Apostasy from true Christianity

Author: Mopac
Orthodox survival course

Posts

Total: 193
#61
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Yes, the New Testament was primarily written in Greek, but that has no relation to the assumption that Greek orthodoxy had anything to do with it, because. at the time of first draft of scripture in Greek, it was not in Greece. Greek was, at the time, the preferred language of scholarship in the known world, much as French was the language of diplomacy  a couple of centuries beyond the Renaissance [there's a reason why that word is French], followed by English in the 19th century and onward. Language is driven by culture. So, lets not get wrapped in Greek orthodoxy. WhileJesus, himself, may have understood Greek [I see nothing to suggest he did not], his daily language of use was Aramaic; the common language of the Holy Land in his lifetime. Not the Jesus contributed one word to what became the canon; there is just one mention of his writing anything at all, and that was in dust with a finger, but t was not scripture that has survived. Greek is one of the languages in which I have read the Bible.

I did not imply that I favor Sola Scriptura; I just did not mention my particular Christian faith. Does it really matter in the scheme of reading the Scriptures, because I disagree that the scriptures open to a single denomination's understanding. It is still an individual effort, isn't it, to read and study and reason to arrive at conversion to the Word.

I'll tell you one curiosity regarding Greek: Fra Luca de Pacioli, a friend of da Vinci, and to whose De Divina Proportione da Vinci contributed illustration, interpretted the Greek of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word...", ['word' being 'logos' in Greek, not just as 'the word,' but also as 'ratio,' as in da Vinci's study, along with de Pacioli, of the 'golden ratio,' i.e. 1: 1.618. in other words, de Pacioli, seeing that ratio used throughout nature, believed the language of God was mathematics, and not Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, or whatever.
Topic's author
#62
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
The Orthodox Church is not a denomination. A denomination is by definition not catholic, being whole and complete. The Orthodox Church is the very One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as confessed in the creed of the church. It is the original church of Christ, the very church that all these denominations can trace their deviations from. That is certainly my belief.

My point about the Greeks being orthodox has more to do with the fact that they would have a better understanding of Greek than someone who does not have it as their native language. Now, modern Greek is somewhat different than biblical Greek, but it wasn't until very recently that this was the case. By recently, I mean the last 100 years even. I've heard some Greeks talk conspiracy theories about this, but I won't go there. For the most part, the difference is more one of pronounciation.


Regardless, I wouldn't dwell on this as an argument intended to prove anything so much as it was intended to point out that the culture in which early Christianity first spread was a Greek one. The early Church made use of the common philosophical language of the Greeks to express it's doctrine. 

The Greeks have been orthodox now for well over a thousand years. Look at all the cities that Paul visited in what is now modern day Turkey. These lands for most of the Christian era was Greek. It was even Greek at the time of Christ. The Apostle John reposed in Ephesus. The epistles to Timothy were addressed to Timothy, who was a bishop of Ephesus. The epistle Titus was addressed to Titus, who was a bishop of Crete. All these are historically Greek speaking lands. Even the evangelist Mark, who spread Christianity to Alexandria, Alexandria was a Greek city in Egypt.

If you look at the first thousand years of church history, it is all centered in the Greek world. Every single one of the ecumenical councils took place in lands that spoke Greek. 

That all said, yes, when the church spread out to other lands, it did use the common vernacular. In Egypt, Coptic was the language of the church. In the middle east, Syriac was the language of the church. When the Muslims took over, Arabic became the language of the church. In Italy, Latin became the language of the church. When Christianity spread to eastern Europe by saints Cyril and Methodius, they even invented a written language so that the people there could have church in their own language. To this day, the Slavic peoples use the cyrilic alphabet that was named after Saint Cyril.

But where does it mostly come from? Greek. Wherever the church spread, everything was translated from Greek. This might seem strange to someone from the west who might hear stories about how the Roman Catholic Church would up until recent times exclusively use Latin during church, even killing those who would dare translate the scriptures into common vernacular, but The Roman Catholic Church has been in schism and heresy for a thousand years, even 500 years by the time the reformers came into the picture. 

The Orthodox Catholic Church is the original and only true church. Denominationalism is a heresy, and one that undermines the very mission of the church. The multitude of voices coming from the heterodox end up drowning out and trivializing the voice of true orthodox Christianity. Protestant/evangelical denominationalism has been, is being, and will be used as a tool of anti-Christ to spread false doctrines, lead people away from Christ, program them to resist true Christianity, and obscure the historical reality of The Church, which is the very visible body of Christ, His presence on Earth.

The modern secular, materialistic, anti-christ, and atheistic worldview that has come to dominate the world is a direct consequence of the west's apostasy from Orthodox Christianity.

I could certainly talk at length about all of this.





#63
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
I could certainly talk at length about all of this.
You just did. Did I say my Greek education was modern Greek? Sorry, try again. I am also fluent in middle and new kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphics, also French, Italian, and Elizabethan English, with professional working experience in over 30 countries. Been around the block.
#64
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Catholic Church is the original and only true church.
Curious that the true originalist, Jesus Christ, did not call it that, according to the record. According to Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Catholic" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 5 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 532, the word "Catholic" [καθόλου] does not exist before Saint Ignatius used it in a letter in 110 CE to Smyrna, yes, in Greek, well after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension. So, how is it Christ's "original and only true church?" It appears the attribution belongs to Ignatius. Well, that rhymes with Jesus, so that's something.
Topic's author
#65
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
In Greek, the name Jesus sounds more like "Iisou" than Jesus, but eh... 

St Ignatius was a very early bishop of the church of Antioch, a successor to the apostles. His letters carry much weight. It is silly to call him an innovator for his use of the word "catholic". If you do this, you could make the same claim about the word "Trinity". I would hope to.hear that you at least acknowledge The Trinity, because this is the faith.



#66
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
You hit on a key note when emphasizing only Christ being able to save.

This brings up questions on the necessity of belonging to a specific denomination. The question is, would God lead one individual to, say, a baptist church; and another to a pentacostal church even though they differ in certain doctrines apart from the common belief of Christ being God?

I would argue..... absolutely!

Would God lead some to a Catholic or Orthodox Church? Sure! As long the church embraces Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.


To place this idea to a question, what would you rather attend? 

A pentecostal church with the conventional view of the Gospel message, or a Universalist Orthodox Church?

Topic's author
#67
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
The Orthodox Catholic Church is not a denomination. A denomination is by definition not Catholic.

It may be the case that God leads people to any church, even heretical ones, but it wouldn't be God that leads someone to join or stay there.

I couldn't be pentecostal because I find their mockery of the gift of tongues to devilish in origin.

I don't know what a universalist orthodox church would be, but it doesn't sound right.

I only believe in one church.

Topic's author
#68
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Also worth noting that many ancient heresies also believed that Christ was God, but they were still wrong, and preaching a doctrine that undermined the faith.


#69
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Yes, "Jesus" is written and pronounced by divergent spelling and vocalization in different languages. Though I am fluent in other languages, my mother tongue is English, so let's not get cheeky about language.

Ignatius was a Bishop of Antioch, yes, but a bishop is not an apostle. Theere is a hierarchy in officers of the church, and the quorum of the Apostles headed the church after Jesus, himself. Shouldn't it be so, today?

Yes, I recognize the Trinity as three distinct beings; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, comprising the Godhead.
Topic's author
#70
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
A bishop is the successor to the Apostles in the service and government of the Church.

That said, an apostle in the technical sense is one who is sent out, that is, a missionary. Which is why you have some saints in the church who are called apostles, such as St Patrick apostle to Ireland, and St Cyril apostle to the Slavs. St Patrick and St Cyril were both bishops.

There are others we respect as apostles who were not bishops, such as St Nina who brought Christianity to Georgia, and St Mesrob who brought Christianity to Armenia(who also gave them their alphabet).

Bishops in the Orthodox Church hold the same position as the 12 Apostles. In addition to the 12, there were also the 70 that were sent out. They were all apostles, the 70. The 12 were bishops, but not everyone in the 70 were bishops. Many of the 70 did end up becoming bishops. Not all bishops are apostles, not all apostles are bishops, but sometimes you have apostles who are bishops. 

Some apostles are not even priests, like Philip who preached to Samaria. He was an apostle, but he was a deacon, not a priest.


Topic's author
#71
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Also worth noting that St James, the very one who wrote the epistle bearing his name, was not a one of the 12, but he was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and presided over that council of which there is an account in the book of acts. In fact, it was him who had the last word. You would think it would be St Peter that leader among the apostles right? Not the case.


#72
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
A bishop is the successor to the Apostles in the service and government of the Church.
According to whom?

Bishops in the Orthodox Church....
That entire paragraph is a perfect demonstration of the apostasy. You're a mish-mash of apostles and bishops, some are and some aren't and some are something else, and some are whatever? That's organization? Bull...God organized that mish-mash? Why give anyone any title if titles can be tossed around like that confusion. Tell me another joke.That's a maze; something surely out of the mind of man, but not God. God is better than that, which is why He is God, and we are not. Yet.


#73
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
James? Peter? If it's James, then why is Peter told, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." But you don't have that correctly understood, either. What were Christ and Peter and the other Apostles just talking about in that little interlude? [Matthew 16: - ] they were talking about who people were saying Jesus is. Some say... and name several different prophets. "Whom say ye that I am?" Peter replies, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replies to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Peter is commonly understood to the "this rock," given Greek for "rock." But what has Christ just said? That flesh and blood is not the origin of Peter's knowledge, nor is an ordinary rock, but that it has been revealed to Peter direct from God, the Father, by revelation. That is the rock: revelation. Communication direct from God. Jesus tells Peter who he is, and that he, a mortal man, is recipient of revelation from God. Revelation will be the means for the organization of the Church. Would God mish-mash bishops and apostles, interchanging their roles and titles like eating corn flakes today instead of oatmeal? Nope.
Topic's author
#74
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, we believe the confession is the rock. The revelation rather. Christ is the rock. There is no contradiction between us here.

But Christ did establish a church, which as even the New Testament shows has leaders and organization. That very same church has maintained unbroken continuity for 2,000 years. The Orthodox Catholic Church.

The issue you are having comes from a misunderstanding of what these words mean. An apostle is as I said, someone who is sent out as a missionary. A bishop is an ecclesiastical administrator. They are two seperate "offices" so to speak that are not mutually exclusive.

Topic's author
#75
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
St Ignatius of Antioch, no innovator but a martyr and true bishop rightly dividing the word of truth wrote...

"Be subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for "he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God." Wherefore also, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, you may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things you do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church."




Topic's author
#76
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
St Irenaeus, another right believing bishop of the early church, a disciple of Saint Polycarp, a bishop appointed by St John the theologian, the very author of the gospel of John, the letters bearing his name, and the apocalypse wrote...


"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth."

To clarify, a presbyter is a priest, that is the word that is used in Greek. An elder of the church.

#77
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Bishops in the Orthodox Church hold the same position as the 12 Apostles
Then bishop and apostle are interchangeable terms

In addition to the 12, there were also the 70 that were sent out. They were all apostles, the 70
Then the 70, also being apostles, are also bishops.

The 12 were bishops, but not everyone in the 70 were bishops.

Then this third statement disputes the second...

Not all bishops are apostles, not all apostles are bishops,
and this fourth statement disputes the first...

Do you see my confusion? I understand your intent, as in some bishops could become apostles, and some 70 could become bishops, but these ordinations to these offices were not a matter of elevation only by seniority, but by merit and need. Do I interpret you correctly? But I believe apostles are apostles, bishops are bishops, the 70 are the 70, and the separate groups hold distinctly different, necessary offices and purposes in the church. But "70," as a number, is not to be understood in ancient Hebrew or Greek as only a literal number, but also signifying "many more than necessary to count," as in Christ's admonition to us to forgive "7 times 70;" in other words, as many times as it takes. There's the count of the 70 - as many as necessary.
Topic's author
#78
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
It's really not that confusing. It is simply a matter of accepting what the church teaches concerning this rather than trying to figure it out through reasoning.

It is probably not that important that the number "70" be considered as literal, though there are lists available concerning the identities of those who were numbered among the 70

You are correct to saying it isn't a matter of seniority. An elder isn't necessarily someone who is old in this context. It is rather a leader of the church. In English, we call them priests.

Topic's author
#79
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It might be important to also note that every bishop is a presbyter, but not all presbyters are bishops!

Not really as confusing as you might think.
Topic's author
#80
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
St Nina is called an apostle, but she was not a bishop. Rather, she brought Christianity to a country.

St Herman of Alaska brought Christianity to the Aleutians, but he was not a bishop. He is still considered an apostle.
#81
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I don't think I claimed anywhere that the Orthodox Church is a denomination.

Why would God lead a believer to a heretical church?

I don't disagree with that by the way. There's a fairly famous American evangelist who was invited to preach at a cultic church (Christ Scientist possibly), and ended
up giving an alter call leading to the conversion of the church as a whole to (for lack of a better term) mainstream Christianity. I would say he was probably lead there to preach.

But I'm wondering what "you" mean?

I don't agree with your stance on speaking in tongues, but do you think pentecostals (those at the very top of the organizations) purposely mock the bible by speaking in tongues?

When you say you don't know what a universalist orthodox church is, but doesn't sound right, what are you implying? That there isn't any such church? Or if there is they are in error?

If it's the latter (which I assume), then it might sound right because a universalist believes every human will be saved.

The problem with your claim of one church is that there isn't. Not even within the Orthodox Church as a whole.

Actually, I do consider there to be just one church, but as more of a nucleus of believers from different church (if you don't mind) factions and denominations.

In other words, you're trying to claim a faction is the one true church, when obviously the faction itself is not in total agreement. Do you think there are heretical Orthodox churches?

As far as ancient heresies, that's my argument against the idea that we should believe what ancients believed "because" they were closer to the time period the bible was written, because obviously some had to be corrected within the scriptures themselves.









Topic's author
#82
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
I think you answered the question as to why God would lead someone to a church of heretics.

What the pentacostals call speaking in tongues is NOT speaking in tongues. I wouldn't rule out that the people running these churches are intentionally mocking the true gift, but I think it is just as likely of an explanation that they are delusional.

There is only The Orthodox Catholic Church. There are churches out there that like to call themselves orthodox, for example, there is an "orthodox presbytarian church", and even a church in Austin Texas that calls itself orthodox that borrows some things from us but is really some kind of new age interfaith type deal. None of these "orthodox" churches are in communion with us, and they certainly don't have apostolic succession. It has less to do with whatever they teach to me and moreso to do with the fact that they aren't really the church.

The conception you have of the church is not in line with the historical church's understanding of what the church is. Your conception of the church is something that protestants came up to justify their independence from the church. This ecclesiology is a threat to The Church itself, and we will never go along with it. It isn't that we are a faction of the church. Rather, we are The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. As the other so called churches are not with us, they are heretical and schismatic congregations.

Ecumenism is called by some of us the "pan-heresy", because it is the means by which all of these heretics can band together in opposition to orthodoxy. Even though none of these heretical churches have the truth, and they certainly don't agree with eachother, they are united in their opposition to orthodoxy. For us to be unevenly yoked with heretics would compromise the integrity of the church. We don't share the same faith, it is really that simple.

At the same time though, we have been around simce the very start, while none of these heretical churches have been around for more than a few hundred years at most. These heretical churches are constantly dealing with schism. New churches are started everyday from those who are unsatisfied with their mother churches.

I would not say there are heretical orthodox churches, because then they wouldn't be orthodox anymore. The Roman Catholic Church used to be orthodox, but they fell into heresy, broke away from the church, and the fruits of their apostasy are thousands of ever splintering Christian sects, and the modern anti-christ worldview that has come to dominate the west and much of the world.

What The Orthodox Church teaches as doctrine is the doctrine that was passed on to Christ to his disciples and to the church through the ages. Heresies have been around since the start, and not only has the church repudiated these heresies, but no church claiming these heresies has outlived us.

The reason is simple, Christ said the gates of hell will not overcome the church, and The Orthodox Catholic Church is that church.
Topic's author
#83
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
When any man or woman who on a whim decides they have the calling and annointing of God to preach decides to go out and spread heterodoxy, it poisons the ground so that genuine Orthodox Christianity has a harder time being preached.

There is One Church, and it is not the case that the ecclesiastical, creedal, and doctrinal anarchy of denominationalism represents that church.
Topic's author
#84
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7

The Church is Visible and One
A Critique of Protestant Ecclesiology
by Patrick Barnes
This article is approx. 40 pages and still in an early form; but it is quite readable. I welcome any and all feedback. For those who wish only to read the Introduction I have included this below. Download the essay in PDF format.
Introduction
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephesians 4:6
And I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church ... The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic* Church. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XVIII
Protestant Christians around the world are steadily becoming more aware of the reality of the Church. This century has especially seen a tremendous reawakening to this aspect of Christianity. “What is the Church?” is often the question that drives Protestants to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Many Protestants who begin reading the the writings of the early Church—especially works like Tertullian’s Prescription Against the Heretics, St. Cyprian’s Unity of the Catholic Church, or St. Irenaeus’s Against the Heresies—, or who begin to ponder the implications of 1 Timothy 3:15, [1] soon begin to realize that the concept of unity with the One Visible Church is central to Christianity. All other doctrinal issues and disagreements are downstream of the issue of the Church, for She is the “pillar and ground of the Truth.” Find the Church and one finds the fullness of Truth. [2]
The question of the Church was certainly the catalyst in my own journey, especially after reading the Ignatius Press edition of Thomas Howard’s delightful book Evangelical Is Not Enough. In the Postscript he reflects upon the steps that took him from Canterbury to Rome by saying that it was “the same old story which one finds in Newman, Knox, Chesterton, and all others who have made this move. The question, What is the Church? becomes, finally, intractable; and one finds oneself unable to offer any compelling reasons why the phrase ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,’ which we all say in the Creed, is to be understood in any way other than the way in which it was understood for 1500 years.” If Howard introduced the question to me, the hammer that drove home the nails came, ironically, from yet another encounter with a Roman Catholic book. To this day Yves Congar’s monumental Tradition and Traditions remains one of the most important books I have ever read besides the Bible; for it thoroughly convinced me that the Bible, Tradition, and the Church are one majestic tapestry woven and preserved by the Holy Spirit. When I finally became aware of the reality of this undivided, historical and visible Church I knew I could no longer remain separate from Her. I was not in the Church, and I needed to be.
Most of what will I will say below assumes that the concept of an ancient consensus fidelium carries some weight with the reader. For those who are of the opinion that the God-enlightened Fathers of the Church are not important, or who are under the sway of liberal scholars who champion theological relativism, there is probably not much common ground for discussion. One Protestant I have corresponded with, a doctoral candidate studying under Thomas Oden at Drew University, is probably representative of many when he said:
“As for the ‘proper interpretation’ of Nicea being, by definition, that interpretation which the Church has given it: First, that assertion so clearly begs the question that it leaves one suspecting whether there is any room left for dialogue at all. But second, and more importantly, I would contend with your assumption about the nature of Tradition. The Creed is itself an aspect of Tradition and, as such, leaves room for a spectrum of interpretations. For you to demand that there is only one possible interpretation of the Creed is certainly counter to the way [in] which that same Tradition has interacted with itself. The whole methodology of the Councils permits a breadth of freedom within certain conceptual parameters. We are not all required to affirm the same interpretation of the Creed, just the same Creed.”

Topic's author
#85
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Is there any common ground for discussion? It is difficult to say.
Another way of stating my position is that I unapologetically presuppose that the Church is indeed “the pillar and ground of the Truth,” that the Mind of the Church (the consensus fidelium) has something authoritative to say to us today, that what She says is clearly discernible, and that Her Tradition is timeless and unchanging.
Now, by “unchanging” we Orthodox do not mean “static” or “institutionalized,” as those misinformed about the Church’s understanding of Tradition often think. What is meant is that there can be no doctrinal changes to the Apostolic deposit. Only new expressions of the “faith once delivered to the saints,” expressions typically formulated in response to attacks on the Church’s beliefs, are even considered, let alone adopted.[3] St. Vincent of Lérins, in his masterful fifth century treatise entitled The Commonitory, perfectly expresses the platform from which I make my presentation:
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation. [4]

Topic's author
#86
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
In this same vein, and echoing 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Irenaeus wrote:
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth...
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about....
In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. [5]
In short, accusations of “begging the question” will fall on deaf ears. The Church—as it has been historically expressed and understood in the Nicene Creed—is an object of faith. In this sense, belief in the Church is no different than belief in God. The Church as an infallible “pillar and ground of the Truth” cannot be proven empirically. We are simply to believe in it. [6] Thus, my appeal to those men who have been hailed throughout the centuries by countless Christians as Doctors and Teachers of the Faith par excellence ultimately stems from my belief, or faith in, an indefectible Church—a Church that has an authoritative Mind and Tradition which has been formed and preserved by the activity of the Holy Spirit. My platform is in principle no different than a Protestant’s belief in an “infallible Bible” interpreted through the unbiblical lens of “sola Scriptura.” [7]
At the outset, then, I wish to challenge Protestants to “Question Authority,” as the popular slogan goes. That is, I want them to see that their views do not rest on what the Church has always believed and confessed, but rather upon their own modern post-enlightenment understanding of things. This modern mindset is an inheritance from the well-intentioned Reformers who—in their attempt to bring the Church back to true Christianity, “pure and undefiled”—unfortunately became unwitting victims of the collapsing framework of late-medieval scholastic nominalism.[8] Shackled in a corrupt mindset that is alien to the Fathers of the Church, they developed a litany of doctrines that are nowhere to be found in the “Mind of the Church.”

Topic's author
#87
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Endnotes
*Catholic does not mean Roman Catholic, but denotes both wholeness (literally, “according to the whole”—fullness of the apostolic faith) and secondarily, universality (i.e., St. Vincent’s canon—'what is believed always, everywhere, and by all”). The Orthodox Church is often called The Holy Catholic Orthodox Church.
1. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (KJV, emphasis mine).
2. For the Orthodox,
Christianity is precisely the Church, in the fullness of her life and ‘existence.’ One may even ask, should a systematic exposition of the Christian Faith not start precisely with at least a preliminary ‘essay’ on the Church, because it is in the Church that the ‘deposit of Faith’ has been kept until now through all the ages of her historical existence, and it is by the authority of the Church that all Christian doctrines and beliefs have been, and still are, handed down and commended from generation to generation,and are again received precisely in obedience to the Church and in loyalty to her continuous and identical Tradition. Protestant theologians usually preface their systems with a treatise on the Word of God, i.e. on Scripture, and it seems to be a very logical move for them. “Catholics” sometimes follow the same plan, only, they would of course add “Tradition” to “Scripture.” In actual fact, it is nothing but a “treatise on the Church” in disguise, offered as an indispensable “Prolegomenon” to the theological system as such. (Richard Haugh, ed., The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 14, Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972-79, p. 10).
See also the superb little book by Archbishop and Holy New Martyr Ilarion (Troitsky), Christianity or the Church? (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1985).
3. The Orthodox always regarded the unchanging persistance of the Orthodox Church in Sacred Tradition as her boast. On the contrary, the heterodox—with exceptions, especially in recent times—regarded this persistance as a sign of decline, as a sign of deficiency in her inner life. In particular, the Protestants hurled the reproof that the Orthodox Church is “dead” and likened her to a “petrified mummy.” This demonstrates the ignorance which the heterodox customarily have about the true essence of Christianity, and shows to what degree they confuse the revealed faith with the different worldly systems, with the different human contrivances and creations. Since in the crafts and the sciences there is a continuous development and perfection, they think the same thing ought to happen in the Christian religion, that here too there should be a continuous revision, change, and replacement of the old by the new—in a word, “modernization.” Looking at Christianity rationalistically, they misunderstand its revelatory character and demote it to the level of the systems which the mind of man has formed on the basis of reason and observations of the five senses.” Constantine Cavarnos, Orthodox Tradition and Modernism (Etna, CA: The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1992), 15.
Unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this paper to explain the Orthodox view of Tradition or the development of dogma. A recommended starting point is Archimandrite [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos and Archimandrite [now Bishop] Auxentios, Scripture and Tradition (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1994). See also Florovsky’s Collected Works, Vol. 1, Bible, Church, Tradition, and Bishop KALLISTOS Ware’s The Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1994 (1990)), Ch. 10 “Holy Tradition: The Source of the Orthodox Faith.”
4. The Commonitory: For Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, Ch. II-III, emphases mine. All Patristic citations are henceforth taken from A Select Library of the Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st and 2nd series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994 [1886]). These collections are readily available from a number of sources, including the Internet. Because of this, I will cite only the Chapter and verse for each passage, and not the page number.
5. Against All Heresies, Book III, 2:2, 3:1, 3:3, emphases mine.
6. As Innocent (Clark) Carlton shows, “The Greek text of the Creed makes this clear. ‘We believe (pisteuomen)’ is followed by ‘in (eis)’ four times: eis hena theon, eis hena kyrion, eis to pneuma to Hagion, and eis mian ... Ekklesian. The remaining articles of the Creed are clearly distinguished from the above by the introduction of new verbs: Homologoumen (We confess) and Prosdokomen (We look for). The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Salisbury, MA: Regina Press, 1997), 202. Carlton is a convert to Orthodoxy from the Southern Baptist tradition.
7. Oddly enough, this Reformation “pillar” is found nowhere in Holy Scripture. For a thorough critique of this Protestant doctrine see Fr. John Whiteford, Sola Scriptura: An Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformed Theology (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1996). Not surprisingly, none of the Creeds prior to the Reformation make any statements about the “infallibility” of Scripture, or necessary belief therein.
8. On this thesis, see Bouyer, Louis, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961) and Mascall, E. L., The Recovery of Unity: A Theological Approach (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1958), esp. Ch. 4.

#88
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I admire your loyalty to your denomination.  And yes I will continue to call it that. Although strictly speaking there are several orthodox denominations. 

There is only one true CHURCH. Yet it has many members. And if the hand says to the foot I have no need of you,  as you seem to be saying to me and to every other denomination, then you are dishonoring Christ and his Church.  

It is Christ who calls his people to himself.  It is Christ who gives his people love for each other.  It is the Spirit who unites us with Christ. It is the Spirit who enables his people to call him Lord.  

It is your kind of thinking (with respect) that Jesus calls his disciples out on.  They saw other believers, but who were not part of their select group, and asked Jesus to judge them. And Jesus' judgment was that "since they are not opposed to me, they are with us".  I think you really need to consider his words more closely. 

It is completely unloving and unbiblical to say that neither the RC or the Protestant Churches are not part of the true church. This is also to disregard the covenant of God and is clearly in error. 

If you understood the bible, and its covenant position, then you would see that it is GOD who brings about life.  And it is God who initiates covenants and institutions.  The community we live in has numerous institutions - State, Church, and Family. And also individuals.

The Apostle Paul could write that the Roman Empire was a State ordained and put into place by God.  And this was despite its anti-God sentiments and its anti-Christian sentiments. Using your current logic in relation to the church, this would not and could not be the case. You would say that Paul was wrong. 

The church was formed at Pentecost. The Spirit of God fell on the people of God as the preaching of the gospel by the Apostle Peter spoke and indeed as the other disciples spoke. The disciples and the many thousand who became Christians on that date after Pentecost went home to their many places in the world and the gospel spread. The NT reveals that the church spread and spread all around the world. The letter to the Colossians indicates that the gospel was preached to every creature under the sun. 

Since you do not know much of church history save and except in the very narrow books of OC,  you will not have heard that the gospel penetrated to England before the end of the first century. The Roman church finds this hard to believe and yet the council records right back to the earliest fathers show there were bishops and elders who came from the British Islands at the earliest councils.  

Protestants as we know them know - did not start with the Luthers and the Knox's and the Calvins. They started right back in the very earliest days of the church. Even the Apostle Paul was one who wanted to keep the church pure and often railed against the traditions in the churches that were springing up in the NT.  Sin corrupts even the most holy of Christians and their churches. And it is ALWAYS in a need of REFORMING.  In the West we call this part of the sanctification process. 

The OC has unfortunately lost its way. It really has. It does not believe it needs to change. It thinks it has already become perfected and has no need of reforming. It is much like the Jewish religious system at the time of Christ, it knows everything. It knows the truth and it is the only true church and everyone else is wrong. 

While I have no desire to call the OC heretical, it is fair to say that it is in error on many counts.  And while I might also indicate that I prefer to the OC to the RC, they are very similar in many respects as well.  Both reject the basic tenants of Christianity in favor of tradition - and not the tradition of the bible, but their own traditions. And both reject the authority of God in the word of God, making it subject to the teachings and authority of the church.

The OC did not write the bible. The OT is Hebrew in origin. And compiled by the Jews. Not by the Church. The NT was written by Christians in the early days of the church and sent to various churches  where the people of God in those local churches or denominations recognized the Word of God and then sent it on. The NT at best may have been compiled together at some stage by the Church, recognised in the councils. Yet, the words, themselves, and the letters, were not put together by the church. The Spirit of God revealed to his people - all over the world what his words were. The church has no right to interpret them anyway it likes. 

It was one of the sins of the church to hide the word of God from the people of God. And to put it in language they could not read. Each person is not allowed to interpret the scriptures anyway they like.  Yet there is a way of interpretation that both the RC, the OC, and other churches together can honor God and each other.  

There is unity within the church.  There are factions within the church because there are various parts of the body who are different. It is unfortunate that the OC has taken a axe and cut of all other parts of the body - leaving itself as only a finger.   The church is not just a finger. 
Topic's author
#89
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Sorry tradesecret, the truth of the matter is that you belong to a heretical church. Even if your churches act as some stepping stone to Orthodoxy for some, it doesn't change the fact that you are not with us. Your understanding of what The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does not match with what the church fathers teach. 

You don't really understand orthodoxy, but if you want to talk about an issue at a time, I could clarify what it is we actually teach for you.

For starters, there are not denominations within orthodoxy. Every church is properly catholic.

#90
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Well said. We shouldn't condemn others because they don't agree with us on everything. Yes, there are some things we can't compromise on. However, humans are fallible. Our theology will never be 100% correct. But theology doesn't save us. The church we belong to will never be 100% right either. But the church doesn't save us. It's only through Jesus Christ that we can be saved. While we should always seek the truth and find a faithful church, it's God who saves us, not being right about theology or finding the perfect church.