Christian Forums

I've only been here for a couple of days, and in that time period, I have spent most of time reading.  Kensington, have you noticed that a lot of people have had a problem with the way you deliver your message?  Is that ok with you?  You have been corrected many, many times regarding your ignorance associated with Catholicism, yet you persist in your lies and distortions regarding the RCC.  I am wondering why?   

Kensington is not the only person - just the person that reminds me of Ann Coulter the most.  It is sad to me that a board that claims to welcome all people who accept the Nicene Creed, yet allows members to attack people who are not in the Reformed tradition.

I think I have seen enough.  Thank you CD and the silent majority of decent Christians that have not chosen to attack.

Please cancel my membership.

I don't know who you are, but it's evident you are going from topic to topic posting your dislike for me. I pray you the best on your journey... may you find the real truth of the word. 

Read your Bible and learn your bible and you won't have to worry about what other people think of the Catholic stuff... the Truth is in the WORD OF GOD. 

You both realize that this thread isn't about Catholicism, right?

Yes, I know that, so that is one reason why I found it strange that our new poster, who was here less then two days... managed to navigate this big site and post that EXACT post about me in three topics, including this one.  I reported it.  One of the topics he did this to me on I have only posted small comments on since SEPTEMBER...  and so I think it's like stalking.

But, truely...  When I came here I was more than a few days trying to find my way around and navigate this site, and understand all the was going on here. I even had to ask for help.  Much less to find different topics that one poster had posted in and take them to task on it.  Posting a slam to them in each one.

If "Considering Catholicism" ... is that good, at navigating this site, they should not leave, but stay and help others.  Because, they really do have it all going on, over me!   

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 16:32:30

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.

Exactly. Short, simple, and to the point.

The truth does not require a long, drawn out post. Nor does it need to resort to obfuscation, rhetoric and diversionary tactics.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 16:32:30
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

Manna to you. I'm not sure I agree 100% quite yet (as if that mattered), but it's a thought worth exploring and considering and was very well put.

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Apr 17, 2008 - 23:41:16

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 16:32:30

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.

Exactly. Short, simple, and to the point.

The truth does not require a long, drawn out post. Nor does it need to resort to obfuscation, rhetoric and diversionary tactics.

Maybe it's time to redefine the word "institutional".

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 16:32:30

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

Actually, I agree , but you may not agree with me.     or something like that.

Jews are a people but the Jewish religion is an institution.  It has synogogues, Hillel centers etc. and is passed down generationally.

Christians are visible because they are people.  The church is an organization, or, if you will, an institution.  Similiarly, if you an employee of General Motor you are a visible person.  But, when someone looks at you, he does not say "There's General Motors!"
General Motors is the organization (institution) that links all GM employees. 
But, and he is where we disagree, GM itself has physical characteristics.  It has many franchises and corporate headquarters. 

Here is where we agree (but you may not agree with my conclusion): Christians are spread all over the globe, but that doesn't make us an institution.  The church is an institution to which some Christians belong but others do not. 

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

If you are correct, then how is someone outside the church going to find the church?
If God is not the author of confusion, how can this be?  Or to put it another way,
wouldn't this be hiding under a bushel? 

Hi, CDHealy! I hope you are well, it's good to see you around! 

While reading through this thread, these quotes jumped out at me...

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 13:03:11

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.

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:35:59
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.

I must say, I was rather baffled by these statements! Do you have some resources I can look to to better understand what this means? We've actually been participating in a study on Grace at my parish, and I haven't heard this idea that Grace is "created" while studying what the catechism says or what many Catholic theologians have said, and we have in fact talked about how Grace is God Himself "working in us and through us"...so I was a bit confused by these statements. Anything you could point me towards to help me understand better would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

Quote from: trifecta on Sun Apr 20, 2008 - 19:43:36

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 16:32:30
For instance, Jews are spread all over the globe.  They are all visible.  This does not make being Jewish an institution.

Actually, I agree , but you may not agree with me.     or something like that.

Jews are a people but the Jewish religion is an institution.  It has synogogues, Hillel centers etc. and is passed down generationally.

But I'm not talking about Judaism as a religion.  I'm talking about being Jewish.  Being Jewish is a matter of birth, not of religious observance.

Being a Christian is also a matter of birth, not of observance.  "You must be born again."  See also 1Cor 2:13, Gal 3:27.

QuoteChristians are visible because they are people.  The church is an organization, or, if you will, an institution.  Similiarly, if you an employee of General Motor you are a visible person.  But, when someone looks at you, he does not say "There's General Motors!"
General Motors is the organization (institution) that links all GM employees. 
But, and he is where we disagree, GM itself has physical characteristics.  It has many franchises and corporate headquarters.

Here is where we agree (but you may not agree with my conclusion): Christians are spread all over the globe, but that doesn't make us an institution.  The church is an institution to which some Christians belong but others do not.

I disagree with your conclusion.  The church is "the body of Christ."  It is not a group in coalition or cooperation.  It is one thing - Christ - regardless of who He happens to be acting through at some particular moment.  I'd like to hope that when someone sees me, they see Christ, not just a member of Church X.  While this is the case less frequently than I would like, it is still the way it ought to be.

Do you see the difference?  Nobody is going to see me and say, "There's a presbyterian!"  But they very well could see me and say, "I saw Jesus today."  And that's what the church is - the agency of the power of Christ in this world.  I can be that agent today.

Quote

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

If you are correct, then how is someone outside the church going to find the church?
If God is not the author of confusion, how can this be?  Or to put it another way,
wouldn't this be hiding under a bushel?

Quite the opposite I would think.  Which is more visible - 100 boxes of pamphlets, or those same pamphlets mailed across the city?

Let me go back to my first example.  Which was more visible - a tiny kingdom on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean?  or millions of Jews spread across Europe, Africa, India, and America?

I was really thinking those were nice examples, but my Bible tells me a little different story:

The kingdom of God does not come with observation:  Nor will they say, Look here! or, look there! for, look, the kingdom of God is within you.

Let God be true...

Jarrod

Millevalleur,

Greetings!  You ask a good question.  CD is probably at Holy Week services, as we celebrate that event this week with lots of services.  I hope he will more thoroughly answer your question when he returns, but, in the meantime, let me take a stab at it.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Sun Apr 20, 2008 - 20:25:45
Hi, CDHealy! I hope you are well, it's good to see you around! 

While reading through this thread, these quotes jumped out at me...

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 13:03:11

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.

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:35:59
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.

That jumped out at me too.    CD really represents the Orthodox faith well; he's studied it at length.

Quote
I must say, I was rather baffled by these statements! Do you have some resources I can look to to better understand what this means?

We are talking deep philosophy here, so, I understand your confusion.  Furthermore, it is not a western philosophy, so we are really not accustomed to it.   Nevertheless, we believe it is truth.

Some eastern Christians say that Protestantism and Catholicism are two sides of the same coin.  Having been both, I must say I found that quite surprising, as would many on this site.  Whether or not such a statement is true is not the point.  The point is eastern Christianity comes from a different mindset than western Christianity, just as the Asian who tries to understand Christianity must get over major cultural differences.

Catholics and Protestants have this idea of the beatific vision of God.  The idea that God is as his base, simple, sometimes called absolute divine simplicity.  So, God can be known in his essence only.  We seek to know the essence of God.

But, in eastern (by this I mean Christian, not Hindu/Buddhist) religious thought, God is both essence and energy, thus, not quite as simple as the western view.   The classic illustration (but I probably won't explain it just right) is heating a metal until it is red-hot.  We would see the heat given off by the metal is God in his energies, while western thought sees God only in his essence (the metals, not the heat.)  A scriptural example would be Moses face as bright as light.  The whiteness is God in his energies.  Again, scripture says God is love.  The west views it (love) as a creation of God, while we see is as God's energies, which are not created, but are God himself, but not his essence.

Quote
We've actually been participating in a study on Grace at my parish, and I haven't heard this idea that Grace is "created" while studying what the catechism says or what many Catholic theologians have said, and we have in fact talked about how Grace is God Himself "working in us and through us"...so I was a bit confused by these statements. Anything you could point me towards to help me understand better would be much appreciated.

Your priest is smart.  He is hitting on another eastern idea.  Take the following scripture:
"Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." (2 Phil 12b-13)

As a Protestant, this scripture is baffling and attempts to explain it could not satisfy me.
We have a name for the idea of us working in cooperation with God--synergy.  This scripture is probably the best example of it. 

The concept is called "essence and energies" and it was articulated by St. Gregory Palamas, but that was a long time ago (10th century?).  When I find a good website
posting, I'll let you know.

Sacraments are (sort of) an example of synergy.  We participate in them, while in the Catholic church that are solely creations of God.  This is why in the pre-Vatican II days, the priests faced away from the congregation.   

Hope this helps.
 

Jarrod,

Greetings and blessed Holy Week to you!

You, as usual, make good points and have good questions.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 21, 2008 - 15:04:14
For instance, Jews are spread all over the globe.  They are all visible.  This does not make being Jewish an institution.

Quote from: trifecta
Christians are visible because they are people.  The church is an organization, or, if you will, an institution.  Similiarly, if you an employee of General Motor you are a visible person.  But, when someone looks at you, he does not say "There's General Motors!"
General Motors is the organization (institution) that links all GM employees. 
But, and he is where we disagree, GM itself has physical characteristics.  It has many franchises and corporate headquarters.

Here is where we agree (but you may not agree with my conclusion): Christians are spread all over the globe, but that doesn't make us an institution.  The church is an institution to which some Christians belong but others do not.

Quote from: W_S
I disagree with your conclusion.  The church is "the body of Christ."  It is not a group in coalition or cooperation.

But the church is a group.  It is not an individual.  We are parts of the body of Christ.  Yes, we are joined mystically but, the church, like Christ himself, is both physical and spiritual. 

Quote
  It is one thing - Christ - regardless of who He happens to be acting through at some particular moment.

Again, you see this as a primarily individual thing, but that is not really Semitic thought, but Reformational thought.  Too late in history, in my book, to count, for the Christian faith is indeed historical and continuous (not to mention, cross-cultural).

Quote
  I'd like to hope that when someone sees me, they see Christ, not just a member of Church X.  While this is the case less frequently than I would like, it is still the way it ought to be.

You seem like a pretty good witness to me.    To the early Christian, being called part of the church was the highest honor-but a dangerous one at that. 

Quote
Do you see the difference?  Nobody is going to see me and say, "There's a presbyterian!"

In Protestant circles, you never know. 

Quote
  But they very well could see me and say, "I saw Jesus today."  And that's what the church is - the agency of the power of Christ in this world.  I can be that agent today.

The church is also administrators, prophets, evangelists, too.  We are not all the same, but you know this.

Quote
Let me go back to my first example.  Which was more visible - a tiny kingdom on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean?  or millions of Jews spread across Europe, Africa, India, and America?

Good point.  We certainly believe, as did the early church, that the news is spread through people.

Quote

The kingdom of God does not come with observation:  Nor will they say, Look here! or, look there! for, look, the kingdom of God is within you.

The kingdom of God verses have always been confusing to me.  I'll have to look into this more one day, but I don't think the church and the kingdom are the same thing. Nevertheless, score a point for you!

Quote from: trifecta on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 02:10:22
Millevalleur,

Greetings!  You ask a good question.  CD is probably at Holy Week services, as we celebrate that event this week with lots of services.  I hope he will more thoroughly answer your question when he returns, but, in the meantime, let me take a stab at it.

Thank you for your time, Trifecta!

I did remember that it is Holy Week for y'all this week and figured he might be a bit busy. That's fine, I'm not in a hurry! 

By the way,  a Blessed Holy Week and Happy Pascha to you all this weekend!

Quote

Quote from: mllevaleur on Sun Apr 20, 2008 - 20:25:45
Hi, CDHealy! I hope you are well, it's good to see you around! 

While reading through this thread, these quotes jumped out at me...

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 13:03:11

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.

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:35:59
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.

That jumped out at me too.    CD really represents the Orthodox faith well; he's studied it at length.

Quote
I must say, I was rather baffled by these statements! Do you have some resources I can look to to better understand what this means?

We are talking deep philosophy here, so, I understand your confusion.  Furthermore, it is not a western philosophy, so we are really not accustomed to it.   Nevertheless, we believe it is truth.

It is deep stuff! I enjoy philosophy and theology myself, and am fairly aware of the differences, though certainly I'm no expert!

What confused me specifically was not the Eastern explanation, but the explanation of Western thought concerning grace, because being in a Western church I've never heard that! 

QuoteSome eastern Christians say that Protestantism and Catholicism are two sides of the same coin.  Having been both, I must say I found that quite surprising, as would many on this site.  Whether or not such a statement is true is not the point.  The point is eastern Christianity comes from a different mindset than western Christianity, just as the Asian who tries to understand Christianity must get over major cultural differences.

Catholics and Protestants have this idea of the beatific vision of God.  The idea that God is as his base, simple, sometimes called absolute divine simplicity.  So, God can be known in his essence only.  We seek to know the essence of God.

But, in eastern (by this I mean Christian, not Hindu/Buddhist) religious thought, God is both essence and energy, thus, not quite as simple as the western view.

Well, I suppose my confusion is that this explanation does not contradict what I've learned in the West, and seems to actually fit what I've heard quite well. In other words, I don't know that the western view is limited to "essence" alone as you seem to indicate.

QuoteThe classic illustration (but I probably won't explain it just right) is heating a metal until it is red-hot.  We would see the heat given off by the metal is God in his energies, while western thought sees God only in his essence (the metals, not the heat.)  A scriptural example would be Moses face as bright as light.  The whiteness is God in his energies.  Again, scripture says God is love.  The west views it (love) as a creation of God, while we see is as God's energies, which are not created, but are God himself, but not his essence.

A very nice illustration indeed! But again, I'm confused because I absolutely agree with what you say is the Eastern view, lol, and it is what I've been taught in the west. I have not ever heard that love is a "creation" of God, in fact in our study we've been talking about how Love is God Himself, not something just created. So this is the part I'm unclear about..I'm not sure where this "created" idea comes from, as I've never heard it before now. (I asked my husband, who has been a Catholic much longer than me since he was born into a Catholic family, thinking that perhaps he was aware of something that I was not as a convert...but he hadn't heard of it either.)

Quote

QuoteWe've actually been participating in a study on Grace at my parish, and I haven't heard this idea that Grace is "created" while studying what the catechism says or what many Catholic theologians have said, and we have in fact talked about how Grace is God Himself "working in us and through us"...so I was a bit confused by these statements. Anything you could point me towards to help me understand better would be much appreciated.

Your priest is smart.  He is hitting on another eastern idea.  Take the following scripture:
"Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." (2 Phil 12b-13)

I'm glad to hear it is an Eastern idea, happily it is also a Western idea. 

QuoteAs a Protestant, this scripture is baffling and attempts to explain it could not satisfy me.
We have a name for the idea of us working in cooperation with God--synergy.  This scripture is probably the best example of it. 

The concept is called "essence and energies" and it was articulated by St. Gregory Palamas, but that was a long time ago (10th century?).  When I find a good website
posting, I'll let you know.

Great! I would love to read about it, thank you.

QuoteSacraments are (sort of) an example of synergy.  We participate in them, while in the Catholic church that are solely creations of God.  This is why in the pre-Vatican II days, the priests faced away from the congregation.

Sorry...but again I'm confused by this explanation of Catholic thought, as I've never heard it among Catholics! What you describe as Eastern thought is essentially what I've been taught in the west, it seems, so I was just wondering where the idea that this is not also what Catholics believe came from.    But as I said I'm in no hurry!

Thanks again!

Quote from: trifecta on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 02:35:32
Greetings and blessed Holy Week to you!

Hmmm....what's the occasion?

Quote from: trifecta

Quote from: W_S
I disagree with your conclusion.  The church is "the body of Christ."  It is not a group in coalition or cooperation.

But the church is a group.  It is not an individual.  We are parts of the body of Christ.  Yes, we are joined mystically but, the church, like Christ himself, is both physical and spiritual.

Forgive me if I consider my argument superior to yours.  But you have posited a mystical interpretation of the body of Christ - and that is no interpretation - just an acknowledgment that one that doesn't understand.

I have posited that the people of the church really are, quite literally, the physical body of Christ in the world.  Doesn't every living body have intelligence?  If I want to move my hand, my head tells it move first.  If Christ wants to act in this world, does he not tell one of his members to do so?

Quote

Quote
It is one thing - Christ - regardless of who He happens to be acting through at some particular moment.

Again, you see this as a primarily individual thing, but that is not really Semitic thought, but Reformational thought.  Too late in history, in my book, to count, for the Christian faith is indeed historical and continuous (not to mention, cross-cultural).

Individual?  Semitic?  Not sure about either of those, but it's classical Greek thought, and that's not so very late in history.  More importantly, it's a Biblical thought. 

We're talking about incarnation.  As Jesus was God incarnate...the church is the incarnation of Christ.  I think the idea is hard to accept, simply because it is so audacious.  But Biblical it is:

Jhn 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Jhn 14:11  Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
...
Jhn 14:19 ¶ Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Jhn 14:20  At that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

See also John 10.  Isn't Jesus speaking of incarnation when He says that He is in the Father, and the Father in Him?  See the rest of the New Testament, where all those who are true believers are to be "in Christ" and Christ is in them.

Quote

Quote
Do you see the difference?  Nobody is going to see me and say, "There's a presbyterian!"

In Protestant circles, you never know. 

  No, I assure you it could not be so.  We have no special clothing, or rules (touch not, taste not...).

Quote

Quote
  But they very well could see me and say, "I saw Jesus today."  And that's what the church is - the agency of the power of Christ in this world.  I can be that agent today.

The church is also administrators, prophets, evangelists, too.  We are not all the same, but you know this.

You're describing different parts of the same one thing.  I have two hands, but that does not make me two things.  Christ may have millions of members, but He is still one Lord.

Quote

Quote
The kingdom of God does not come with observation:  Nor will they say, Look here! or, look there! for, look, the kingdom of God is within you.

The kingdom of God verses have always been confusing to me.  I'll have to look into this more one day, but I don't think the church and the kingdom are the same thing. Nevertheless, score a point for you!

Matthew describes the kingdom by the seat of its power - for the capital of the kingdom is in heaven.  Kingdom of heaven.
The others describe it by the name of the king - it is God's.  Kingdom of God.

Could this be true if it were not a literal kingdom?  Now reconcile that with the first verse - the kingdom of God is within you.  Shall we call it a mystery?

Quote from: mllevaleur on Sun Apr 20, 2008 - 20:25:45
Hi, CDHealy! I hope you are well, it's good to see you around! 

Stephanie, it's good to interact with you again.  I truly appreciate your intellect and gracious spirit.  Yer definitely smarter'n me!

And please, by all means, correct me where I have fallen into error regarding what Rome teaches.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Sun Apr 20, 2008 - 20:25:45While reading through this thread, these quotes jumped out at me...

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 13:03:11

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.

Quote from: CDHealy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 08:35:59
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.

I must say, I was rather baffled by these statements! Do you have some resources I can look to to better understand what this means? We've actually been participating in a study on Grace at my parish, and I haven't heard this idea that Grace is "created" while studying what the catechism says or what many Catholic theologians have said, and we have in fact talked about how Grace is God Himself "working in us and through us"...so I was a bit confused by these statements. Anything you could point me towards to help me understand better would be much appreciated.

The teaching regarding created grace is something I've always heard in relation to Roman Catholic teaching.  Fr. Al Kimmel (of whom I think you may be aware) has a nice series of posts to which I can point regarding support of my understanding regarding created grace and Rome's teaching.

http://pontifications.wordpress.com/grace-oecumenical/

Just, Mille, and W_S,

Christ is Risen! (This is our greeting for Pascha (or Easter as you call it) and the days following).

Let me clarify -  Holy Week and Easter.  Holy Week in both the Catholic and Orthodox tradition is the week before Easter, beginning with Palm Sunday (the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem.)

Due to a controversy years and years ago, the Bishop of Rome (he wasn't even called Pope then) wanted to celebrate Easter on one date, the eastern churches on another.  (It had to do with the Julian and Gregorian calendars).  The interesting part is this was the first instance where Rome tried to assert universal authority over the church.  The eastern churches basically said "no thank you" and the attempt failed miserably.   This incident shows that the what is now the Roman Catholic Church did not have the authority that it  claims today. 

The other interesting thing about the date of Easter is that the eastern churches refuse to celebrate it before the Jewish Passover.  When Jesus said "Do this in memory of me." at the Last Supper, we feel that Easter replaced the Passover.  The Passover celebrates the passing over of death, while the New Passover is about the passing into new life.  Therefore, the dating scheme used in the Orthodox churches makes sure that Easter follows Passover.  This is why our Easter was so late this year.

As for this Easter thing, we don't celebrate the most important day of the year with the name of a long-forgotten pagan holiday.  Instead, we use the word for Passover (Pascha - pronounced PAS-ka) because Jesus is the new Passover. 

So, yes, Just As I Am is right.  It is the Greek Easter.  But it is also celebrated in many eastern European countries including Russia, so, it is better to call it Orthodox Easter, or best yet, Pascha.

Last week, was one of the few fast-free weeks of the year, called Bright Week (for obvious reasons).

We say "Christ is Risen" for 40 days after Pascha.

Sorry for the long response to a simple inquiry--but I hope you found it interesting.

Quote from: trifecta on Wed May 07, 2008 - 02:56:06

Due to a controversy years and years ago, the Bishop of Rome (he wasn't even called Pope then) wanted to celebrate Easter on one date, the eastern churches on another.  (It had to do with the Julian and Gregorian calendars).  The interesting part is this was the first instance where Rome tried to assert universal authority over the church.  The eastern churches basically said "no thank you" and the attempt failed miserably.   This incident shows that the what is now the Roman Catholic Church did not have the authority that it  claims today. 

Not exactly correct...you might want to do some more research.

Trifecta:

Broach is correct: your description is not quite conformed to the historical facts.

When I read Broach and CD's responses,
  I thought how did I err, not if I erred.


Yes, my answer was not quite right 
The calendar issue that involved the pope (Victor) was
not the calendar issue that divides the east and
western Easter/Pascha calcuations.

That issue was should Pascha be celebrated on
the Jewish Passover (eastern custom) or the Sunday
after (western).  Obviously, the west won this one.

But this part is still true:

Quote from: trifecta on Wed May 07, 2008 - 02:56:06
The interesting part is this was the first instance where Rome tried to assert universal authority over the church.  The eastern churches basically said "no thank you" and the attempt failed miserably.   This incident shows that the what is now the Roman Catholic Church did not have the authority that it  claims today. 

Now, to support my contention here, I had better quote someone.
This is from Henry Chadwick's book The Early Church (New York:Penguin, p. 237):
By the end of the second century, Pope Victor insisted, in a manner which other churches thought autocratic, that all churches, including those of the Greek East, should observe Easter on the same date as that determined by the Church of Rome.  But before the third century there was no call for a sustained, theoretical justification of this leadership.  All were brethren, but the Church of Rome was accepted as the first among equals.

When I speak with Eastern Orthodox Christians I often hear statements made about the unity they have in faith and practice as opposed to the Protestant churches, what is your understanding of the canonical territories of a local Orthodox Church?  Isn't it breaking holy Tradition to have more then one Orthodox Bishop in one canonical territory?

Peace,

jm

JM:

I want to assume your question is a sincere one, but given the obscure (to most everyone on these boards) nature of the canon to which you refer, I have to wonder if this isn't an instance of picking a fight.

However, going with my desire to assume authenticity, I'll address your question.

Yes, in strictly canonical terms, it is uncanonical for there to be more than one bishop in a particular location (variously, city, region, what have you).

Presumably, then, you will have in waiting the observation that Orthodox in the U.S. have, in several locales, more than one biship in/over a particular location.

As you are probably aware, this situation is due to an historically unprecedented situation in the U.S.: the combination of ethnic immigrant migration in the 1920s and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

Historically (and canonically) since the Russians were the first Orthodox group to do mission work in the Americas, they were responsible for its spiritual oversight and administration.  This was recognized by all Orthodox since the 18th century when Russia first missionized the Alaskan territories.  Even Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny (of the Antiochian Orthodox Church) submitted to the Russian ecclesial authority, since Russia had preeminence in these matters.  In fact, the present day Antiochian Archdiocese uses the Western rite approved by the Russian Archbishop Tikhon (who has been canonized as a saint, thus, St. Tikhon).

However, when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian government and persecuted the Church, all ties to the Americas were cut off, and the Russian Orthodox churches were left without a connection to their homeland, and the rest of the American Orthodox Churches (Greeks, Antiochians, Serbians, etc.) were left without a central spiritual and administrative leader.  The immigrant influx was growing, and so parishes had to resort to contacting their homeland (instead of working through the Russian bishop in America) for priests and other clergy.  As a result, the Orthodox Church in the U.S. became utterly decentralized and administratively scattered.  This led to each ethnic group electing its own bishops (and having them consecrated in their homelands), ordaining their own priests, and so on.

This ghettoization of Orthodoxy in America continued in the subsequent decades of the 1900s, until the 60s or so, when there began to be more overt cooperation between the bishops and clergy of the various ethnic groups.  Eventually a group of the bishops of nearly all the ethnic Churches was formed (SCOBA), various inter- and pan-Orthodox groups and activities were formed, and in the 1990s, in Ligonier, PA a meeting of the various ethnic bishops was held and the administrative reunification of Orthodox in America very nearly happened.  For various reasons which I won't go into, it didn't.  And it was a great blow.  But currently Orthodox laity among the various ethnic groups are very active and focused on this reunification, as are several of our bishops, abbots, metropolitans and other clergy.

Thus endeth the history lesson.

But something else even more important needs to be kept in mind.  Orthodox do not understand the essence of the Church to be some metric of conformity to the canons.  The essence of the Church is Christ himself.  Christ, not the canons, defines what is and isn't the Church.  And whether or not the Church conforms in every detail to the canons does not determine the truth of its claims to being the Church.

A key case in point on another front.  In the Orthodox Church, the canons very clearly spell out the "rules" for Lenten fasting, and these rules are for every Christian, not just monastics.  However, the canons were made for man, not man for the canons, and so the parish priest, or that person's spiritual father, will determine to what degree some particular person needs to adhere rigorously to the canonical fasting disciplines or not.  The point of the canon is to foster spiritual growth, not self-righteous perfectionism.  After all the Orthodox Church believes salvation is by grace not by works.

So, the canons, while authoritative and an expression of the Holy Spirit's guiding of the Church, are meant to foster the life of the Church, not foster some dead conformity to rigid rules.  In other words, for the sake of the life of grace, canons may be "broken" or adhered to in part, if to adhere to the in rigidity would kill life.

In other words, since Orthodox do not have the Western juridical emphasis shared by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike, we view the canons and adherence to the canons differently than RCs and Prots.

But all that said, the canons are indeed meant to foster life, and to willy nilly ignore them, or to remain willfully in a state of disconformity to the canons is not good either.  It is a matter of spiritual health and missional vitality, and Orthodox in this country are most definitely, formally and informally, working to restore the administrative unity among Orthodox in the U.S. that existed less than a hundred years ago.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed May 28, 2008 - 13:03:30
JM:

I want to assume your question is a sincere one

Good.

QuoteYes, in strictly canonical terms, it is uncanonical for there to be more than one bishop in a particular location (variously, city, region, what have you).

That was my understanding as well but I just wanted to double check, thanks. 

Peace,

j

I have another question...how do you know what is and isn't Holy Tradition?

JM:

There are two ways: external authentification and internal authentification, but both forms are accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

External authentification can be seen in St. Vincent's "canon": that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.  The so-called canon is not meant to be a strict metric, but it is at least illuminative and points to some key qualities of Holy Tradition; namely, antiquity (always), universality (everywhere), and consensus (by all).  If a dogma or practice has only recently been believed or done, then it very likely is not in conformity with apostolic teaching.  If a dogma or practice has only been believed or done by a minority of Christians, then it very likely is not in conformity with apostolic teaching.  And if a dogma or practice is not held by the Church as a whole, it is very likely not in conformity with apostolic teaching.

Other external marks of authentification: evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers that a dogma or practice has the marks of antiquity, universality and consensus (i.e., if St. Justin Martyr and St. John Damascene, and other Fathers, attest to a belief or practice, then it is likely Holy Tradition); evidence in the Liturgies and canons that a dogma or practice has the marks of antiquity, universality and consensus (i.e., if a canon or a Church hymn attests to a dogma or practice, and if such attestations are ubiquitous and old); evidence in the lives of saints, including writings, archaeology and relics.

Of course, the key external authentification is conformity to Holy Scripture which is a singular marker of authentic Holy Tradition.

Internal markers of authentification have more to do with the aspect of Christian consensus: as each Christian is led by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit brings them into all truth, and confirms that with his leading; this is worked out in human reason, the conscience, the will, the intuition, and the imagination.

The point at which one begins to determine whether or not a dogma or practice is Holy Tradition is one's own mother and father (presuming they were given it, and themselves live it), and one's own spiritual father and priest.  Holy Tradition is, after all, "handed over" from one person to the next, in a chain of community stretching back to the Holy Apostles and Christ, whose Tradition it is.

Thanks for taking the time.

What makes the markers for Eastern Orthodoxy more true then, say the Roman Catholic Church, Coptic Orthodoxy or even Nestorianism?

By the way: when I use the terms external and internal, I'm referring to the person of the interlocutor and not external or internal to the Tradition.  All the markers of authentification are, strictly speaking, internal to the Tradition.

Quote from: JM on Thu May 29, 2008 - 14:04:26What makes the markers for Eastern Orthodoxy more true then, say the Roman Catholic Church, Coptic Orthodoxy or even Nestorianism?

Simply: adherence to Holy Tradition.

The Roman Catholic Church, while she has maintained the core of Holy Tradition, has (sorry, Stephanie!) introduced several innovations (things not believed always, everywhere and by all): the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, the dogma of Purgatory, the dogma of absolute divine simplicity, the filioque, to name some of the biggies.  So, Rome has not adhered to Holy Tradition but has diverted from it with her innovations.  These innovations have been decried by patriarchs, and other bishops (such as St. Photios), long before there was the Great Schism, so this isn't "partisan church politics."

The Nestorians also have diverted from Holy Tradition by the heresy which is their namesake: the denial of two natures, human and divine, in one Person.  (Ibid on the above.  After all, Ecumenical councils decried the heresy of Nestorianism as fatal.)

The Coptic Church is a different matter.  Here is it not so much a matter of departure from Holy Tradition, but, rather, a serious disagreement and confusion over some important terminology in referring to the Person of Christ.  Although many have thought the Coptic Church guilty of monophysitism, in reality, as more historical research and more present day inter-ecclesial talks have been done, it is readily seen that Coptic Christians and (so-called) "Eastern" Orthodox Christians truly have the same Tradition concerning Christ's Person and natures.  I fully expect to see full intercommunion with the Coptic Church in my life time.

Thank you. 

What would you say to a Roman Catholic who believes the Eastern Orthodox denomination has actually been hindered by intense persecution [Ottomans, Bolsheviks, etc.] which has caused revelation to stagnant within these Churches, so the innovations are not really innovations but further revelations?

Did you guess who's in my avatar?  He was a faithful member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Peace,

j 

JM:

Yes, I love the works of "Fedya," especially (no surprise) Brothers.

First some terminological clarification: neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Churches are, strictly speaking, denominations.  Both are, technically, pre-denominational.  It remains for the Reformation and Radical Reformation to start the phenomenon of denominations.

But, to the heart of your question: there needs to be a definition of "development."  If, by development, Roman Catholics follow the terminological usage of Cardinal Newman, then by the argument itself, we are talking about innovations.

If, however, we are talking about development in the sense Orthodox agree with, we are not, strictly speaking, talking about clarifications or growth in understanding (as RC/Newman proponents of development affirm), but, rather talking simply about drawing boundaries at which one may not belief x, or y without, necessarily, disbelieving Christian Gospel.

So, for example, the Chalcedonian pronouncements of what we mean by the union of the human and divine are not, strictly speaking, new developments, but are, rather, simply a "fencing" of what is the true belief which Christians believe about Jesus, and which beliefs outside those boundaries cause one necessarily to disbelieve the Gospel.  That's why the four adjectival terms are alpha-privative (equivalent to English "un-"): the two natures of Jesus are united in one Person such that they are unconfused, undivided, unmixed and unseparated.

Another problem of this "further revelations" is that it diminishes the foundational nature of the Apostles, and it brings it about that we who are later in time to the Apostles are necessarily more knowledgeable than the Apostles, that we, who haven't seen Christ, know more about Christ than do they who had seen him, touched him and heard him directly.  But if we know more than the Apostles, then how do they function as a foundation?  What if we, in our greater knowledge, come to the conclusion that the Apostles not only dug on the wrong spot, but used the wrong materials?  There's nothing that would stop a complete, albeit gradual, overthrow of apostolic doctrine simply on the basis of "further revelation."

After all, if as Jude says, the faith is once for all delivered to the saints, then how is it that earlier saints didn't get all the faith that we, presumably, now get?

Finally, your own statement begs the question: "cause revelation to be stagnant."  Who said preservation of the Faith without innovation is the same thing as stagnation?  The use of the term "stagnant" is perjorative and assumes that revelation is meant to be gradual and innovative.  But that conclusion has not been proven.

No, if the intense persecution Orthodox have suffered under Islam and Communism has had negative consequences, the negative is the suppression of missionary activity and the development of a survival-necessary insularity.

Quote from: CDHealy on Thu May 29, 2008 - 15:10:39

Quote from: JM on Thu May 29, 2008 - 14:04:26What makes the markers for Eastern Orthodoxy more true then, say the Roman Catholic Church, Coptic Orthodoxy or even Nestorianism?

Simply: adherence to Holy Tradition.

The Roman Catholic Church, while she has maintained the core of Holy Tradition, has (sorry, Stephanie!) introduced several innovations (things not believed always, everywhere and by all): the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, the dogma of Purgatory, the dogma of absolute divine simplicity, the filioque, to name some of the biggies.  So, Rome has not adhered to Holy Tradition but has diverted from it with her innovations.  These innovations have been decried by patriarchs, and other bishops (such as St. Photios), long before there was the Great Schism, so this isn't "partisan church politics."

Well, we can agree to disagree, and I will leave it at that.  I do find the use of the word "innovation" quite interesting though.  We do believe that those "innovations" are part of the Holy Tradition and deposit of faith, which has been preserved by the Catholic Church for 2000 years.

I will get back to my book now...

broach:

Yeah, I know, this will be a point of disagreement between us.  But I think it helpful to non-RC's/non-Orthodox who look in on the discussion so that they can understand there are significant differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, despite some obvious and deep similarities.  Orthodox are not simply Rome without the Pope.  But then again, both Rome and Orthodoxy do have deep and common historical roots and still share common dogmae and practices.

Quote from: CDHealy on Fri May 30, 2008 - 16:10:27
broach:

Yeah, I know, this will be a point of disagreement between us.  But I think it helpful to non-RC's/non-Orthodox who look in on the discussion so that they can understand there are significant differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, despite some obvious and deep similarities.  Orthodox are not simply Rome without the Pope.  But then again, both Rome and Orthodoxy do have deep and common historical roots and still share common dogmae and practices.

CD, fair enough.  You have always treated us with the utmost respect, and I am forever grateful for your insight and general approach on these matters.

May the peace of the Lord be with you always...

God bless.

QuoteYes, I love the works of "Fedya," especially (no surprise) Brothers.

Brothers is one I have yet to read.

QuoteFirst some terminological clarification: neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Churches are, strictly speaking, denominations.  Both are, technically, pre-denominational.  It remains for the Reformation and Radical Reformation to start the phenomenon of denominations.

Yes, I understand your position on the denomination issue and it's fine that we have a different understanding of Church history.  When I use the term denomination I would be referring to, "3. A class, society or collection of individuals, called by the same name; as a denomination of christians.

Quote from: JM on Fri May 30, 2008 - 19:54:01

QuoteBut, to the heart of your question: there needs to be a definition of "development."  If, by development, Roman Catholics follow the terminological usage of Cardinal Newman, then by the argument itself, we are talking about innovations.

I was not referring to Newman but to the plain sense of the English word, to lay open or disclose.

Then I'm not sure how revelation, or continuing revelation, or "development" of doctrine, fits that definition.

I guess, yes, in a very limited sense, the revelation of God did/does "disclose" in some way the existence and character of God.  In fact, if God does not choose to reveal himself, we would never know that he exists.

But to affirm that this revelation in someway "lays open" God, as though we could "see" or know his nature, is ludicrous.  God's nature remains ever always hidden from us.  We only know God in and by his acts.  And what we know of God is ever only partial.

Quote from: JM on Fri May 30, 2008 - 19:54:01

QuoteAnother problem of this "further revelations" is that it diminishes the foundational nature of the Apostles, and it brings it about that we who are later in time to the Apostles are necessarily more knowledgeable than the Apostles, that we, who haven't seen Christ, know more about Christ than do they who had seen him, touched him and heard him directly.  But if we know more than the Apostles, then how do they function as a foundation?  What if we, in our greater knowledge, come to the conclusion that the Apostles not only dug on the wrong spot, but used the wrong materials?  There's nothing that would stop a complete, albeit gradual, overthrow of apostolic doctrine simply on the basis of "further revelation."

Wouldn't the modern Apostles of the Eastern Orthodox Church have not more or better knowledge but a similar stream of revelation?  I think that's what Newman or the Roman Catholic Church would claim.

Ah, I think I see what you're after.  If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be implicitly advocating something like "continuing revelation."

In one sense, a very specific sense, the Orthodox would not disagree with the principle of God's continuously revealing himself to us.  The life of the Church is the experience of God, which continues from the time of Christ to today.   And in that experience, that participation in God's actions (or energies), we have that continuing disclosure of God to us.

But if by continuing revelation you are affirming that somehow we know something more about God today that the Apostles did not know, or the Christians of the Nicene era, or the Christians of the eighth century, and the Seventh Council, and so on--that Orthodox firmly reject.  We don't know anything new that the Apostles themselves didn't know.  If so, then the Apostles cannot be the foundation upon which Christ's Church is built, for no one builds on a partial and incomplete foundation. 

Quote from: JM on Fri May 30, 2008 - 19:54:01

QuoteFinally, your own statement begs the question: "cause revelation to be stagnant."

I don't see how.

Because, by use of the term stagnant, you assume, without first having proven, your argument.  You must first prove that no new revelation results in stagnation, not just assume it by affirming it.  (That's what "begging the question" means, it's a term from logic which basically says that the conclusion implied in your critique hasn't been proven yet.  Such is a nice rhetorical move, but it fails the logic test.)

Quote from: JM on Fri May 30, 2008 - 19:54:01If the Eastern Orthodox denomination is the one true Church and has legitimate Apostles why would they lack the same stream of revelation the early Church was given?

I think you misunderstood me.  Yes, the Orthodox Church has legitimate successors to the Apostles (in her bishops, metropolitans and partiarchs).  But having such successors to the Apostles does not require the same sort of revelatory authority as the Apostles had.  After all, once again, if the Apostles laid the foundation of the Church, then no one can come along and re-lay that foundation, and they certainly cannot come along and destroy or unmake that foundation. All they can do is build upon the foundation.

But even if the revelatory authority is not the same, that is not to say that the bishops of the Church do not have teaching authority or do not have other charismatic gifting (by that I do not mean what is popularly understood, but mean it in a technical sense) to speak a word of wisdom, to administrate, to missionize, and so forth. One Spirit, different gifts, as the Lord arranges.

Quote from: JM on Fri May 30, 2008 - 19:54:01Well, this is your thread and I'm not a Roman Catholic but I've seen arguments offered that would suggest the modern Apostles would have continued revelation.

But an argument unexamined is just words.  I've seen arguments for lots of things.  It doesn't mean such arguments are true.

I understand what "begging the question" means and have studied presuppositional apologetics as well as logic.

You're begging the question by assuming you're modern apostles do not need continuing revelation to be apostles, this discontinuity with the past [Biblical] practice [and example] of prophets and apostles receiving revelation causes many problems...that I won't get into since this is a thread about the Eastern Orthodox denomination.   

QuoteI've seen arguments for lots of things.  It doesn't mean such arguments are true.

Now I could respond with, "I'm rubber you're glue!