Christian Forums

Hello all.

I would like to answer your questions about Orthodox Christianity.


Jesus said "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

How does the Orthodox Church view the Coptic Church?

blessings

Ravenlorre,

I wonder how many people know what a Coptic is?   

A good question, without an easy answer.    The official answer is
Orthodox are not in communion with our Coptic brethren.
The reason for this is they backed out of the fourth ecumenical
council, when they refused to acknowledge Pope Leo's Tome.

Oddly, they had no problem with what was in the Tome, but
they viewed it as an unwarrented addition, so just 13 of
them left the Chalcedon and formed the Coptic Church.

There have been talks of reunification with the Orthodox
churches which are said to be close, but not yet.
I hope in my lifetime this will happen.  (I am also hoping
for a reunification with the Catholic Church, which is further
away).

In worship and tradition, the Copts are very similiar.  For
example, they use icons but not statues, as do the Orthodox.
The Copts are living evidence of the endurance of icons.
Even though they were not at the 7th ecumenical council,
which approved icons in worship, their tradition has long
included them in worship.

Thanks for the question.

Here's the Coptic perspective:

QuoteUnder the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire of Constantinople (as opposed to the western empire of Rome), the Patriarchs and Popes of Alexandria played leading roles in Christian theology. They were invited everywhere to speak about the Christian faith. Saint Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, was the head of the Ecumenical Council which was held in Ephesus in the year 430 A.D. It was said that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but spend all their time in meetings. This leading role, however, did not fare well when politics started to intermingle with Church affairs. It all started when the Emperor Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. The response of Saint Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria who was later exiled, to this interference was clear: "You have nothing to do with the Church." These political motives became even more apparent in Chalcedon in 451, when the Coptic Church was unfairly accused of following the teachings of Eutyches, who believed in monophysitism. This doctrine maintains that the Lord Jesus Christ has only one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine.

The Coptic Church has never believed in monophysitism the way it was portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon! In that Council, monophysitism meant believing in one nature. Copts believe that the Lord is perfect in His divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and His humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word", which was reiterated by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Copts, thus, believe in two natures "human" and "divine" that are united in one "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration" (from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy). These two natures "did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).

The Coptic Church was misunderstood in the 5th century at the Council of Chalcedon. Perhaps the Council understood the Church correctly, but they wanted to exile the Church, to isolate it and to abolish the Egyptian, independent Pope, who maintained that Church and State should be separate. Despite all of this, the Coptic Church has remained very strict and steadfast in its faith. Whether it was a conspiracy from the Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church as a punishment for its refusal to be politically influenced, or whether Pope Dioscurus didn't quite go the extra mile to make the point that Copts are not monophysite, the Coptic Church has always felt a mandate to reconcile "semantic" differences between all Christian Churches. This is aptly expressed by the current 117th successor of Saint Mark, Pope Shenouda III: "To the Coptic Church, faith is more important than anything, and others must know that semantics and terminology are of little importance to us." Throughout this century, the Coptic Church has played an important role in the ecumenical movement. The Coptic Church is one of the founders of the World Council of Churches. It has remained a member of that council since 1948 A.D. The Coptic Church is a member of the all African Council of Churches (AACC) and the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC). The Church plays an important role in the Christian movement by conducting dialogues aiming at resolving the theological differences with the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterian, and Evangelical Churches.

Quote from: billinjackson on Mon Nov 05, 2007 - 21:17:02

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sun Oct 14, 2007 - 01:23:11
How does the Orthodox Church view the Coptic Church?

blessings

In the same vein, what are your thoughts of the Ethiopian Church?

Also, it should be noted that the sad split or "Great schism" was also, to a lesser degree on the issue surrounding the Filioque and not just Papal authority. Although Authority is the issue still to this day, but I pray for unification with all my Eastern brethren.

In Christ

bill

Quote from: billinjackson on Mon Nov 05, 2007 - 21:20:34

In the same vein, what are your thoughts of the Ethiopian Church?

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is a Coptic Church.  The Copts, too, sent missionaries to parts of the globe.  The origins of the Ethiopian Church, as far as I know, date back to the Coptic split in 451 over the Chaledonian Council.  Of course, the Copts along with today's Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches go back to the beginning, when Jesus established his church on earth (Matt 16:18). 

More specifically, the Copts and Ethiopian churches are part of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the original of which is the Copts.   There are even Oriential Churches in India.  See my and DCRs comments above about them.   I consider them brothers in Christ, and hope to share communion with them in my lifetime.

Quote

Also, it should be noted that the sad split or "Great schism" was also, to a lesser degree on the issue surrounding the Filioque and not just Papal authority. Although Authority is the issue still to this day, but I pray for unification with all my Eastern brethren.

It's kind of like saying that the massacre at Lexington and Concord started the Revolutionary War (or the War for Independence, if you are British).  The Filioque is the trigger that caused the split, but the issue behind it was the RCCs claim to universal authority.

Are you Catholic?  I am praying for unification for the eastern and western Churches as well. 

And welcome to the forum!

Interesting thread here.  I find the issue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches to be of interest.  I noticed that CDHealy has returned.  Perhaps, he has other things to add.

I'm happy to add any insights that I can.

Which Orthodox church are you from, CD?

I'm a member of the self-ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, whose Patriarch, Ignatios IV, resides in Damascus, Syria.  The patriarchal synod only  makes decisions (ratifies) our bishops-elect.  All temporal matters related to the archdiocese are handled here in the U.S. under our Metropolitan, Phillip.  Our own bishop is His Grace, Mark.

Thanks.

What sacraments does the Orthodox church embrace?  What are the differences between your sacraments and the RCC's (if any)?

Good question, Jarrod and thanks to you and DCR for reviving this thread and welcome back CD.

Having grown up Catholic and am in the process of converting to Orthodoxy, I can answer your question, but I must admit I get the terms they use mixed up.

The short answer is yes, they are the same seven sacraments, but the names are slightly different (this is where I get mixed up-especially since the Catholics changed the names when I was growing up.)  In order of occurence: 1) Baptism (usually done in both churches as infants) 2)  Communion (first done at about age 7 in RCC; after chrismation  in O church)  3) Confirmation/chrismation - the receiving of the Holy Spirit - done at about age 12 in the RCC church/ done after baptism in O church - Converts are received by chrismation in O church  4) Penance/reconcilation, that is, confessing sins to a priest  5) holy orders, that is, priest/monk/nun  6) marriage - Orthodox can do both 5 and 6, RCC can't 7)annointing of the sick/holy unction - blessing the sick.

These 7 sacraments are more important in the RCC than the O church and the O church, I think, adopted them because of Western influence (a rare time in O history that this occurred).  To me and many O Christians, there are other sacraments as well including reading Scripture, prayer, almsgiving.  In fact, many Os say that all of life is sacramental.
I would define sacraments as things we do to serve God, which is perhaps why Protestants have such a problem with them.  Luther agreed to only two -- baptism and communion (that is real presence communion) since they are the only two mentioned in the Bible, although I thought marriage was too .

By the way, the O church that I plan to join is the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), a spinoff of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it received independence from Russia during communism.   When I am received into the OCA, I can also receive communion from CD's church.  Most Orthodox churches are in communion with each other.

Hope this helps.

Trifecta:

I think I would correct the following:

Quote from: trifecta on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 22:07:53These 7 sacraments are more important in the RCC than the O church and the O church, I think, adopted them because of Western influence (a rare time in O history that this occurred).  To me and many O Christians, there are other sacraments as well including reading Scripture, prayer, almsgiving.  In fact, many Os say that all of life is sacramental.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church share a common heritage and life prior to about the twelfth century A.D.  Thus, both Rome and Orthodoxy have a common tradition in terms of the Sacraments, though, since the twelfth century A.D., due to the schism of Rome from the five Eastern Patriarchates, there have been some developments.

One of the relatively minor differences is that Rome does, in fact, enumerate seven sacraments, whereas the Orthodox are not quite so formal in their enumeration.  Trifecta is correct, however, in that Orthodox see all of Christian life as sacramental.

Another smaller difference is that traditionally Orthodoxy refer to the sacraments not as sacraments (which refers to oaths and legal contexts) but as mysteries (which refers to the revelation of God in his acts and words).

Both Churches place a very large importance on being in a proper spiritual state to receive the grace of the sacraments, primarily through repentance and confession.  And Both Churches see the primary sacrament being the Eucharist, Lord's Supper.

Although the terminology and understanding is a little different, both Churches do believe that the elements of bread and wine do become metaphysically and spiritual the Body and Blood of Jesus.

One big difference between Rome and Orthodoxy, however, is their respective views on the grace that is experienced in the sacraments.  Rome views this grace as created, and something other than God.  Orthodoxy views this grace as uncreated, and part of the energies of God, not God in essence, but God in activity.  Thus, when Orthodox participate in the sacraments, they believe they are actually participating in God and taking in his divine life.

Thanks guys.

This kind of heads in the direction I was angling towards:

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 13:03:11
Both Churches place a very large importance on being in a proper spiritual state to receive the grace of the sacraments, primarily through repentance and confession.  And Both Churches see the primary sacrament being the Eucharist, Lord's Supper.

One big difference between Rome and Orthodoxy, however, is their respective views on the grace that is experienced in the sacraments.  Rome views this grace as created, and something other than God.  Orthodoxy views this grace as uncreated, and part of the energies of God, not God in essence, but God in activity.  Thus, when Orthodox participate in the sacraments, they believe they are actually participating in God and taking in his divine life.

My understanding of the RCC's belief is that "grace" that comes from the sacraments works towards, or causes purification of the believer.  Further, that complete, perfect purification of believers is necessary for salvation.  And that mortal sin kills that inner grace, though venial sins do not.  Ipso facto, salvation is through the sacramental system.

What about the Orthodox church?

It seems there is a difference in what you believe this grace to be/do.  Can you elaborate?  How would you describe the effects of the grace that comes from the sacraments/mysteries?

Is perfect purification necessary for eternal life?  Does the O'Church believe in a purgatory? in purgation?

Does the O'Church make a differentiation between mortal and venial sins?

Jarrod

Hello trifecta! Being a greek orthodox myself i want to ask you a question. Having surfed this forum i talked with/took advice from catholic christians. is that wrong?isn`t orthodoxy the same as catholicism?
i hope i haven`t commited a sin or anything...

Hello pfpt!  Nice to meet you. 

Quote from: pfpt on Wed Apr 09, 2008 - 13:42:14
Hello trifecta! Being a greek orthodox myself i want to ask you a question. Having surfed this forum i talked with/took advice from catholic christians. is that wrong?

I grew up Roman Catholic, so I can speak from experience.  However, one thing you will always have over me is growing up in the faith.  Sometimes we need to explore other people's beliefs not only to understand theirs but to appreciate our own beliefs.  Hopefully, you are doing this now. 

To answer your question, I don't think it is a sin to take good advice from anyone, if indeed, the advice is good.   Catholics have their own experience and we share much in common with them.   You should, however, consult your spiritual father about any advice that you are not sure about.   One of the great plusses of the Orthodox world is that you do have a spiritual father and you are not let on your own to figure things out.

Quote
isn`t orthodoxy the same as catholicism?
i hope i haven`t commited a sin or anything...

No, Orthodoxy is not the same as Catholicism.  Indeed, we have things in common, as we do will all Christians, but the churches are not in communion with each other.  You are not allowed, for example, to take communion in a Catholic Church.  The obvious difference is allegiance to the Pope.  We don't agree that he is the ultimate earthly spiritual leader.   Now, I agree with some of the things that Pope Benedict says, but we are not under his authority.  The Pope recently said the Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome because we do not submit ourselves to the authority of him.

There are many other differences as well, but they may not seem obvious on the surface.  I think, however, if you attended a Catholic Mass you would notice differences.  I believe, as does the Orthodox, that many Catholics and Protestants are indeed saved, but the church is the "pillar and foundation of the church."  (I Timothy 3:15).  As there is one Christ, there can be only one true church.

Another area that is different between Catholics and Orthodox is how we look at God.  The Western viewpoint, which Protestants also believe, is different than the Orthodox view.  This goes back a long way.  The reason, I think, for the difference is simply that the Orthodox knew Greek, the language of the New Testament, while the west read the Bible in Latin. 

I don't think it is a sin to take advice from Catholic believers or Protestant believers, but verify what they say with your spiritual father.

Thanks for reading.

Hello again my friend.

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 13:03:11
Both Churches place a very large importance on being in a proper spiritual state to receive the grace of the sacraments, primarily through repentance and confession.  And Both Churches see the primary sacrament being the Eucharist, Lord's Supper.

One big difference between Rome and Orthodoxy, however, is their respective views on the grace that is experienced in the sacraments.  Rome views this grace as created, and something other than God.  Orthodoxy views this grace as uncreated, and part of the energies of God, not God in essence, but God in activity.  Thus, when Orthodox participate in the sacraments, they believe they are actually participating in God and taking in his divine life.

CD is correct, as usual.  The above statement had me thinking.

Quote from: W_S
My understanding of the RCC's belief is that "grace" that comes from the sacraments works towards, or causes purification of the believer.  Further, that complete, perfect purification of believers is necessary for salvation.  And that mortal sin kills that inner grace, though venial sins do not.  Ipso facto, salvation is through the sacramental system.

What about the Orthodox church?

The way you describe the RCC view of salvation is more or less true, as I understand it.  However, I know that good works are necessary to show the faith you have, and even though they are not sacraments per se, they are necessary for salvation.

As for the Orthodox, salvation is through a cooperation of us and God. Take this verse:
"work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phillipians 2:12b-13).  It is our responsibility to cooperate with God.  Note this is done by us alone.  Such a view (Pelagianism) was rejected in one of the ecumenical councils.

Sacraments are the things that we do that God wants us to do.  Ephesians 2:10
"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."  This is why we say that all life is sacramental, everything that we do should bring glory to God. 

Quote

Is perfect purification necessary for eternal life?

No, no one (except Christ) is perfect.  However, we are to strife for perfection, or as Christ said "Be perfect."  Let me say here that the Orthodox Church is not into salvation formulas.  Eternal judgment is God's, not ours. 

Quote
  Does the O'Church believe in a purgatory? in purgation?

No, the O Church does not believe in purgatory and it therefore never did indulgences.
An attempt at Catholic/Orthodox unification in the 15th century was thwarted over this issue. 

Quote
Does the O'Church make a differentiation between mortal and venial sins?

The O church does not use those terms, and there is no equivalent terms in
Orthodoxy.  But, to answer your question, I don't think so, but I'm not sure   
Will have to get back to you on that one (or maybe CD will chime in).

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 16:57:01My understanding of the RCC's belief is that "grace" that comes from the sacraments works towards, or causes purification of the believer.  Further, that complete, perfect purification of believers is necessary for salvation.  And that mortal sin kills that inner grace, though venial sins do not.  Ipso facto, salvation is through the sacramental system.

What about the Orthodox church?

The foundational text for the Lord's Supper is in John 6:53-57: "Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me."

Note that the Orthodox Church (as did the entire Church from the time of the New Testament), did not attempt to explain these words away, but took them on their face.  We truly believe that by consuming the consecrated elements, we are consuming the Lord's most precious Body and all-holy Blood, and that by so consuming, we are partaking of the divine and immortal life of Jesus the Son of God.

St. Paul believed this: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10.16).  The earliest Christians after the Apostles believed this too: St. Ignatios of Antioch, writing about A.D. 107 says of the Lord's Supper that it is "the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 20.2). 

Indeed, the earliest Christian understanding of salvation was not that salvation was about what God declared regarding us (though there is that), but, rather, salvation was our union in the divine life: St. Peter, writing in his second epistle says, "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (1.3-4). 

This participation in the divine life is through the union for which Jesus prayed in John 17, ""I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[e] believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me" (vv 20-23).

So for Orthodox, the emphasis on partaking of the Sacraments is not about some notion of moral perfection or legal remedy, but, rather, the reality of the healing of our natures and the union with and participation in the divine life, by our union with Jesus, that cleanses us of all sin and restores the image of God in us, and by which we perfect (in time, through struggle), the likeness of God in us.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 16:57:01It seems there is a difference in what you believe this grace to be/do.  Can you elaborate?  How would you describe the effects of the grace that comes from the sacraments/mysteries?

Think of St. Ignatios' metaphor: medicine of immortality.  The participation is a participation in the very life of God which heals the death in us, cleanses us of sin, and brings us into union with God so that we share his very life and energies (St. Peter's "nature"--there's some technical verbiage here that I'm glossing over for the sake of simplicity).

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 16:57:01Is perfect purification necessary for eternal life?  Does the O'Church believe in a purgatory? in purgation?

It depends on what you mean by "perfect."  Jesus calls us to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect, but it is not a legal or moral perfection, but a progressive progression of healing and struggle in the virtues.

The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory, but it does believe in purgation.  That's just another word for repentance.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 16:57:01Does the O'Church make a differentiation between mortal and venial sins?

Not formally, no.  But just as St. John in his epistle distinguishes between some sins and other sins that lead to death, so, too, the Orthodox Church recognizes that some sins are more serious and of deeper significance, spiritually, than others.  Some sins will prohibit you from receiving Holy Communion unless they are sacramentally absolved, others will not keep you from receiving Holy Communion but should nonetheless be brought to sacramental absolution.  Of course it should go without saying that Orthodox are encouraged to practice continual self-examination and to repent immediately of any conscience-troubling matters, bringing them to their spiritual fathers and/or confesors as soon as they can to be given counsel and guidance.

I am considering joining the RCIA group at my local parish - I was raised Protestant, but I am confused about the basic differences between the Orthodox tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition.

When one is joined to the Lord, He adds them to His church (cf. Acts 2:47).

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 00:09:54
When one is joined to the Lord, He adds them to His church (cf. Acts 2:47).

huh?

Quote from: ConsideringCatholicism on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 00:06:00
I am considering joining the RCIA group at my local parish - I was raised Protestant, but I am confused about the basic differences between the Orthodox tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition.

Some primary and significant differences:
1. The filioque, the clause that was inserted into the Nicene Creed by the local synod in Toledo, Spain, and was later promulgated by the Western emperor and the Pope in the ninth century.  This clause means "and the Son," indicating that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father.  Unfortunately, this makes the Holy Spirit something different from the Father and the Son, among other problems.  See St Photios' Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, written by Photios the Great, Archbishop of Constantinople.
2. The universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.  Episcopal collegiality was the norm throughout the history of the Church, until, beginning in the ninth century, the Bishop of Rome began to assert jurisdictional authority over the rest of Christendom.  The Orthodox do not have a Pope, but have coequal bishops who work collegially.
3. Purgatory.  The Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory, primarily because they have a different view of salvation.
4. Grace.  The Catholic Church, due in part to its espousal of the filioque, believes in created grace.  The Orthodox Church believes that grace is God himself, in his energies.
5. Married priesthood.  Orthodox priests and other clergy except bishops and monastics (of course), may be married when they are ordained.

Quote from: ConsideringCatholicism on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 01:17:13

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 00:09:54
When one is joined to the Lord, He adds them to His church (cf. Acts 2:47).

huh?

James is pulling out a favorite of many of the members of this board.  He, and they, thinks it debunks the claims of Rome and Orthodoxy regarding the nature of the one true Church.  Unfortunately, it only makes even more problems for them.  To wit:

1. They are not able to adequately clarify what they mean by church, and which groups constitute the church.
2. They usually resort to an invisible, spiritual church, but this is not the Church of the New Testament--and such a view results ultimately in a denial of the Incarnation of Christ.

I go to a congregation of Church of Christ which I really love. One of the things I like about it is the fact that we have the ability and local authority to adjust the order, structure, and peripheral activities of the local worship setting, as long as they remain within scriptural acceptibility.

One concern I have with worshipping as an Orthodox is the children. What kind of childcare for youngsters and constructive and helpful instruction for the older children and youths are commonly employed in O Churches? I am basing this question on the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that we Protestants tend to make sure that there is something like that for the kids whereas Catholics and Orthodox don't have so much.

Unlike most Protestant worship, Orthodox worship involves all five senses: touch (kissing icons, making the sign of the cross), hearing (the reading of Scripture, the sermon, the Scripture that make up 90%+ of the Liturgy itself, the chanting), sight (icons, vestments, gold crosses and chalices), smell (incense), taste (Holy Communion, the anitdoron).  This makes an ideal setting for children who are very sense-oriented.  There's no need for a separate service for children, since they can take part in the worship from the beginning of their lives.  My daughters, 4 and 2, pretend to sing along when we are chanting (sometimes they know the words).  They make the sign of the cross, light candles, bow and prostrate, stand and sit.  It is a very active service, and they ask questions throughout which I answer.

In Sunday School (which follows our Liturgy), they get more instruction and training in the particulars of the Faith at their level of engagement and understanding.  And, especially since we are a convert parish, there is a lot of instruction at home.  (Most ethnic Orthodox homes perhaps don't need quite so much overt instruction since it's a part of their way of life, most times.)

So what do you do while they are at Sunday School?

Thanks CD, you answer is helpful.  No offense to Orthodoxy (I respect their disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church), but in response to the Protestants who claim that we are somehow a divided Body of Christ - boy, that sure is ironic.  It is like the shattered pot calling the pot with a knick on it, divided.

As far as I know, depite our differences, Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church both retain Holy Orders and therefore, an Apostolic foundation. 

I believe that God's grace is the same as his love - since you really can't produce love maybe I am more in agreement with the Orthodox teaching on grace.

The Pope seems to be a non-issue to me; according to the early church, Peter and Paul seemed to be equally respected - I can understand the RCC wanting a tie to Peter, and I don't think their is really anything wrong with that, but am not sure it is as much of an airtight teaching as they would like it to be.  My only concern would be that without one Bishop in charge, arguing amongst the shared leadership in the church might be a real problem - does that happen CD?

I just did some research on my own on the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father (as it was written in the original Nicean Creed), rather than from the Father and the Son as it is found in the RCC and Protestant Churches today.  I have to say that I totally agree with the RCC on this point.  Yes, it was changed, but in the view of the dotrine of the Trinity, I see the change as a move toward accuracy, rather than sticking to tradition for tradition's sake.  I also agree that the original form of the NC seems to suggest an artificial hierarchy within the Trinity.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion CD, I have a lot to think about.  I know that I will join either the RCC or an Orthodox Church - I can no longer stay in Protestantism.

CC

Quote from: charlie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 12:06:12
So what do you do while they are at Sunday School?

We go to the adult (everyone post-high school and up) Sunday School, or watch our children in the nursery.

Quote from: ConsideringCatholicism on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 12:33:16My only concern would be that without one Bishop in charge, arguing amongst the shared leadership in the church might be a real problem - does that happen CD?

No more so than  happened in Acts 15.  Consensus is the goal, not absolute uniformity.  Just look at the Ecumenical Councils.

Quote from: ConsideringCatholicism on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 12:33:16I just did some research on my own on the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father (as it was written in the original Nicean Creed), rather than from the Father and the Son as it is found in the RCC and Protestant Churches today.  I have to say that I totally agree with the RCC on this point.  Yes, it was changed, but in the view of the dotrine of the Trinity, I see the change as a move toward accuracy, rather than sticking to tradition for tradition's sake.  I also agree that the original form of the NC seems to suggest an artificial hierarchy within the Trinity.

In fact, it is not more accurate, but results in a distoration of the Trinity--as I pointed out above, it makes the Holy Spirit something other than the Father and the Son--the primary distortion of which is absolute (or definitional) divine simplicity, or, ironically, rather than saving the doctrine of the Trinity, it destroys it.

Quote from: ConsideringCatholicism on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 12:33:16Anyway, thanks for the discussion CD, I have a lot to think about.  I know that I will join either the RCC or an Orthodox Church - I can no longer stay in Protestantism.

The Lord bless your journey.  And boy do I know how you feel!

QuoteIn fact, it is not more accurate, but results in a distoration of the Trinity--as I pointed out above, it makes the Holy Spirit something other than the Father and the Son--the primary distortion of which is absolute (or definitional) divine simplicity, or, ironically, rather than saving the doctrine of the Trinity, it destroys it.

That is an interesting take on it.......can you tell me a bit more?

And thanks for understanding my position:)

The filioque was invented in part to affirm Jesus' divinity--especially in the light of the various Christological heresies the Church had to fight in the first millennium (monophysitism, monothelitism, iconoclasm).

Unfortunately, it failed in its attempt, in two primary ways.

1. The first obvious way is that if, to be as much God as God the Father was Jesus had to process the Spirit, just like the Father did, then, since the Spirit does not process out anything, the Spirit becomes essentially different than the Father and the Son.  Thus, instead of preserving the Trinity, we end up with ditheism: Father-Son and Holy Spirit.

2. The second, less obvious, way is that since the distinction of the Father's processing the Spirit is lost (Jesus now processes, too), the distinction among the Trinitarian persons becomes lost.  After all, if it is essential to God the Father's nature that he process the Spirit, and if Jesus must process the Spirit to share in God's nature, then there is no Personal distinction between the two.  If, to be like God the Father, Jesus had to process the Spirit, too, then, strictly speaking, processing the Spirit is no longer a distinction between Father and Son and their Persons are simply mere names attached to qualities of the essence.  But this is modalism and a Trinitarian heresy.  But if God the Father and God the Son's distinctive Persons collapse into a monadic essence, then the Spirit is not God, since the Spirit does not process anyone, and the Spirit's divinity is also mere nominalism.  On the one hand we have an essence but have lost the Persons, but on the other we have a Person but have lost the essence.

No, the filioque is such a bad theology that even the Pope is ready to abandon it.

Strictly speaking I did not become Orthodox because of its refusal to teach the filioque, but, on the other hand, it is comforting to be in a Church that doesn't have to repent of heretical innovations.

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:39:17

Quote from: ConsideringCatholicism on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 01:17:13

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 00:09:54
When one is joined to the Lord, He adds them to His church (cf. Acts 2:47).

huh?

James is pulling out a favorite of many of the members of this board.  He, and they, thinks it debunks the claims of Rome and Orthodoxy regarding the nature of the one true Church.

Rome and Orthodoxy... Um, that is two, not "one".

By the way, Acts 2:47 along with the rest of the New Testament speak against the institutional church mindset that you and so many others have adopted and propogate.

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:39:17
Unfortunately, it only makes even more problems for them.  To wit:

1. They are not able to adequately clarify what they mean by church, and which groups constitute the church.

"Which groups constitute"... Therein, again, is your false understanding of the nature of the church exposed. You look to define the church according to your institutional church mindset, and after doing so present a false dilemma... What is or is not "adequate" to you is ultimately irrelevant. You have already determined that the church must meet your institutional presuppositions, so anything said to the contrary will be deemed by you as "inadequate".

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:39:17
2. They usually resort to an invisible, spiritual church, but this is not the Church of the New Testament--and such a view results ultimately in a denial of the Incarnation of Christ.

Using your logic, I can then conclude that "Rome and Orthodoxy" present a view of the church that results ultimately in Jesus having a siamese twin, which ultimately results in the denial of the Incarnation of Christ, and furthermore is the rankest of heresy (I can play the CDHealy game, too!)

Straw man, unsubstantiated assertions, and your erroneous, alarmist rhetoric aside, the church is both visible (physical), and invisible (spiritual) (see Acts 2:47, cf. Matthew 7:21-23 and 2 Timothy 2:19).

Quote from: ConsideringCatholicism on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 01:17:13

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 00:09:54
When one is joined to the Lord, He adds them to His church (cf. Acts 2:47).

huh?

What part of Acts 2:47 are you having trouble with?

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 21:33:15

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:39:17James is pulling out a favorite of many of the members of this board.  He, and they, thinks it debunks the claims of Rome and Orthodoxy regarding the nature of the one true Church.

Rome and Orthodoxy... Um, that is two, not "one".

I was simply iterating that both Rome and Orthodoxy claim to be the one true Church--which is not an argument currently under consideration--and that Protestants such as yourself follow the same equivocal and fallacious reasoning to debunk each respective claim.

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 21:33:15By the way, Acts 2:47 along with the rest of the New Testament speak against the institutional church mindset that you and so many others have adopted and propogate.

Please demonstrate this unfounded and unbiblical claim.
Please include clear definitions/descriptions of "institutional" and "church."  Present your assertions in the form of supported arguments.

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 21:33:15

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:39:17
Unfortunately, it only makes even more problems for them.  To wit:

1. They are not able to adequately clarify what they mean by church, and which groups constitute the church.

"Which groups constitute"... Therein, again, is your false understanding of the nature of the church exposed. You look to define the church according to your institutional church mindset, and after doing so present a false dilemma... What is or is not "adequate" to you is ultimately irrelevant. You have already determined that the church must meet your institutional presuppositions, so anything said to the contrary will be deemed by you as "inadequate".

You are making an assertion that is false on its face.  In point of fact, I spent roughly two years in general and more than six months intensively examining the claims of the Orthodox Church, the arguments and historical evidence provided.  I came with no presuppositions as to whether those claims are true.  In fact, since I had already done such examinations of other Christians groups (Restoration Movement, Anglicanism, Rome), and had come to each group with the intention of letting them prove themselves right, only to be disappointed as their claims collapsed upon themselves, when I came to Orthodox I came with an open mind but with no agenda.  If Orthodox could prove itself to me, great, but if not, well, I would have to confront that.

As you may gather, Orthodoxy satisfied all my rational questions (doctrine, theology), all my spiritual questions (prayer, worship, growth in grace), and all my soul questions (life, community, service).

Furthermore, even if we did assume that I came with an agenda, I came to prove Orthodox right on its own terms, what of it?  If the evidence and arguments, the heart and mind and soul and spirit, all confirm the truthfulness of Orthodoxy's claims, then what matter the initial intention?

Indeed, skepticism is just as much a bias as is an open and willing heart.

But, now to address your fallacious assertion--asserted without proof: that the NT Church was not in any way insitutional.  Think again.  There was a hierarchy of ministry (apostles, bishops, elders, deacons), there was a sacramental and liturgical worship (the Gospel Institution narratives, Acts 13:1ff), and there were organized relief efforts--all that requires institution.

But, then again, you throw out words you don't define and assertions you don't prove, so it's hard to say what you're really trying to argue.

Furthermore, if your argument is inadequate--and it is because there is no argument--that is not a matter of you fitting my presuppositional grid so much as fitting the grid of rational requirements.

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 21:33:15

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:39:17
2. They usually resort to an invisible, spiritual church, but this is not the Church of the New Testament--and such a view results ultimately in a denial of the Incarnation of Christ.

Using your logic, I can then conclude that "Rome and Orthodoxy" present a view of the church that results ultimately in Jesus having a siamese twin, which ultimately results in the denial of the Incarnation of Christ, and furthermore is the rankest of heresy (I can play the CDHealy game, too!)

Straw man, unsubstantiated assertions, and your erroneous, alarmist rhetoric aside, the church is both visible (physical), and invisible (spiritual) (see Acts 2:47, cf. Matthew 7:21-23 and 2 Timothy 2:19).

Well, since you admit the Church is visible, then you are required to admit it is institutional.

QED.

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 11:26:08
Well, since you admit the Church is visible, then you are required to admit it is institutional.

Not to jump into an argument, but I was discussing this with trifecta on another thread.  That assertion just doesn't hold up. 

For instance, Jews are spread all over the globe.  They are all visible.  This does not make being Jewish an institution.

I see "the church" as being in a state of diaspora - a veritable anti-type of the example I used above.

Jarrod