthodox service, Sacha? Particularly Vespers, Matins, or the Hours? If you have, you might have noticed that, at certain times during these services, the priest emerges from the inner sanctum/altar and does a lap of the church, making his way alternately censing the people and every icon on the walls of the church, whether the icons are portable (hung on hooks), or painted directly on the walls. He also censes the icons on the iconostasis. The burning of incense is a most ancient form of veneration, and not only in the Christian world.

A permanent part of Orthodox hymnography for Vespers is this verse from the Psalms:

Let my prayer be directed like incense before You; the raising of my hands be an evening sacrifice. Hearken to me, O Lord.

Much of the hymnography of Orthodox services such as Vespers, Matins, Compline, and the Hours is drawn from the Psalms and other OT books. The OT is full of references equating honour, veneration and prayer with the burning of incense. As others have correctly stated, veneration of people and holy objects was an established custom in the OT world. Veneration can be shown by bowing, kissing, or censing. Such gestures are not even exclusive to Orthodox Christians.

Icons which are within the reach of lips are routinely venerated by the congregation; those which are further out of reach are venerated by kissing one's fingertips, and then touching one’s hand to the icon.

You see, Sacha, there is more than one way to show reverence to holy things, including icons. I light of the above, you may wish to revise your view that images were not venerated by the early Christians.

Jason H.

13-01-2011, 01:49 PM

As far as I'm concerned, I have not been forced to believe anything. If anything, it is the Orthodox church that imposes the veneration of icons on potential converts.

Sacha,

My post was not in reference to anyone here trying to "force" the Orthodox Faith on you.

Do you know the full history of Iconography in the Holy Orthodox Church? Perhaps some people here could provide scholarly articles/books that you could read up on.

-Ignatios

Michael Stickles

13-01-2011, 02:32 PM

From this point, the discussion changed. No longer was it focussed on how much of the Church's teaching one 'had to accept', but on the question of whether it is possible in a non-ecclesiastical context of historical reading to come to a conclusion that mirrors the Church's teaching. This a very different question, and -- when one actually stops to think about it -- one entirely superfluous to the original question. Whether one can or cannot employ non-ecclesiastical means of 'history' and interpretation to come to a conclusion identical to the Church's, and thereby come to 'agree with' the Church's position, is a question antithetical to that of accepting the Church's teaching.

That makes me think of Paul's statement to Timothy that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth." To insist on non-ecclesiastical historical evidence before accepting a point, is to say that "truth" is the pillar and foundation of the Church - a complete reversal of the Scripture.

Michael Stickles

13-01-2011, 02:56 PM

Are you sure about the anathemas only applying to those who engaged in violence?

Good question, the answer has to do with the OP. I cannot be welcomed into the church because I do not feel comfortable with venerating icons. To be Orthodox, one must venerate icons, correct?

Well, it's not quite that simple either way. I assume the anathemas you have read were from the acclamations at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xii.html), especially these:

Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. ... We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this ... Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.

However, we must note that the iconoclast time was very polarized - you pretty much either venerated the images, or considered them idols and contrary to right worship. It is in that context that the anathemas in the acclamations must be understood. Your stated position, Sacha - a discomfort with icon veneration that nonetheless does not see it as necessarily idolatry - is kind of foreign to what they were talking about. Let's look at the entirety of that section:

The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church. We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols.

These are not separate anathemas against multiple types of people. This is all directed at the same group - the iconoclasts. It wasn't a matter of "if you don't venerate icons, you're just like those who call them idols." Rather, at that time, if you didn't venerate icons, you were one of those who called them idols and either destroyed them or approved of their destruction. Like I said before - polarized. This is even more clearly seen in the letter (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xv.html) sent by the Seventh Council to the Emperor Constantine and his mother the Empress Irene:

The things which we have decreed, being thus well supported, it is confessedly and beyond all question acceptable and well-pleasing before God, that the images of our Lord Jesus Christ as man, and those of the undefiled Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, and of the honourable Angels and of all Saints, should be venerated and saluted. And if anyone does not so believe, but undertakes to debate the matter further and is evil affected with regard to the veneration due the sacred images, such an one our holy ecumenical council (fortified by the inward working of the Spirit of God, and by the traditions of the Fathers and of the Church) anathematises. Now anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God. For if any are quarrelsome and will not obediently accept what has now been decreed, they but kick against the pricks, and injure their own souls in their fighting against Christ. And in taking pleasure at the insults which are offered to the Church, they clearly shew themselves to be of those who madly make war upon piety, and are therefore to be regarded as in the same category with the heretics of old times, and their companions and brethren in ungodliness.

The letter makes clear that those anathematized not only did not believe the images should be venerated, but were "evil affected" towards that veneration, quarrelsome, and took pleasure in "the insults which are offered to the Church" - i.e., the destruction wrought by the iconoclasts.

So, must one venerate icons to be Orthodox? I think that might be a little too strong a statement. Must one accept the veneration of icons as good and proper? Well, I'd say yes there. More importantly, must one accept the authority of the Church which permitted her to make such decrees as these? Absolutely.

In Christ,
Michael

Sacha

13-01-2011, 03:29 PM

That makes me think of Paul's statement to Timothy that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth." To insist on non-ecclesiastical historical evidence before accepting a point, is to say that "truth" is the pillar and foundation of the Church - a complete reversal of the Scripture.

The Lord said that He is the Truth. And when Thomas asked him to see His hands, he did not shy away from the request, nor did he qualify Thomas' request as non ecclesiastical. He simply provided the evidence.

Herman Blaydoe

13-01-2011, 03:50 PM

The Lord said that He is the Truth. And when Thomas asked him to see His hands, he did not shy away from the request, nor did he qualify Thomas' request as non ecclesiastical. He simply provided the evidence.

Um, well, actually, no you are not entirely correct since you are leaving out an important part of the story. He also qualified the presentation of that evidence with a statement, yes? Something about blessed are those who have NOT seen but yet believe? I think that may contraindicate your conclusions to a great extent.

Sacha

13-01-2011, 03:55 PM

Um, well, actually, no you are not entirely correct since you are leaving out an important part of the story. He also qualified the presentation of that evidence with a statement, yes? Something about blessed are those who have NOT seen but yet believe? I think that may contraindicate your conclusions to a great extent.

Not at all. It was after he provided the evidence that he shared those statements. It is not an either/or but a both/and.

Michael Stickles

13-01-2011, 04:05 PM

And when Thomas asked him to see His hands, he did not shy away from the request, nor did he qualify Thomas' request as non ecclesiastical. He simply provided the evidence.

I'm afraid the cases are not parallel.

Thomas had the evidence of his own eyes that his Lord had been arrested, beaten, crucified, declared dead, and buried. He only had the word of his friends that Christ had appeared alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Christ supplied it. Plus the Scripture is clear that Christ had showed His hands and side to the other disciples when He appeared to them, so Thomas was really just saying "I want the same proof you got".

On the other hand, during Christ's life the Pharisees requested of Him a "sign from heaven" as evidence to prove that He was who He said He was. Yet He had already done many signs - healed the sick, cast out demons, changed water into wine, and so on, all attested by many witnesses. They were not in need of a sign; they just desired to test him. He declined to do so.

On the use of images in the Church, we have the testimony of the Seventh Council that the use and salutation of images was the custom of the Church from ancient times; we have the traditions of early icons (such as those painted by Luke); we have archaeological evidence of images in ancient churches that seem clearly to have had liturgical purposes; knowledge of various other objects of veneration in both Jewish and early Christian liturgical practice; and so on. The weight of the evidence is more in line with the case of the Pharisees than of Thomas.

What you've been shown, evidence-wise, was enough (or even more than enough) for many of us to believe that veneration of icons is good and right. If it is not enough for you, all I can say is that the problem is not that the evidence is lacking.

Sacha

13-01-2011, 04:05 PM

Fourth century? These would be rather old, my dear Sacha. Most catacomb art dates from well before the Edict of Milan, and a good amount is indeed from the first century.

The edict of milan happened in the late 4th century, so not sure what exactly you mean by 'well before' that. Also, where is the first century catacomb art? I have not been able to find it, maybe you have a link to share?

It may be difficult to physically venerate by bowing and kissing these icons on the wall, but your statement only betrays your limited understanding of the place of icons in Orthodox devotion, the theological basis of iconography, and the ancient, actual, and easily verifiable practice of Orthodox Christians.

Have you ever attended an Orthodox service, Sacha?

Did they burn incense in the catacombs Olga?

It is possible, that you may be anachronistically reading into later practices of the church into the catacombs? Were they even used for worship or just for burials?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-01-2011, 04:10 PM

I think that our understanding of the issue of veneration gets influenced by our churches here which out of practical necessity have mainly portable icons rather than frescoes. This means that for us mainly in the west, veneration means the physical action of kissing an icon accompanied by bows. In other times however where iconography mainly appeared in fresco form, veneration would be as much an intellectual attitude (I'm using the word in an Orthodox sense) as it would be a particular physical way of relating to the icons as we do now.

If this is so then veneration has gone through a shift to some degree over the centuries in how it expresses itself. And it also rounds out more fully what iconoclasm meant at the time of the 7th Ecumenical Council. ie not just the rejection of bowing and kissing the icons, but rather the rejection of iconography in total as a theological means of expressing the dispensation of the Incarnation. To keep this in mind would therefore deepen our understanding of what the veneration of icons means and of what is at stake, along side the physical way of relating to the icons that we rightly cherish nowadays.

This would by the way also address a crucial aspect of the iconographic argument which to me at least seems to have been entirely missed in modern times. In our own understanding and reading of the Fathers, we rest the veneration of icons on the well known distinction between veneration and worship. Icons we maintain can be worthy of veneration since they are not subject to worship, as Christ is, but only of veneration. What gets lost in this explanation though is the fact that the image we venerate in the icon is the image of Christ, Whom we worship. Since we venerate the prototype in the image then it seems only proper that in some important sense we do show worship when we venerate an icon. The distinction then between veneration and worship only really points to how the means of iconographic depiction is theologically proper due to the fact that Christ used material means at His incarnation. It doesn't refute that in the image we actually do worship the prototype.

Here is where St Theodore the Studite though makes a most important insight on iconography that is often not noticed or commented on nowadays. Basing himself on the theological understanding of the hypostatic union in the One Person of Christ, St Theodore says: "the veneration of Christ Himself and of Christ in the image is one and the same (Third Refutation of the Iconoclasts. C. 6. )". In other words He Whom we venerate in the icon is He Whom we worship. They are not different. So that is why St Theodore states: "Therefore the image of Christ is not differently venerated from Christ Himself, but is venerated in the same way, as it has an exact resemblance and likeness to Him (C. 8.)", and shortly afterward he continues: "the veneration of Christ and His image is also one, in accordance with the unity of hypostatic likeness, regardless of diversity of natures (c. 9)". In other words there is in the veneration of icons an analogy between the unity of Christ's divine and human natures, and between Christ and the image of Him. That is why the image expresses Christ.

Even the often made point that we venerate saints- we don't worship them, misses the point about iconography, since even without icons we still only venerate saints, we don't worship them as we do Christ. In other words it seems that we reverse the central point about icons made by the Fathers in how we understand the distinction between veneration & worship. Thus their central point wasn't actually that we can safely venerate the image while worshiping the prototype. Rather their point is that iconography based on the Christology of the union in Christ of uncreated & created, is capable of rendering to the prototype- be it Christ or the saints- that attitude of what is proper in their regard, in relation to who they are; ie either worship or veneration. This considerably broadens our understanding of icons then, and makes it that means by which we may express whatever attitude is proper to Christ and the saints.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Sacha

13-01-2011, 04:10 PM

What you've been shown, evidence-wise, was enough (or even more than enough) for many of us to believe that veneration of icons is good and right. If it is not enough for you, all I can say is that the problem is not that the evidence is lacking

Non sequitur.

I'm afraid your parallel is not relevant. Christ's miracles were indeed extraordinary and I am not requesting a miraculous sign, but merely evidence for the existence of icon veneration in the 1st century. Archaeologists have dug up many artifacts from the 1st century in Palestine/Israel. Why is it so hard to find an icon from that time period? The Didache, an important liturgical document, contains absolutely nothing about icons.

Herman Blaydoe

13-01-2011, 04:33 PM

Non sequitur.

I'm afraid your parallel is not relevant. Christ's miracles were indeed extraordinary and I am not requesting a miraculous sign, but merely evidence for the existence of icon veneration in the 1st century. Archaeologists have dug up many artifacts from the 1st century in Palestine/Israel. Why is it so hard to find an icon from that time period? The Didache, an important liturgical document, contains absolutely nothing about icons.

We have presented what evidence we have. If it is not enough for you then to God be the glory and so you believe. I think enough bandwidth has been spent on this particular issue. Time to move on.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-01-2011, 04:36 PM

Non sequitur.

I'm afraid your parallel is not relevant. Christ's miracles were indeed extraordinary and I am not requesting a miraculous sign, but merely evidence for the existence of icon veneration in the 1st century. Archaeologists have dug up many artifacts from the 1st century in Palestine/Israel. Why is it so hard to find an icon from that time period? The Didache, an important liturgical document, contains absolutely nothing about icons.

A few people here Sacha have already pointed to evidence from the 1st century. It really does exist and can be seen in the mosaic depictions of the time as well as in the catacombs. All of this dates from early Roman times in the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Michael Stickles

13-01-2011, 04:36 PM

Did they burn incense in the catacombs Olga?

It is possible, that you may be anachronistically reading into later practices of the church into the catacombs? Were they even used for worship or just for burials?

Certainly they burned incense in the catacombs. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

... we know that in the first Christian services held in the catacombs under the city of Rome, incense was burnt as a sanitary fumigation at least. Tertullian also distinctly alludes to the use of aromatics in Christian burial ... the whole argument from analogy is in favour of the presumption of the ceremonial use of incense by the Christians from the first. It is natural that so little should be said of so obvious a practice until the fuller development of ritual in a later age.

And, as said there, the catacombs were used for worship. The services - i.e., liturgies - held in the catacombs were celebrated on the tombs of martyrs. We remember this in the current practice of having relics of saints placed within the altars of our churches.

We might also note that Malachi prophesied that the Gentiles would offer incense to God:

My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty.

Sacha

13-01-2011, 04:48 PM

Certainly they burned incense in the catacombs. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

And, as said there, the catacombs were used for worship. The services - i.e., liturgies - held in the catacombs were celebrated on the tombs of martyrs. We remember this in the current practice of having relics of saints placed within the altars of our churches.

We might also note that Malachi prophesied that the Gentiles would offer incense to God:

When were the first services held in the catacombs? Does EBritannica say?

Michael Stickles

13-01-2011, 04:53 PM

Archaeologists have dug up many artifacts from the 1st century in Palestine/Israel. Why is it so hard to find an icon from that time period? The Didache, an important liturgical document, contains absolutely nothing about icons.

The trick is not finding the evidence. The evidence is well-attested. The trick is finding public domain images of that evidence on the internet. All the images of first- and early second-century Christian sacred art I've personally seen were in printed books.

Sacha

13-01-2011, 04:56 PM

The trick is not finding the evidence. The evidence is well-attested. The trick is finding public domain images of that evidence on the internet. All the images of first- and early second-century Christian sacred art I've personally seen were in printed books.

Would you be so kind as to share the titles of those books?

Ryan

13-01-2011, 05:03 PM

As Christians, we trust the tradition of the Church that Christ founded. We do this not only on questions like icons, but on everything else, including the scriptures, which we trust to be a faithful transmission of the Prophetic and Apostolic teaching. We do not depend on archaeology or any other secular science to establish our faith and praxis; to do so is to erect modern science as a meta-religion above our Christian faith. Nor should we hold up our personal comfort as a criterion for right practice.

The real question you should be asking, Sacha, isn't whether there is archaeological evidence for icon veneration in the 1st century, but whether Christ founded a visible Church to endure until the end of the age, and whether the Orthodox Church is that Church. Once you answer that question, then the answers to other questions come easily.

I hope you'll attend an Orthodox service soon. No one will condemn you if you don't venerate the icons. Many converts to Orthodoxy in fact take some time to warm up to it.

Michael Stickles

13-01-2011, 05:29 PM

When were the first services held in the catacombs? Does EBritannica say?

Not specifically, at least not in what I've read. They mention that archaeologists agree that eucharistic celebrations were held in them, and that this was done in "the primitive church", but that's as specific as I saw. However, whenever I've seen "primitive church" used in conjunction with a specific date, it's always been first or early second century. Maybe someone else has seen a more specific dating.

As for the books, I'd love to except I can't remember. They were library books I looked through in my pre-Orthodox days while studying church history; that was probably a decade ago or more, and I didn't write anything down about them. I primarily remember my surprise that there was such art from that far back (kinda conflicted with my presuppositions at the time). I'm fairly sure they were the "coffee-table" size books, and about religious art or early Christianity or something similar, but that's as specific as I can be.

Angelos

13-01-2011, 05:30 PM

Sacha

13-01-2011, 05:35 PM

Not specifically, at least not in what I've read. They mention that archaeologists agree that eucharistic celebrations were held in them, and that this was done in "the primitive church", but that's as specific as I saw. However, whenever I've seen "primitive church" used in conjunction with a specific date, it's always been first or early second century. Maybe someone else has seen a more specific dating.

As for the books, I'd love to except I can't remember. They were library books I looked through in my pre-Orthodox days while studying church history; that was probably a decade ago or more, and I didn't write anything down about them. I primarily remember my surprise that there was such art from that far back (kinda conflicted with my presuppositions at the time). I'm fairly sure they were the "coffee-table" size books, and about religious art or early Christianity or something similar, but that's as specific as I can be.

Thank you.

Herman Blaydoe

13-01-2011, 06:32 PM

Going back to the original question, my perception is that many people who live in countries that the large majority is Orthodox Christian (I grew up in one - Greece) consider themselves Orthodox (and would be very insulted if somebody told them otherwise) without necessarily going to Church more than 3-4 times a year or without necessarily being aware of many of the Church's teachings.

Are these people (my father being one of them - God bless his memory) considered Orthodox Christians by the Church, despite their secular lifestyle and ignorance of some Church dogmas?

That is between them and God. But the scriptural adjurations speak for themselves, don't you think? Something about loving father and mother more than Christ (Matthew 10:37), or the parable of the seeds and sower (Matthew 13:19-23), and the "lukewarm" (Revelation 3:16)...? Just because we are baptized does not "guarantee" anything. Our walk with the Lord is day-by-day, decision-by-decision.

Adrian

13-01-2011, 08:19 PM

Just so you know. Orthodox Church has some icons painted by Apostle Luke. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke
People that have icons are in truth.

Angelos

13-01-2011, 08:20 PM

S. Rey

14-01-2011, 10:20 AM

What I have said, on this thread, is that I do not see evidence for the use of icons and icon veneration by Christians living in the first century.

What is important is not evidence to show that something was or was not done in the first century, it is why it is done, even if it seems, at first sight, to contradict "original" practices. We cannot expect to find evidence for full-blown icon-veneration in the first century simply because the faith was in its initial stage, and the small numbers of christians and constant threats of persecution did not favor full-blown church construction and art. Our Lord Himself compared the Church to a mustard seed: the seed is quite unlike, in appearance, to the grown plant, yet it is the very same plant. It grows and blooms into full beauty only after a time. The same is true of the Church: it took a time before we realize the full significance of the Incarnation, and icons are perhaps the best evidence of this truth. Yet they are no "invention" sprung up from nowhere. They belong to the Christian faith' internal dynamic and are pre-supposed by this faith.

We have little evidence for icons and icon-veneration in the very first centuries; textual evidence suggest that there was no general consensus: Lactantius for example does not seem to have approved it, while others are completely silent about it. Icons became an issue only in the Byzantine empire in the 8th century, which was not the case before. It is only then that the Church had to reach a consensus on the issue of icons: they were deemed good and befitting right worship. You certainly are familiar with iconophile arguments (St. John Damascene), and I will not come back to it here. I will just say that the 7th Council approved and sanctionned a practice that was never formalized before, a practice that developped gradually but that was nontheless a full part of the Christian message. This is this realization that the iconophile placed before iconoclasts.

What matters is the whole understanding of the Church, at all times, not just "the first century." If something was not done in 99 AD, and appeared in 101 AD, should we consider this an unlawful innovation? The earlisest images depicted a beardless Christ--no longer the practice today--as well as symbols (fish, etc). Art from Rome's Catacombs and Doura-Europos, dated to the 3rd century, show a faith that was dynamic and seizing opportunities to express itself more and more outwardly. These examples show that iconography did not appear suddenly after Constantine and a supposed "paganization" of Christianity. Also, a large number of early Byzantine mosaics in Italy (Ravenna, the Arian baptistery, Santa Maria Maggiore, etc.) depict a cross to represent the Christ symbolically. We would not do this anymore today, but we would instead represent Christ's face. When the 7th Council said that Christ could no longer be represented in such symbolical manner, it only expressed a faith that had come into full maturity, or more properly, a faith whose implications were fully understood. And so it is the totality of the Church's theology and history that we must study, not just a particular period.

Herman Blaydoe

14-01-2011, 01:52 PM

Dear Herman,

I agree that our being baptized does not "guarantee" Salvation, but I thought it did guarantee that the baptized are "Orthodox Christians" as long as they did not deliberately and knowingly place themselves outside the Orthodox Church

Is anyone saying any different? I said this earlier and I will repeat it once more because I think it has relevance. In considering how much of the Church's teaching one must accept to be Orthodox, I would ask a similar and very related question, to which the answer will probably also be very similar (at least to this bear of admittedly little brain): How much of your spouse do you have to accept to be married?

Please explain to me (using simple words) why the answer to these two questions could possibly be different?

Herman the very (and very happily) married Pooh who accepts his spouse totally and unconditionally

Sacha

14-01-2011, 03:40 PM

What is important is not evidence to show that something was or was not done in the first century, it is why it is done, even if it seems, at first sight, to contradict "original" practices. We cannot expect to find evidence for full-blown icon-veneration in the first century simply because the faith was in its initial stage, and the small numbers of christians and constant threats of persecution did not favor full-blown church construction and art. Our Lord Himself compared the Church to a mustard seed: the seed is quite unlike, in appearance, to the grown plant, yet it is the very same plant. It grows and blooms into full beauty only after a time. The same is true of the Church: it took a time before we realize the full significance of the Incarnation, and icons are perhaps the best evidence of this truth. Yet they are no "invention" sprung up from nowhere. They belong to the Christian faith' internal dynamic and are pre-supposed by this faith.

We have little evidence for icons and icon-veneration in the very first centuries; textual evidence suggest that there was no general consensus: Lactantius for example does not seem to have approved it, while others are completely silent about it. Icons became an issue only in the Byzantine empire in the 8th century, which was not the case before. It is only then that the Church had to reach a consensus on the issue of icons: they were deemed good and befitting right worship. You certainly are familiar with iconophile arguments (St. John Damascene), and I will not come back to it here. I will just say that the 7th Council approved and sanctionned a practice that was never formalized before, a practice that developped gradually but that was nontheless a full part of the Christian message. This is this realization that the iconophile placed before iconoclasts.

What matters is the whole understanding of the Church, at all times, not just "the first century." If something was not done in 99 AD, and appeared in 101 AD, should we consider this an unlawful innovation? The earlisest images depicted a beardless Christ--no longer the practice today--as well as symbols (fish, etc). Art from Rome's Catacombs and Doura-Europos, dated to the 3rd century, show a faith that was dynamic and seizing opportunities to express itself more and more outwardly. These examples show that iconography did not appear suddenly after Constantine and a supposed "paganization" of Christianity. Also, a large number of early Byzantine mosaics in Italy (Ravenna, the Arian baptistery, Santa Maria Maggiore, etc.) depict a cross to represent the Christ symbolically. We would not do this anymore today, but we would instead represent Christ's face. When the 7th Council said that Christ could no longer be represented in such symbolical manner, it only expressed a faith that had come into full maturity, or more properly, a faith whose implications were fully understood. And so it is the totality of the Church's theology and history that we must study, not just a particular period.

Cher Mr Rey,

Merci beaucoup pour votre defense impassionee. J'apprecie l'esprit charitable derriere vos pensees. Thank you for pointing out that there is very little evidence indeed, if any, from the first century. You are perhaps the only one on this thread to say so.

I can explain why the first century is important to my argument: to it belonged a group of christians whose strength has likely never been paralleled. It is upon them, that the Holy Spirit fell all at once at Pentecost and who performed and witnessed many miracles, more so than at any other period in following centuries. It is them, as we read of in the Book of Acts, that sold everything they had, including property, to help each other. Do you see that happening today? In certain parts of Europe today, 75% of the people don't even pay their taxes to the government, let alone help the poor. And before someone gets excited, this same selfishness exists in the US. My minor point is that there was a purity to the early church that existed and pleased God, without icon veneration. My larger point, flowing from the minor point, is therefore that it is unecessary to make it an absolute requirement that one must accept the veneration of icons. Yet this is what has happened in the OC. It has become the law and to me, a form of nomism.

You mention Lactanctius, he was indeed not in favor. I refuse to believe that everyone who had discomfort with icons was vile, violent, and intolerant, even though many were. I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.

Sacha

14-01-2011, 03:45 PM

Is anyone saying any different? I said this earlier and I will repeat it once more because I think it has relevance. In considering how much of the Church's teaching one must accept to be Orthodox, I would ask a similar and very related question, to which the answer will probably also be very similar (at least to this bear of admittedly little brain): How much of your spouse do you have to accept to be married?

Please explain to me (using simple words) why the answer to these two questions could possibly be different?

Herman the very (and very happily) married Pooh who accepts his spouse totally and unconditionally

By this standard, many Orthodox who post on this forum and believe in evolution, one way or another, do not belong to the church, regardless of what they believe. Is this correct?

Michael Stickles

14-01-2011, 06:04 PM

My minor point is that there was a purity to the early church that existed and pleased God, without icon veneration. My larger point, flowing from the minor point, is therefore that it is unecessary to make it an absolute requirement that one must accept the veneration of icons.

Leaving aside the point that this transforms "little" into "no" evidence unjustifiably, I would only point out that by this standard, either it would be unnecessary to accept the canon of Scripture, or we should accept a different canon than we now have.

Herman Blaydoe

14-01-2011, 06:10 PM

By this standard, many Orthodox who post on this forum and believe in evolution, one way or another, do not belong to the church, regardless of what they believe. Is this correct?

No, that is not correct.

Sacha

14-01-2011, 06:19 PM

Leaving aside the point that this transforms "little" into "no" evidence unjustifiably, I would only point out that by this standard, either it would be unnecessary to accept the canon of Scripture, or we should accept a different canon than we now have.

While the canon of Scripture was not formalized until much after the first century had passed, I believe it is fair to say that in the first century Scripture was passed around through oral tradition, which was just as reliable as the canon that would come into being. In fact, it is thanks to the high reliability of this oral tradition that we can trust in our gospels, even though they were written decades following Jesus' death and resurrection.

Sacha

14-01-2011, 06:22 PM

No, that is not correct.

Why not? Using your analogy that we marry all of our spouse, and with the understanding that the church has never supported evolution, how can anyone be said to be Orthodox is they accept any part or all of evolutionary theory?

Herman Blaydoe

14-01-2011, 06:31 PM

Why not? Using your analogy that we marry all of our spouse, and with the understanding that the church has never supported evolution, how can anyone be said to be Orthodox is they accept any part or all of evolutionary theory?

The Church has no position on evolutionary theory. The Fathers have no position on evolutionary theory, because it wasn't a theory when they were alive. The question MIGHT be can we be Orthodox without believing in a literal six days of Creation, but the Church, as far as I know has not said that it is doctrine or official teaching of the Church, at least my bishop hasn't and he is in communion with the other Orthodox bishops. So, even though I personally do not have much use for the theory of evolution, I do not see where someone saying they do should be denied Holy Communion and you would need to explain to me in detail, using simple words, why that is not correct.

Sacha

14-01-2011, 06:38 PM

The Church has no position on evolutionary theory. The Fathers have no position on evolutionary theory, because it wasn't a theory when they were alive. The question MIGHT be can we be Orthodox without believing in a literal six days of Creation, but the Church, as far as I know has not said that it is doctrine or official teaching of the Church, at least my bishop hasn't and he is in communion with the other Orthodox bishops. So, even though I personally do not have much use for the theory of evolution, I do not see where someone saying they do should be denied Holy Communion and you would need to explain to me in detail, using simple words, why that is not correct.

Someone on the other thread on evolution had posted quite a strong statement regarding compatibility of evolution and church doctrine. Is there an official statement from the highest authorities in the OC today on this issue?

Michael Stickles

14-01-2011, 07:04 PM

While the canon of Scripture was not formalized until much after the first century had passed, I believe it is fair to say that in the first century Scripture was passed around through oral tradition, which was just as reliable as the canon that would come into being.

Which canon? Which oral tradition?

Irenaeus, in the early second century, considered the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture, and considered I Clement authoritative as well. Later in that century, Clement of Alexandria approvingly quotes from I Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, calling them "inspired", and approvingly quotes several other works not considered canonical, yet does not refer to Philemon, James, II Peter, II John or III John.

The Muratorian Canon - which I believe is the first actual "canon" (not including the heretic Marcion's), and dates to around 200 - includes the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas but does not mention Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, or III John. Not until Athanasius the Great gives a canon in his 39th Festal Epistle (c. 367) do we have the exact NT as we accept it today specified (but his OT is slightly different, including the Epistle of Baruch and excluding Esther, though he lists that with other writings to be read by catechumens).

The Codex Sinaiticus, from the 4th century, includes all the books now considered the New Testament but also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The OT section is incomplete but includes many of the works from the Septuagint which are not in the Hebrew OT.

In any case, there could not have been an oral tradition of the canon which matched ours until very late in the first century since the Revelation, at least, was not written until then. Scripture was still being written and the understanding of it was still developing, and continued to develop over the next couple of centuries - similar to what we see with the understanding of sacred images.

Archimandrite Irenei

14-01-2011, 07:10 PM

The idea that a first-century oral collection was in any way a parity to our fourth-century canon is rather absurd.

Sacha

14-01-2011, 07:17 PM

Which canon? Which oral tradition?

Irenaeus, in the early second century, considered the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture, and considered I Clement authoritative as well.

Was Irenaeus not Orthodox or in error for considering Hermas and 1 Clement as authoritative?

If the answer is no, and He is considered 'Orthodox' (something of an anachronism here, because the term didn't become the appellation that is now until much later), then why hold others to be bound to accept a particular canon of the church ( whatever is officially recognized today by the OC) that came much after Irenaeus?

Sacha

14-01-2011, 07:19 PM

The idea that a first-century oral collection was in any way a parity to our fourth-century canon is rather absurd.

No claim of parity was made. You are reading into what I wrote.

Michael Stickles

14-01-2011, 07:25 PM

Someone on the other thread on evolution had posted quite a strong statement regarding compatibility of evolution and church doctrine. Is there an official statement from the highest authorities in the OC today on this issue?

That was probably me, and I stand by it - but I do believe Herman is correct as regards the dogma of the church. And holding to a position incompatible with Church dogma isn't in itself an issue as long as one accepts the Church's dogma. While that may sound contradictory, the fact is that we are all quite capable of holding incompatible views simultaneously, without realizing that they are in fact incompatible (because we just haven't pursued them that far). Some of us can probably even match the White Queen from Alice in Wonderland, believing "as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Once we truly understand that the contradiction exists, of course, we would need to abandon the position which contradicts the Church's dogma.

Administrator

14-01-2011, 07:30 PM

To all contributors: This thread is continuing to veer of course into the back-and-forth over one member's personal views one certain issues regarding early Church history. This not the purpose of this thread.

From this point forward, will all contributors please ensure that their posts are directly focused on responding to the question: 'How much of the Church's teaching must one accept to be Orthodox?' This is not a thread for debating specific historical questions; rather, to discuss the broader question of one's approach to Church teaching as a whole.

Further posts on individual members' positions on specific points in Church history will be removed if they do not respond directly to the actual question of the thread.

Thank you!

Michael Stickles

14-01-2011, 07:43 PM

Was Irenaeus not Orthodox or in error for considering Hermas and 1 Clement as authoritative?

If the answer is no, and He is considered 'Orthodox' (something of an anachronism here, because the term didn't become the appellation that is now until much later), then why hold others to be bound to accept a particular canon of the church ( whatever is officially recognized today by the OC) that came much after Irenaeus?

That question only makes sense if one assumes that the Church has had no doctrinal authority whatsoever since the first century; that only those things considered obligatory in the first century can forever after be considered as such. This is not the Orthodox view of the Church.

Angelos

14-01-2011, 08:56 PM

I don't know if this is helpful but I think that as long as someone recognizes the authority of the Orthodox Church as the one true Church and doesn't go out of his/her way to publicly contradict core dogmas, then they are considered Orthodox despite some disagreements they might have. For example, many Orthodox are pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage. Both these positions contradict the positions of the Orthodox Church (but they are not "dogmas") but these people are considered Orthodox...On the other hand, there are core issues that might "force" the Orthodox Church to place someone outside (e.g., if someone publicly states that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son; or that communion is only a symbol and not the actual Body of Christ).

Regarding the icons, if someone publicly says that venerating them is just wrong, then in my humble opinion, they do place themselves outside the Orthodox Church; but if someone just decides not to venerate icons, without trashing those who do - then that's fine..

Sacha

14-01-2011, 09:26 PM

Angelos

14-01-2011, 09:58 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-01-2011, 11:00 PM

The core issue is: Does someone recognize the Orthodox Church as the one true Church?? There is no Church "dogma" no ecumenical council decision regarding abortion. However, you Sacha obviously do not accept that the Orthodox Church knows how to properly worship our Lord. You practically called it corrupt - so why do you keep coming at it? You deny the Church's authority in Worship - so you are not, and you don't want to be, Orthodox. Just deal with it and move on

Actually, there are a number of canonical decisions regarding the extreme seriousness of abortion. For example Canon 91 of the 6th Ec Co states that both those who provide the drugs for abortions and those who take them are 'made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers'. From my understanding though abortion is traditionally seen as a most grave sin even from the times of the early Church.

Now in terms of this discussion no one has yet brought up a central fact of what bars one from the Cup. Someone who has had an abortion must first have confession and then possibly be subject to a serious penance before they may approach the Cup. Someone who consciously rejects the icons should also not approach the Cup, since this is different from someone struggling with understanding icons. At least the latter is trying their best to accept the understanding of the Church, while the former arises from a destructive lack of belief that can only do harm to someone.

Note that we're talking here about those who have already entered the Church and presumably already should have understood the central role of obedience to Her standards.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Christina M.

14-01-2011, 11:03 PM

Angelos

14-01-2011, 11:04 PM

yes Father, actually I do know someone who had an abortion and was forgiven after going to confession (was allowed to approach the Cup)

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-01-2011, 11:14 PM

yes Father, actually I do know someone who had an abortion and was forgiven after going to confession (was allowed to approach the Cup)

I'm not sure if we're speaking past each other or not- but abortion & confession (and a possible penance) is the canonical standard I was referring to above. In other words, what is not permitted is to proceed directly to the Cup without first having the sacrament of confession- then absolution which may follow immediately after the confession or when the penance is complete.

For an open iconoclast I would ask something similar although other clergy may disagree.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-01-2011, 11:35 PM

Sacha,
If you don't like to kiss icons, then don't kiss icons. When did anybody ever force you to kiss an icon? And you're not even Orthodox. Even if you were Orthodox, still nobody would force you to kiss an icon.

Where's the problem here? I don't understand why you're so sensitive about the issue of icons.

In Christ,
Christina

I'm sorry to keep harping on this issue. I seem to be the only man in a black dress present in the house at present. But central to the heart of this discussion- once we have entered the Church we are not free to reject the veneration of icons, or to never confess or receive the Eucharist. We are not free to reject central tenets of the Faith of the Church concerning tradition and piety and manner of life.

Of course we can misuse our freedom; or struggle with it (that's the best of all likely positions since this provides a direct pathway to humility, confession, change of life & constant effort). But to use our freedom to intentionally go against what is basic to the life of the Church must be something we set aside once we enter the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Christina M.

15-01-2011, 01:02 AM

I'm sorry to keep harping on this issue. I seem to be the only man in a black dress present in the house at present. But central to the heart of this discussion- once we have entered the Church we are not free to reject the veneration of icons, or to never confess or receive the Eucharist. We are not free to reject central tenets of the Faith of the Church concerning tradition and piety and manner of life.

Of course we can misuse our freedom; or struggle with it (that's the best of all likely positions since this provides a direct pathway to humility, confession, change of life & constant effort). But to use our freedom to intentionally go against what is basic to the life of the Church must be something we set aside once we enter the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father, bless:
Forgive me that I had an incorrect viewpoint. I guess I wanted to stress that Sacha isn't even Orthodox, hence has not even "entered the Church", nor is expressing any desire to enter the Church, so it's really a non-issue on whether or not he/she personally kisses the icons, which he/she is making a big deal of. (I mean no disrespect, Sacha. I got my own problems to worry about! :)) But I missed the main point of the thread, which is: Is it okay for an ORTHODOX person to disagree with kissing icons. I completely agree with you, Father, that an Orthodox person should not have an problems with veneration of icons.

Forgive me,
Christina

Angelos

15-01-2011, 01:25 AM

Dear Father, bless:
Forgive me that I had an incorrect viewpoint. I guess I wanted to stress that Sacha isn't even Orthodox, hence has not even "entered the Church", nor is expressing any desire to enter the Church, so it's really a non-issue on whether or not he/she personally kisses the icons, which he/she is making a big deal of. (I mean no disrespect, Sacha. I got my own problems to worry about! :)) But I missed the main point of the thread, which is: Is it okay for an ORTHODOX person to disagree with kissing icons. I completely agree with you, Father, that an Orthodox person should not have an problems with veneration of icons.

Forgive me,
Christina

I have never met an Orthodox or Catholic person that rejects the veneration of icons.

Anna Stickles

15-01-2011, 01:48 AM

The issue that has come up in this thread seems to be that in order to answer doubts about icon veneration that have been ingrained from our upbringing in a Protestant Tradition, we look to the practice of the early church - ie the authority of the Apostles as the only authority for answering this question.

It is an attitude that reflects a lack of trust in the Orthodox church as the heir of an undistorted apostolic tradition. Indeed this lack of trust in anything other then the Apostles themselves is rampant in Protestant circles. What drove the Reformation was that the Catholic church had betrayed the people's trust with their distortion of piety and belief. And so for the Reformers the Apostles become the sole trusted authority, since there was no longer trust in a continuous uncorrupted Tradition.

So one tries to discover Apostolic tradition through other (supposedly objective) sources like secular historical records and then sees if Orthodoxy has indeed kept in line with that tradition or not. I think that for those who are checking into Orthodoxy we have to allow that this is valid. As an old Russian saying goes, we have to eat 100 kg of salt with someone before we trust them. Finding other sources that verify a person's reliability is one way to build trust.

If an inquirer at first keeps checking on outside sources to see if Orthodoxy is indeed the Apostolic faith, I don't see a problem with this, but all our questions can never be answered and at the end, a step of faith is called for. After all what the Church offers is a relationship with Christ, and this always is entered into by faith not fact. It is the heart responding in faith, not having all the answers in the mind that will finally lead us out of the confusion of facts that may or may not be able to be proven.

But it does get very confusing is when members of the forum try to put on outsiders and expectation of faith that is only appropriate for those within the Church, rather then being considerate of those wrestling with the issue of faith.

I suppose this brings up an important criteria for being Orthodox. To be Orthodox one has to trust in the Holy Spirit at work in the Church preserving the Apostolic faith through the ages. One has to trust that right doctrine and practice, an undistorted faith, was not lost for umpty years only to be rediscovered by either the reformers, or ourselves, or whoever, but rather has been here all along. One has to trust that what now exists in Orthodox practice and dogma are not an addition to or change to this Apostolic faith, but rather merely a more detailed practice or explication of what was given by Christ to the disciples.

Sacha

15-01-2011, 02:18 AM

I'm not sure if we're speaking past each other or not- but abortion & confession (and a possible penance) is the canonical standard I was referring to above. In other words, what is not permitted is to proceed directly to the Cup without first having the sacrament of confession- then absolution which may follow immediately after the confession or when the penance is complete.

For an open iconoclast I would ask something similar although other clergy may disagree.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael,

Thank you for your thoughts. You mentioned the recommended path for people that have had an abortion or contributed towards one. May I ask you about a related issue, which is tied to the topic of this thread: What of those who are unrepentant in holding life long pro abortion views, (but may have not necessarily directly contributed to one, but certainly indirectly through their voting and giving) do they get to remain Orthodox, within the church fold?

Paul Cowan

15-01-2011, 02:25 AM

do they get to remain Orthodox, within the church fold?

That's a pastoral question and can only be answered by the person's spiritual father. It cannot be answered here with a brush stroke.

Paul

S. Rey

15-01-2011, 10:29 AM

Cher Mr Rey,

Merci beaucoup pour votre defense impassionee. J'apprecie l'esprit charitable derriere vos pensees. Thank you for pointing out that there is very little evidence indeed, if any, from the first century. You are perhaps the only one on this thread to say so.

I can explain why the first century is important to my argument: to it belonged a group of christians whose strength has likely never been paralleled. It is upon them, that the Holy Spirit fell all at once at Pentecost and who performed and witnessed many miracles, more so than at any other period in following centuries. It is them, as we read of in the Book of Acts, that sold everything they had, including property, to help each other. Do you see that happening today? In certain parts of Europe today, 75% of the people don't even pay their taxes to the government, let alone help the poor. And before someone gets excited, this same selfishness exists in the US. My minor point is that there was a purity to the early church that existed and pleased God, without icon veneration. My larger point, flowing from the minor point, is therefore that it is unecessary to make it an absolute requirement that one must accept the veneration of icons. Yet this is what has happened in the OC. It has become the law and to me, a form of nomism.

You mention Lactanctius, he was indeed not in favor. I refuse to believe that everyone who had discomfort with icons was vile, violent, and intolerant, even though many were. I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.

This is stretching the argument a bit too far. The first christians always have been a lmodel to imitate, and people throughout the centuries have done so. The atheist persecution in the former Soviet block proves that the spirit of early Christianity is still very much alive in the Church. After Constantine, many Church fathers sold their property to help the poor--St. John Chrysostom, St. Anthony, St; Basil the GReat, and many more. Even if there are indeed periods of "relaxation", we should not impute this to the Church at large. We are human beings and weak, yet we also know how to regain the strength and vigor that is asked of us. The Church may be going through difficult and sometimes corrupt days, but these are trials that will prove beneficial ultimately. The miracle of Pentecost is still with us today, as the saints witness.

Regarding icons, the Church never forced anyone to venerate them--unlike iconoclasts who coerced people not to venerate them. No one at church will force you to kiss an icon, neither priest nor lay people. Some people go around the entire church and venerate every one of them, while others simply go to their favorite icon, so there is no "rule" of veneration.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-01-2011, 04:16 PM

Dear Father, bless:
I guess I wanted to stress that Sacha isn't even Orthodox, hence has not even "entered the Church", nor is expressing any desire to enter the Church, so it's really a non-issue on whether or not he/she personally kisses the icons, which he/she is making a big deal of. (I mean no disrespect, Sacha. I got my own problems to worry about! :)) But I missed the main point of the thread, which is: Is it okay for an ORTHODOX person to disagree with kissing icons. I completely agree with you, Father, that an Orthodox person should not have an problems with veneration of icons.

Forgive me,
Christina

I agree - on both of your points!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-01-2011, 04:36 PM

Fr Raphael,

Thank you for your thoughts. You mentioned the recommended path for people that have had an abortion or contributed towards one. May I ask you about a related issue, which is tied to the topic of this thread: What of those who are unrepentant in holding life long pro abortion views, (but may have not necessarily directly contributed to one, but certainly indirectly through their voting and giving) do they get to remain Orthodox, within the church fold?

I'm a priest, so I tend to see things in terms of what people actually do within the Church in connection with various issues. And keep in mind that all this is often connected to deeper personal issues: 'it upsets me that those in authority don't have sympathy for one half of the population', 'I can't stand how people are not respected' etc. This needs to be kept in mind and that in reality personal motivations are all across the board. So you don't have just one universal standard for dealing with everybody. There is a complex personal reality that we need to keep in mind.

But in the case of a hard line pro-abortionist, not struggling with their own views on this issue, convinced that the teaching of the Orthodox church is wrong and needs to be changed. Well in this case, many or most Orthodox priests would not allow such a person to receive communion, unless they first repent. This doesn't mean that we drive such people out of the Church- this occurs very rarely in Orthodoxy and is usually reserved only for those who are continuously & physically disruptive. But really the Cup is often the arbiter in such affairs. And once a person decides to pass over this line, very often the result is that such a person leaves the Church. In the minds of such people, it is the Church which is at fault. But as one bishop used to say, in reality people are continuously placing themselves in regards to the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Archimandrite Irenei

15-01-2011, 08:23 PM

Dear friends,

The key ingredient in this discussion, which a few have touched on recently, is the question of accepting the Church’s true headship as that of Christ, and her divine nature as His Body. In posing the question, ‘How much of the Church’s teaching must one accept to be Orthodox?’, this is a fundamental matter that stands at the heart of an answer—and it is one of those matters on which an answer of ‘no’ does indeed mean that one has placed himself outside the Church.

This fact has already been touched on in a few posts above, and they are worth repeating so that their message does not get lost in the flurry of responses surrounding the side-issues of specific historical questions. Michael wrote, concerning a specific attempt at reading history as evidence for right action apart from the Church:

[The] question only makes sense if one assumes that the Church has had no doctrinal authority whatsoever since the first century; that only those things considered obligatory in the first century can forever after be considered as such. This is not the Orthodox view of the Church.
This is very much at the heart of the matter. The attempt to focus one’s energies on which specific historical issues one can or cannot ‘prove’ to one’s satisfaction, regarding particular practices in history, etc., is to fail to ask the question that really matters: do I believe that the Church is guided by God and is His Body, carrying on worship and life as He orders them, or do I not? If one does, then the question of reading historical evidence becomes a rather different task; and the facts disclosed from history (e.g. whether or icons were used in a specific way at a specific point in history in a specific place) become ancillary to the fact that veneration of icons is appropriate and necessary because so God has ordained in His Church. There may have been (and were) times and places when such matters were approached differently; but the right abiding practice for Christianity is not determined by re-creations of history, but by the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

However, if one does not answer ‘yes’ to the question, ‘do I believe that the Church is guided by God and is His Body, carrying on worship and life as He orders them?’, then the approach to reading history as a guide for current practice takes on utterly different dimensions. Anna has already pointed these out:

It is an attitude that reflects a lack of trust in the Orthodox church as the heir of an undistorted apostolic tradition. Indeed this lack of trust in anything other then the Apostles themselves is rampant in Protestant circles.
And further:

To be Orthodox one has to trust in the Holy Spirit at work in the Church preserving the Apostolic faith through the ages.
I think this is especially well said. In such cases where one does not believe or trust that the Church truly is Christ’s body and the Holy Spirit is actively at work—always—in guiding her, then the Church’s teaching cannot be considered ‘trustworthy’, and instead one must set up one’s own criteria for judging ‘truth’ and ‘correct belief’ or action. This is an essentially, fundamentally Protestant conception of history, against which the Orthodox Church has spoken since its invention as being fundamentally anti-ecclesiastical and anti-theological. It can take many different concrete forms, since it is essentially inviting each person to determine his or her own preferred criteria. We have seen in this thread one quite popular version: namely, the ‘I’ll only accept as authentic what I can see in the first century’ criterion for authenticity. But of course, this is itself riddled with problems, since it becomes very quickly an ideology willing to reject and accept ‘evidence’ as satisfactory or otherwise, quite apart from an objective approach to the evidence itself.

But—and this is the key point—the question of that ideological imbalance to historical reading is really quite secondary, since the whole approach fails to miss the true mark of Orthodox belief: namely, the belief that the Church is guided by God. Historical data, first-century or otherwise, is not what determines or grounds truth or right action. Evidence of practice from any locale or era is not what determines or grounds truth or right action. God determines these things, and imparts them to man by the Church, His Body.

‘How much of the Church’s teaching must one accept to be Orthodox?’ This is a question that deserves more nuance than it has received thus far in this thread (for example, there is the question of struggling with belief; of defining what ‘accept’ means in practical, pastoral terms, etc.); but at the very least one key ingredient in the answer must be that it is necessary to accept that the Church is the living Body of Christ, of which He is ever actively Head, in which the Holy Spirit ensures the ever-present proclamation and practice of truth in the world. This has to be accepted as a basic tenet of Orthodoxy, and if one does not genuinely believe this, then one certainly sets oneself apart from the Church. And in believing it, it must come to shape how one approaches the other questions he will face in the spiritual struggle.

How does this relate to the question of the veneration of icons?

Given that the question of the veneration of icons has been raised at some length in the preceding pages, I think it perhaps helpful to conclude with the Church’s teaching on this matter. In the Orthodox Church, we do not ask ‘ought we venerate icons?’ as a question to be answered by analytically probing the evidence of history (even though this evidence quite clearly shows it an ancient and widespread practice, as has already been pointed out in this conversation); nor do we ask it as a question of personal interpretive preference, as if how I ‘feel’ about the matter is in some sense a viable criterion for determining actual practice. We ask the question of God, so that if God’s will is such to reveal a clear answer, we may receive it from the Church and shape our lives accordingly. And on this issue, God has spoken clearly through the Spirit in the Church. Here is an excerpt from the canonical letter of the bishops at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, written to the Empress Irene at the conclusion of its meetings:
"And as the hands and feet are moved in accordance with the directions of the mind, so likewise, we, having received the grace and strength of the Spirit, and having also the assistance and co-operation of your royal authority, have with one voice declared as piety and proclaimed as truth:

"That the sacred icons of our Lord Jesus Christ are to be had and retained, inasmuch as He was very man; also those which set forth what is historically narrated in the Gospels; and those which represent our undefiled Lady, the holy Mother of God; and likewise those of the Holy Angels (for they have manifested themselves in human form to those who were counted worthy of the vision of them), or of any of the Saints. [We have also decreed] that the brave deeds of the Saints be portrayed on tablets and on the walls, and upon the sacred vessels and vestments, as hath been the custom of the holy Catholic Church of God from ancient times; which custom was regarded as having the force of law in the teaching both of those holy leaders who lived in the first ages of the Church, and also of their successors our reverend Fathers.

"[We have likewise decreed] that these images are to be venerated (προσκυνεῖν); that is, salutations are to be offered to them. The reason for using the word is, that it has a two-fold signification. For κυνεῖν in the old Greek tongue signifies both “to salute” and “to kiss.” And the preposition προς gives to it the additional idea of strong desire towards the subject; as for example, we have φέρω and προσφέρω, κυρῶ and προσκυρῶ, and so also we have κυνέω and προσκυνέω. Which last word implies salutation and strong love; for that which one loves he also reverences (προσκυνεῖ) and what he reverences that he greatly loves, as the everyday custom, which we observe towards those we love, bears witness, and in which both ideas are practically illustrated when two friends meet together. The word is not only made use of by us, but we also find it set down in the Divine Scriptures by the ancients. For it is written in the histories of the Kings: “And David rose up and fell upon his face and did reverence to (προσεκυνήσε) Jonathan three times and kissed him” (1 Kings 20.41 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.iKgs.20.html#iKgs.20.41)). And what is it that the Lord in the Gospel says concerning the Pharisees? “They love the uppermost rooms at feasts and greetings (ἀσπασμοὺς) in the markets.” It is evident that by “greetings” here, he means reverence (προσκύνησιν) for the Pharisees being very high-minded and thinking themselves to be righteous were eager to be reverenced by all, but not [merely] to be kissed. For to receive salutations of this latter sort savoured too much of lowly humility, and this was not to the Pharisees’ liking. We have also the example of Paul the divine Apostle, as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates: “When we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto James, and all the presbyters were present. And when he had saluted (ἀσπασάμενος) them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry” (Acts 21.17-19 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.Acts.21.html#Acts.21.17)). By the salutation here mentioned, the Apostle evidently intended to render that reverence of honour (τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν) which we shew to one another, and of which he speaks when he says concerning Jacob, that “he reverenced (προσεκύνησεν) the top of his staff” (Heb. 11.21 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.Heb.11.html#Heb.11.21)). With these examples agrees what Gregory surnamed the Theologian says: “Honour Bethlehem, and reverence (προσκυνήσον) the manger.”This is about as clear as one could hope for (though there is yet more provided in the canonical documents). The Holy Spirit has made clear, through the Church, that icons are not only to be present, but to be venerated by the faithful. And so do we shape our lives and our practice by this truth, for this is what God has taught in the Spirit. We do not childishly ask for ‘proof’ from a former era, as if God were somehow accountable to the human vicissitudes of history from any age—we do what God commands.

INXC, Fr Irenei