I’m gonna take a break for a while. I’ll respond sometime today or tomorrow. Have a good day.
1 Like
God bless… thanks for the posts and patiently clarifying what you believe.
1 Like
It’s not the case that bishops/priests are automatically kicked out after the decision of a council. For example, after Nicea, not much really changed, as far as I am aware. It took a good deal of time before the laity accepted the decisions of the council. For example, today (to an unfortunate degree), a parish council composed of laypeople has far more power over the priest than the priest has power over the people. Many priests are on foodstamps even though parishes have the money to pay them. If the parish doesn’t want it, it ain’t gonna happen. So it’s a process of give and take between bishops, priests, laity, councils, but also voices like Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Maximus the Confessor and others. No one read the Nicene Creed and said, “Oh! Ok! I got it!” They read Gregory of Nazianzus’ Orations on the Son and say “wow! The Spirit has spoke through Gregory!” Then things start to happen liturgically and get “locked in,” if you will, in the same way that evolutionary speciation can occur.
I think that many more heretical groups actually removed THEMSELVES from the Church and this is left out and often not emphasized. But sure, it seems quite rational to me to see the Holy Spirit working through councils and the Church as a whole throughout history with all its messiness, bloodshed, sinfulness, etc. to preserve the Truth of the Christian faith. Every single ecumenical council’s focus was the incarnation in some way. Even the seventh council on icons was a council DEEPLY about the incarnation. John Damascene makes this clear.
When I say “I”, I am referring to pretty much the majority opinion in Orthodoxy. There is a group of Greek Orthodox that see councils as ecumenical simply by being held. This is a minority opinion.
Yes, you are correct with your first point made above, but as I say, I see the Church ITSELF as infallible, and the church teaching regarding Gregory Palamas’s essence/energies is clear despite it being unclear whether there are 7 or 8 councils. Everyone acknowledges 7, some say 8. As long as we see the Church itself as infallible, I don’t see this as a problem. This doesn’t pose a problem at all for church teaching. Church dogma is clear whether there are 7 or 8 councils.
More questions or something you feel I didn’t address? Let me know. I still would like to hear what from you ahat you do with all the quotes from the Church Fathers that I gave. How does a Protestant make sense of that? They were just wrong? And somehow Protestant principles were there really early and then went away? It’s pretty clear to me that Augustine and Basil would be Catholic or Orthodox today.
1 Like
The bible defines the church as the body of Christ. I.e the group of all who are baptized by the holy spirit into this body (I am speaking of regeneration if it’s not clear). The orthodox church is a very small part of this group. And of course ,there is a wide range of views on various issues.
Unless you are speaking of the orthodox church here. Your comment above doesn’t make any sense. You need to address this claim.
The church fathers were pastors and teachers called to shepherd the flock. They were not infallible witnesses to the gospel like the apostles. Even the orthodox don’t believe the chrixh fathers were infallible (they do contradict each other).
So it’s entirely reasonable for them to be wrong somewhere. In fact it’s guaranteed.
They had authority over their flock… and pastors called by God still do. However, this call is not restricted to the orthodox or Catholic church.
This is why the Protestant reformation points to the scripture as the only sure guide on this.
It’s again a question of authority.
I know personally that the scripture is clear enough to convey the message of salvation as long as the holy Spirit is at work. The First time I read the bible, I realised Jesus was God and I had to choose either to follow him or reject him. And that I can know God only through him. I was from a Hindu background and never been to any church. I didn’t even know the difference between protestants and Catholics at that time.
It should be an obvious truth. If the holy spirit is the one who joins believers to the body of Christ (1 cor12:13) ,then the orthodox church is not the only true church. Same logic with appointing of pastors and elders… if the holy spirit is doing it through the church… then the church is much bigger than the orthodox church.At best it’s one of many churches.Because God has moved on…
I don’t know enough about basil to comment. But as for Augustine. You can keep him… (I doubt the orthodox church would prefer to keep him… IMO, he is more trouble than he is worth).
My question is…why does it seem that pretty much any Church Father you encounter, when they speak of tradition, make statements like Basil’s above?
When did this belief in the authority of tradition arise? The Fathers were certainly not infallible. But there is agreement across the board on this issue. Why? When did it originate? How early? Look at Irenaeus, etc. Belief in Tradition as authoritative seems to be there very very early. Protestants claim that they are going back to the way the early church did things, but the early church believed in the authority of unwritten tradition, the eucharist as the real presence of Christ, liturgical worship, etc. You will find this if you read the early church fathers, the apostolic Fathers, etc. Take a look Jarislav Pelikan’s series on church history for instance.
I’ve seen statements from guys like Ben Witherington trying to show that the early church didn’t believe the eucharist was the real body and blood Christ, but he uses one lone quote among many many others that speak against it. Same for their belief in tradition.
If we take scholars seriously, 2 Peter was probably composed later than any other biblical book, and yet you trust that. Why throw away Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc. who only came shortly after the gospel of John, 2 Peter and Revelation were finished? I’m speaking from a purely secular historical perspective. These documents preserve important info on what the early church thought, just like the NT does, whether one believes it’s inspired or not.
1 Like
Off to bed. Take it easy. I’m not saying the early church looked like the Orthodox Church does today, but I AM saying the seeds were all there ready to germinate.
Also, @Ashwin_s
I am not denying you had a genuine experience of Christ or that you are a Christian! I spoke about this several posts ago.
1 Like
Mark,
You are not claiming everything the church fathers taught is tradition are you? I see value in the teachings of the church fathers. I just don’t see it as infallible and hence equal in authority to Scripture. I am trying to pin down, what it is about tradition, that gives it authority equal to scripture.
You have pointed out that this authority is derived from the infallible nature of the church as a whole.If this is your central thesis, then you should be able to clarify what you mean by it and defend it…
If you can show that the church is infallible. Then the unanimous proclamation of the father’s can have value. Otherwise, the testimony of Scripture is pre-eminent.
I understand. However, you argument cannot stand unless the orthodox church is the only real church.
The Spirit of God testifies against that by his actions.
No it doesn’t. We can only say for sure where the Spirit IS, we cannot say where it is not.
You have scripture, and some sacraments, so you have grace, just not the fullness of grace.
Many Orthodox are also inclusivist including myself, so I don’t even have a problem with the Holy Spirit working as best it can through the other religions of the world despite many distortions and untruths. Wherever truth is, Christ is there. More tomorrow hopefully. Goodnight!
This is not at all evident.
It sounds and looks like an empty claim.
The problem is deeper than this. Not only is the holy Spirit working… he is working by empowering ministry gifts like that of the pastor, teacher,evangelist etc…
As far as I can see, it’s a fact that Jesus is calling people to be pastors, teachers,evangelist etc from Protestant churches and the Holy Spirit is giving them fruit. The Protestant movement would have died at birth if God hadnt “protested” with Luther, Calvin, huss etc…
God bless and goodnight Mark.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with you! Luther was probably on to something. The Catholic Church needed reforming. But he was also “off” on some other things.
“Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church, especially because it rejected many of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the beliefs and practices of the “Greek church,” as he called it, as evidence that Catholics had deviated from principles upon which Christians formerly agreed.”
What does it mean for the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the Church? It means, that within the Church, you will find the surest path to salvation. As a personal note, I have never seen the depth of spiritual writing in any other tradition. Mystical Catholicism comes close but this is in part due to a return to Patristic sources! Protestants are now doing the same.
The reason our spiritual tradition is so rich is because of the safeguarding of the doctrines of the incarnation, trinity, etc. Our purpose in life is to ultimately “participate in the Divine Nature” as 2 Peter 1:4 says, and Orthodox spirituality is directly connected with our understanding of the incarnation. If Christ did not become human in every way we are, including taking a human will (hence the importance of the sixth council), we could not become everything that HE IS.
Outside of the Church, God is gracious and can do a lot when people are reading the scriptures, because the scriptures are a huge part of our tradition. I have no doubt that Protestant Christians have raised the dead! I did not used to be Orthodox, and I believe God “called” me in certain ways before I had ever even heard of Orthodoxy. I believe he made me run into Alvin Plantinga’s reformed epistemology, which weirdly enough, completely ignited my spiritual life. This was all before I was Orthodox.
There are dozens and dozens of former Evangelical Protestant pastors who have no doubt that God called them to be an evangelical Protestant pastor before they ever even knew what Orthodoxy was. And yet, once they found out, God called them yet further, into the fullness of the Truth into Orthodoxy. No contradiction there.
Similarly, there are many stories of people experiencing miracles though the body and blood of Christ in communion. For example, I have a friend who is gluten intolerant and was having trouble with communion. One day, on a visit to a monastery, he felt a deep impression on him, almost a voice, that said “you can now take communion.” Ever since that day, he hasn’t had any trouble with communion. There are other stories of people foaming at the mouth after taking communion because of demon possession, etc. There are stories of saints experiencing Mary. Some of these are not of God, and they are demonic, but others are much more difficult to classify as demonic. These fit with the Orthodox understanding of reality, not the Protestant. I do not dismiss Protestant miracle stories. And I don’t dismiss Orthodox ones either. I feel like you would have to dismiss these stories though since you don’t have the Orthodox understanding of communion or Mary. There are also stories of Saints who a person has never heard of appearing to people to dreams and telling them to go to a local Orthodox Church.
So God works in other denominations, absolutely! But within Orthodoxy, there is apostolic succession and an unbroken tradition that safeguards the essential truths of the gospel so that we can experience Christ to the fullest possible degree.
You say, “The Spirit of God testifies against that by his actions.” But how? You seem to have a preconceived notion of what the Holy Spirit can do. I would advise against this! John 3:8 seems to speak against confining the Holy Spirit to what WE think is best. God actions within other churches are not evidence that the Orthodox Church is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Nicene Creed. It’s evidence that God is wonderful and gracious and will do miraculous things with whatever people want to give to Him!
“You are not claiming everything the church fathers taught is tradition are you?”
you are not dealing with my question. No, I am not claiming this at all. That’s crazy. What I AM claiming is that the early Church fathers believes THERE WAS SUCH A THING as the authority of unwritten tradition. My question is, WHY? The earlier we go, the closer we get to the NT itself, and so is it possible that a belief in the authority of unwritten tradition goes back to the NT era itself? YES! In fact, it’s more plausible that not! This is a claim that a secular historian could verify just as much as you or me. And if it DOES go back to the NT era itself, then that means that Jesus and Paul and Peter, etc. probably believed in it. That seems very plausible to me.
If they believed in it, then I should too. 2 Thess 2:15: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
St Paul seems to have believed in it too. This is actually much clearer than a belief in the authority of the NT. The NT never says that it ITSELF is inspired or that it is the only binding authority for Christians. You have 2 Peter attesting to some of Paul’s writings, but nowhere are the gospels said to be inspired. So why believe that? You do have statements from Jesus about the Church though.
“the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). So it is THROUGH the inspiration of the Church that it is decided which scriptures are inspired.
Much much more is said about the Church in scripture than is said about itself.
As to how to find the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church? Well, it needs to have apostolic succession. This clear from Ignatius, who studies under John, one of the writers of the NT:
“See that ye all follow the Bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the Priests as ye would the Apostles; and reverence the Deacons, as being the command of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the Bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful without the Bishop either to Baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” - Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8
“… Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the Bishop, and the enactments of the Apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the Bishop, and Priests, and Deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.” - Epistle to the Trallians, 7
So this cuts out any churches that don’t have bishops, i.e. baptists, Presbyterians, etc.
And we can proceed from there. Ignatius and Polycarp knew John so a lot of what they say is incredibly important. They were wrong about some things, but I find it hard to believe that Ignatius would have installed himself as bishop against St John’s orders to have bishops! haha
We don’t want him.
Sorry, we do HAVE him. He is referred to as Blessed Augustine, or sometimes St Augustine. Even Seraphim Rose, the fundamentalist YEC said we have him. He was wrong on some stuff. But what a glorious and holy life he lived!
My friend’s patron St is Augustine actually
OK. he can stay, but we’re censoring him.
We don’t want inherent guilt or divine election spreading around the church.
What about Ethiopian Coptic Christians whom, we have reason to believe from the New Testament, to likely be one of the earliest “breakaway” groups?
As a Protestant who wants to value truth and examine whether and to what degree, any particular traditions are serving God’s purposes, what do make of the observation that what Savior you belong to is more important than what institutional church you belong to?
1 Like
If the Church is the Bride of Christ, then I’d say you can’t very well “have” one without the other.
But again, see all my statements above as to what “having” means. Other churches are NOT devoid of Christ.
The Ethiopian Orthodox are part of what is known as the Oriental Orthodox. If the content of the Ethiopian Orthodox faith is the SAME as the Orthodox understanding, then this would imply that we are part of one Church, and this Church has a schism within it. Look at St Basil’s definiton of schismatics and heretics, I can’t look for it now.
Were the 12 apostles members of Eastern Orthodoxy? Were they members in the “bride of Christ?” You most certainly can have one without the other, because of Who you belong to.
1 Like