Re: Differences between East and West
PF2253
Church', it is published by Paternoster Press and the Evangelical Alliance and
is the report of a group of British Evangelicals and Orthodox to consider the
areas in common and areas that Orthodox and Evangelicals differ. It does a
British bent and has been writen because of the growth of Orthodoxy over here.
I as an ex-Evangelical/Charismatic found it very useful
Yiannis
between East and West Christianity.
Why is Orthodoxy different on a practical level.
If you are not so well read, but just an average person what diference
does it make if you are an orthodox or a catholic?
I know about the Holy spirit thing but what difference does it make
practicaly?
Additionally I would appreciate it if you could point me to some good
sites on Orthodoxy,Catholicism,Protestantism.
By good I mean non political,non racist, non prosyletizing, more
neutral.
Cunneen
>between East and West Christianity.
There are no basic differences. The preoccupation with differences is pure
defensiveness, brought on by feelings of inferiority and insecurity. When
there are Orthodox in America and Catholics in India and Africa, the concepts
of "East" and "West" are ludicrous.
What we find are overlapping spiritualities, with some approaches to God more
characteristic of one community of believers and others more characteristic of
others. But there are Presbyterians who recite the Jesus Prayer, and Orthodox
who say the rosary. And Catholics whose homes are filled with icons. Nice
neat categories are an illusion.
brachypodium
"PF2253" <pf2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041014133226...@mb-m20.aol.com...
In what way, may I ask?
Alexander Arnakis
The "differences" are political in origin. It suited certain Greek and
Russian Orthodox to stay apart from the Catholics, just as it suited
certain princes in Luther's Germany to side with the Protestants. It
all had to do with worldly power. The worst offenders were some
troglodite Greeks, who formed a fifth column in the pay of the Turks,
and who torpedoed the Union of the Churches shortly before the fall of
Constantinople. There should be a special circle of Hell for such
national traitors.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
As you can see, Phanariots like yourself were quite content with
Turkish rule because the Turks gave you power over your fellow Greeks
you never enjoyed before. Your only competition in the Ottoman
bureaucracy were the Sepahrdic Jews, which is why you hate them so
much!
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
Ypsilanti, Greek family
or Hypsilanti (both: [30][ibreve.gif] p''s [31][ibreve.gif] l
[32][abreve.gif] n't [33][emacr.gif] ) ([34]KEY) , prominent Greek
family of Phanariots (see under [35]Phanar). An early distinguished
member, Alexander Ypsilanti, c.1725-c.1807, was dragoman (minister) of
the Ottoman emperor and hospodar (governor) of Walachia (1774-82,
1796-97) and of Moldavia (1786-88). Captured (1790) by the Austrians
in the Russo-Turkish War of 1787-92, he was imprisoned for two years
in the Spielberg at Brno (Br?nn). He was executed by the sultan for
alleged involvement in the 1807 conspiracy. His son, Constantine
Ypsilanti, 1760-1816, was hospodar of Moldavia (1799-1801) and became
hospodar of Walachia in 1802. He was deposed in 1806 for his
pro-Russian sympathies, but he was restored (1807) to the government
of Walachia by the Russians, who had occupied that principality in
their war with Turkey. Constantine Ypsilanti encouraged the
anti-Turkish rebellion in Serbia and was raising an army to free
Greece when the Treaty of Tilsit (1807) between Russia and France cut
short his plans. He took refuge in Russia, where he died. His elder
son, Alexander Ypsilanti, 1792-1828, accompanied his father into exile
and became a general in the Russian army. He accepted the leadership
of the Philike Hetairia, a secret organization that sought Greek
independence and raised (Feb., 1821) a revolt at Jassy (now Ia
[36][scedil.gif] i), the capital of Moldavia, proclaiming the
independence of Greece. The Phanariot hospodar of Moldavia and the
Greeks in Walachia and Moldavia rallied to him, but the Romanian
population, which had suffered long enough under Phanariot rule,
*****************************************
refused to support the movement. Russia, on the pressure of the
Austrian foreign minister, Prince von Metternich, disavowed Ypsilanti,
who was disastrously defeated by the Turks. He sought asylum in
Austria, but was imprisoned there until 1827. He died at Vienna.
Ypsilanti?s uprising marked the end of the rule of Moldavia and
Walachia by Greek hospodars, who were replaced by native Romanian
princes. At the same time it helped stimulate the Greek rebellion in
the Peloponnesus a month later, and it thus marked the beginning of
the Greek War of Independence. Alexander?s younger brother, Demetrios
Ypsilanti, 1793-1832, was to play a prominent role in that war. Like
his brother, he had served in the Russian army, and took part in
Alexander Ypsilanti?s uprising at Jassy in 1821. In the same year he
left Moldavia for Morea, as the Peloponnesus was then called, and
helped the insurgent Greeks in the capture (1821) of Tripolis (then
called Tripolitza), the chief Turkish fortress in Morea. He stubbornly
resisted the forces of Ibrahim Pasha in 1825, and in 1828 was made
commander of the Greek forces in E Greece. His differences with the
Greek president, Count Capo d?Istria, led to his resignation in 1830.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
Well, the OCA types on this list never believed me when I described
folks like you:
In <ioeum01ieqrovb87p...@4ax.com> by Alexander Arnakis
<inv...@address.none> on Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:03:18 GMT we perused:
*+-all had to do with worldly power. The worst offenders were some
*+-troglodite Greeks, who formed a fifth column in the pay of the Turks,
*+-and who torpedoed the Union of the Churches shortly before the fall of
*+-Constantinople. There should be a special circle of Hell for such
This is the kind of urinary thinking that goes on in the mind of the
current EP in Connietown, and as you can see, most of us don't like
him or you.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Health Reform means abolishing FDR's insurance tax exemption]
[To stop SPAM, Charge net-postage] [Abolish 16th (Inc Tx) Amendment]
brachypodium
news:ioeum01ieqrovb87p...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Oct 2004 01:41:39 GMT, cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote:
>
>>>I would like for someone to explain some of the basic deifferences
>>>between East and West Christianity.
>>
>>There are no basic differences. The preoccupation with differences is
>>pure
>>defensiveness, brought on by feelings of inferiority and insecurity. When
>>there are Orthodox in America and Catholics in India and Africa, the
>>concepts
>>of "East" and "West" are ludicrous.
>>
>>What we find are overlapping spiritualities, with some approaches to God
>>more
>>characteristic of one community of believers and others more
>>characteristic of
>>others. But there are Presbyterians who recite the Jesus Prayer, and
>>Orthodox
>>who say the rosary. And Catholics whose homes are filled with icons.
>>Nice
>>neat categories are an illusion.
>
> The "differences" are political in origin.<
And those differences are economic. And those differences are geographically
and climatically determined.
Yiannis
> Russian Orthodox to stay apart from the Catholics, just as it suited
> certain princes in Luther's Germany to side with the Protestants. It
> all had to do with worldly power. The worst offenders were some
> troglodite Greeks, who formed a fifth column in the pay of the Turks,
> and who torpedoed the Union of the Churches shortly before the fall of
> Constantinople. There should be a special circle of Hell for such
> national traitors.
I think so too. I remember reading Oxfor History of Byzantium by Mango
and it did seem strange how a weak emperor, an assertive Pope and the
weakening of the Empire, competition for influence in central and
eastern Europe; all happened at around the same time as the 1054
split.
That however does not preclude differences emerging or being
reinforced later.
Finally although I agree with your opinion that the Anthenotiki
actually harmed, and seriously too, Christianity; I can't see them as
evil or hatefull. For me Lukas Notaras will be the man who wanted to
keep his culture as it was. Also remember that the Frankish occupation
following the 1204 Crusade was still vivid in peoples minds at the
time. But yes in the end their decision to oppose the union, which
culminated in the dissolution of the Ferrara Union of the Churches,
was a brutal blow on Christianity and Hellenism both.
Sad misguided people, I pity them more than hate them...
Yiannis
> You could read some of Bp Kallistos Ware's books. That's where I started
> from.
Thank you for the links. I ha during my studies in England the good
fortune to meet father Ware and he is indeed a "praos" meek man. He
has done a lot for the christian comunity in England as well as
Oxford; the college chaplains I spoke with all thought highly of him.
Yiannis
Orthodox countries? I am hopeful that something good will come of
this. I think he is a brave man to push for reconciliation and that
our own church leaders Christodoulos and the Patriarch of
Constantinople should respond in kind. I am not sure wether what the
Pope has doen has a precedent.
Yiannis
> >I would like for someone to explain some of the basic deifferences
> >between East and West Christianity.
>
> There are no basic differences. The preoccupation with differences is pure
> defensiveness, brought on by feelings of inferiority and insecurity. When
> there are Orthodox in America and Catholics in India and Africa, the concepts
> of "East" and "West" are ludicrous.
I have to agree with your assesment. I first begun wondering about the
impact of religion in everyday life after reading of the "Protestant
work ethic" and wondering if this is something Greece can
import/benefit from or inextricably intertwined in the Protestant
mindset (assuming such thing exists, my opinion is that it does,
allthough I will defer to better reasoned explanations).
That said it does not seem to me to be accidental that Orthodox Greeks
are economicaly backwards compared to the Protestant North Europeans.
Alexander Arnakis
>What is your opinion on the Pope's recent visit to Greece and other
>Orthodox countries? I am hopeful that something good will come of
>this. I think he is a brave man to push for reconciliation and that
>our own church leaders Christodoulos and the Patriarch of
>Constantinople should respond in kind. I am not sure whether what the
>Pope has done has a precedent.
The role of the Churches in today's Europe is in no way comparable to
what it was in the 15th century. Even if there was a full
reconciliation of the Churches, it wouldn't mean much in a secular
Europe.
But things are a long way from being reconciled. In this, I'm afraid
that the troglodites are still in control. When Christodoulos recently
proposed visiting Rome, in repayment for the Pope's visit to Athens,
he was promptly rebuffed by the Holy Synod.
amicus
> neat categories are an illusion.
e.g. Scholasticism
Alexander Arnakis
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>
> As you can see, Phanariots like yourself were quite content with
>Turkish rule because the Turks gave you power over your fellow Greeks
>you never enjoyed before. Your only competition in the Ottoman
>much!
>
Phanariote? I wish. My forebears were poor people who went to
Constantinople simply to make a living. They were abused by the Turks
there like most of the Greeks.
You need to stop prattling about that about which you know nothing.
Digimortal
the teachings on original sin. The Orthodox hold that we are not born
guilty of some else's sin (Adam and Eve's), BUT we DO suffer the
consequences of it (death). The West's doctrine is that we are born
guilty of it and thus have to make up doctrines like the immaculate
conception of Mary and others. The Orthodox East has been using the
prayer rope long before the rosary was established.
cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote in message news:<20041014214139...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
Cunneen
>the teachings on original sin.
Funny. This NEVER was an issue for Mark of Ephesus or Photius. Are we seeing
a change in Orthodox doctrine???
jb_i...@home.yet
> There are big differences. They all mainly begin at the differences in
> the teachings on original sin. The Orthodox hold that we are not born
> guilty of some else's sin (Adam and Eve's), BUT we DO suffer the
> consequences of it (death).
Curious. How is it just that we "suffer the consequences" of sin of which
we are not guilty?
--
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>There are big differences. They all mainly begin at the differences in
>the teachings on original sin. The Orthodox hold that we are not born
>guilty of some else's sin (Adam and Eve's), BUT we DO suffer the
>consequences of it (death). The West's doctrine is that we are born
>guilty of it and thus have to make up doctrines like the immaculate
>conception of Mary and others. The Orthodox East has been using the
>prayer rope long before the rosary was established.
>
This doctrine of original sin is an Achilles' heel of Christianity.
The purported nuanced differences between the East and the West on
this don't change the underlying problem. In fact, the East's recent
soft-peddling on this is a belated recognition that original sin
doesn't resonate in the modern world.
Digimortal
Eve's sin, the consequences of that sin were brought into the
world...death. Go read Genesis if you don't understand it.
cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote in message news:<20041016124042...@mb-m29.aol.com>...
Digimortal
wasn't. If someone uses a nuclear weapon are you guilty of the crime?
However, you will have to live under the nuclear consequences of it...
How is one BORN GUILTY of a sin that one did NOT commit? By Adam and
Eve's sin, the consequences of that sin were brought into the
world...death. Go read Genesis if you don't understand it.
jb_i...@home.yet wrote in message news:<2tdgffF...@uni-berlin.de>...
Cunneen
Savior came. And we are still dead spiritually until we embrace the grace
which comes from the Holy Spirit.
I think you are into semantics. If you want to call the state of spiritual
death that we are born into because of Adam's sin something other than "guilt",
go ahead. The Catholic Catechism doesn't use "guilt" at all to describe this
state;
CCC #406 "The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was
articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse
of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth
century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man
could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of
God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's
fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught
that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they
identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil
(concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the
meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second
Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546)."
PF2253
differneces in Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, it has also enabled me to better
explain the changes in direction of my faith (which alot of Evangeloicals view
woth raised eyebrows to put it mildly). It also explained other areas of
diferences and similarities I was not aware off
brachypodium
True evangelicals will tell you that Orthodoxy contains truth only in order
to pervert truth; that Orthodoxy is not really any different from the
Catholicism that persecuted and murdered evangelicals. It is unsurprising
that evangelicals raise eyebrows.
Bill McHale
Fortunately Catholics and Orthodox both will recognize this as a
poorly informed group who have trouble justifying the fact that their
beliefs are not found in the Church prior to the Protestant
Reformation (or in some cases not until the last century or so).
While the Church and the Empire did come down rather harshly on
heretics (Rather more harshly than any in the modern world would
consider justified), none of the heresies that have been recorded
resembled anything like the modern Evangelical Movement.
--
Bill
Bill McHale
As far as I can tell, neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic church are
particularly interested with what resonates with the modern world and
thank goodness for that. Without the doctrine of Original Sin (in
whatever form it takes) it is impossible to explain the need for
Christ, particularly his crucifixtion.
It is true that many in the world are not interested in a Christianity
that tells them that they must repent their sins and reform their
lives and trust in Christ to achieve salvation but then again
popularity should never be a justification for abandoning Truth.
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism can abandon these essential truths
without abandoning their unique mission.
--
Bill
Bill McHale
> cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote in message news:<20041014214139...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> > >I would like for someone to explain some of the basic deifferences
> > >between East and West Christianity.
> >
> > There are no basic differences. The preoccupation with differences is pure
> > defensiveness, brought on by feelings of inferiority and insecurity. When
> > there are Orthodox in America and Catholics in India and Africa, the concepts
> > of "East" and "West" are ludicrous.
>
> I have to agree with your assesment. I first begun wondering about the
> impact of religion in everyday life after reading of the "Protestant
> work ethic" and wondering if this is something Greece can
> import/benefit from or inextricably intertwined in the Protestant
> mindset (assuming such thing exists, my opinion is that it does,
> allthough I will defer to better reasoned explanations).
>
The Protestant Work Ethic stems from the Calvinist notion that one can
determine whether one is one of the elect by how successful one is in
this life. The argument goes something like this; if God favors you
he will shower you with blessings in this life and if God does not
favor you, you will not receive those blessings. Thus if one is
successful one will be prosperous both with health and material
wealth. (Somehow the Calvinists forgot the Book of Job in this idea).
I think that Greece might benefit materially, but not benefit overall
if they were to adopt that philosophy; it is my belief that the
Protestant Work Ethic in large measure is responsible for the rampant
materialism that exists in the West... you went from proving your were
elect by having more stuff to just proving you are better by having
more stuff. In the United States where the Protestant Work Ethic is
strongest, it is also true that we have, by and large a piss poor
quality of life spending too much time at work, too little time with
family, friends and God, more interested in getting a Big House,
luxury car/SUV, or next promotion at work than in enjoying the life
God gave us. Yes this ethic has made America the richest most
powerful nation in the History of the world but not I think anywhere
close to the happiest.
> That said it does not seem to me to be accidental that Orthodox Greeks
> are economicaly backwards compared to the Protestant North Europeans.
No its no accident, its a function of the fact that Greece had a
relatively small population, was a colony of a foreign power until
well after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and seemed to
(from this decidedly outside observer) enjoy a quality of life that
was far better than the decidedly richer Germans or British. My
family came from Ireland which in many ways had a lot in common with
Greece (at the edge of Europe, relatively small population, not
industrialized and decidedly not Protestant) for much of the 20th
Century; while not everything was great, the stories my Mom and Dad
tell of their childhood seem far more compelling than the ones I can
tell of mine.
--
Bill
Alexander Arnakis
>
>As far as I can tell, neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic church are
>particularly interested with what resonates with the modern world and
>thank goodness for that. Without the doctrine of Original Sin (in
>whatever form it takes) it is impossible to explain the need for
>Christ, particularly his crucifixtion.
>
>It is true that many in the world are not interested in a Christianity
>that tells them that they must repent their sins and reform their
>lives and trust in Christ to achieve salvation but then again
>popularity should never be a justification for abandoning Truth.
>
>Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism can abandon these essential truths
>without abandoning their unique mission.
You're right that the doctrine of Original Sin is an essential
underpinning for traditional Christianity. If there wasn't an Original
Sin that somehow reflects on us, then it becomes philosophically
unclear why there was a need for an Incarnation, Crucifixion, and
Resurrection.
So at heart, traditional Christianity is pessimistic about the nature
of Man. Where is the room for those of us who are optimistic about
human nature? Maybe we should look for alternative theologies.
Bill McHale
I think the question is are you looking for the Truth about God or man
or are you looking for something that is going to support your
optimism about human nature? There are no alternative theologies,
truth is not relative; either the Christian view is right or its
wrong; if its wrong then you would be right to abandon it but if it is
right then it would be lunacy to abandon it because you feel it does
not resonate with the modern world.
That being said I think Christianity is far more optimistic about
humans than you seem to think it is. Yes it is true that man is
fallen and that we are prone to sin, but it is also true that we are
made in the image of God and that God values us so highly that he was
willing to sacrifice himself for our redemption. Man in his fallen
state is severly flawed (And anyone who denies that is simply denying
all the greed and brutality that man shows man on a daily basis) but
Man is both redeemable and in God's eyes worthy of redemption.
Too me that seems to be a pretty optimistic view.
--
Bill
Bill McHale
> There are big differences. They all mainly begin at the differences in
> the teachings on original sin. The Orthodox hold that we are not born
> guilty of some else's sin (Adam and Eve's), BUT we DO suffer the
> consequences of it (death). The West's doctrine is that we are born
> guilty of it and thus have to make up doctrines like the immaculate
> conception of Mary and others. The Orthodox East has been using the
> prayer rope long before the rosary was established.
>
Just a couple of minor points:
In Roman Catholic Theology Mary and Jesus are the only ones to whom
the term immaculate conception can be applied; all others (save Adam
and Eve :)) were conceived with the stain of original sin. So there
are no others. The whole idea with regards to Mary is that she
benefited from Jesus's redemption prior to his birth so that she might
serve as a perfect vessel for him.
While it is undoubted that the use of the prayer rope and the Jesus
prayer in the East significantly predates the Rosary in the West, it
should be remembered that long before the modern Rosary was
established (circa late 12th early 13th century I believe) there were
traditions of using beeds or counting stones with prayers. Monastics
who were unable to read were often instead enjoined to say 150 Pater
Nostri's (Our Fathers) and they often used such beeds or counting
stones. It is difficult to be sure when the practice emerged but it
was probably well established by the 10th century or so.
--
Bill
Al
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Differences Between Orthodox Teaching on Salvation And That of Protestants
http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/homsalv.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Paul Jacobson
Protestants and particularly evangelicals take a "minimalist" approach to
salvation. They focus on salvation as justification, "I can go to heaven
rather than hell." Plenty of people recognize that being a Christian is more
than just a matter of "fire insurance," but it is easy to be fooled by one's
own sales pitch--Just accept Jesus as your savior. Plenty of people think
that is all there is to it.
Furthermore, the "saved by faith" emphasis is a strong filter on one's Bible
reading. In Romans 10, St. Paul writes: if you will confess with your mouth,
Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved (v 9). My evangelical training led me automatically to
think in terms of a "punctilious" confession. It is not good to argue
whether this particular passage refers to a one-time action or a recurring
one.
But in his sermon the Orthodox priest in Orthodox fashion, of "confessing
with our mouth" each time we receive Holy Communion. The Orthodox approach
to salvation is "maximalist": "How can I be most saved?" . One gets a sense
of this teaching from St. John Chrysostom's "Baptismal Instructions,"
Talking to the newly baptized, he says (3d Instruction)
Let us say again: Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things, who does
all things and transforms them. Before yesterday you were captives, but now
you are free and citizens of the Church; lately you lived in the shame of
your sins, but now you live in freedom and justice. You are not only free,
but also holy; not only holy, but also just; not only just, but also sons;
not only sons, but also heirs; not only heirs, but also brothers of Christ;
not only brothers of Christ, but also joint heirs; not only joint heirs, but
also members; not only members, but also the temple; not only the temple,
but also instruments of the Spirit.
Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things!. You have seen how numerous
are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it
confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number
of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they
are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification,
justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and
members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit." [Ancient
Christian Writers, p. 57]
St. John uses other descriptions of baptism: marriage, enrollment in the
army, putting [on] a white robe (which they literally did). He goes on to
urge his listeners to keep their robes spotless:
Knowing, therefore, that after the grace of God everything depends on us and
on our zeal, let us be grateful gifts which have already been given, so that
we may make ourselves worthy of still greater gifts. [24]
Therefore, I exhort you who have just deserved the divine gift to keep
careful watch and to guard the spiritual garment bestowed on you, keeping it
clean and spotless. Let those of us who received this gift in the past show
a far-reaching change in our lives. It is possible, if we are willing, it is
possible for us to return and go back to our former beauty and luster, if
only we will do our fair share . . . . The soul which was once sullied and
became disfigured and disgraced by the multitude of its sins can quickly
return to its former beauty, if we give evidence of ample and exact
repentance." (circa ad 390) [pp. 90-91]
I think one can construct from the Church Fathers a "normal" Christian life:
instruction, baptism, on-going participation in the life of the Church:
repentance, confession, receiving the Eucharist. But it is rare that you
will find them attempting to answer the question "What can I get by with and
still be saved?" or "How far can one be from this 'norm' and still be
saved?"
They did have to deal with the question of "how necessary is baptism?"
during the persecutions. What of the catechumens who were martyred before
baptism? It was in this context that the belief in 'martyrs being baptized
with their own blood' arose.
At the other end of the Christian life, many saints (as recognized later by
the Church) died with a profound sense of their own sinfulness and
unworthiness before a Holy God. I have found the Orthodox approach to
Scriptures, especially on matters of salvation, to be very "integrative."
Christ's incarnation, ministry, death, descent into hades, resurrection,
ascension; our sinfulness, repentance, baptism, carrying our cross, 'doing
to the least of these', running the race, confidence in God's love and
mercy, fear of falling away, putting on the new nature, . . . . There is no
tendency to pick one aspect of salvation "to reinterpret everything else to
fit." The parable of the goats and the sheep is taken as seriously as
Ephesians 2:8-9.
Orthodoxy often insists that the whole truth lies in holding on to two (or
more) apparently contradictory concepts: God is both One God, and Three
Persons; Christ is one person, two natures. The same applies to our
salvation. On many points where a Protestant wants and either/or answer, an
Orthodox will insist on both/and.
My most merciful and all-merciful God, O Lord Jesus Christ! In Thy great
love, Thou didst come down and become flesh in order to save all. Again, I
pray Thee, save me by Grace! If Thou shouldst save me because of my deeds,
it would not be a gift, but merely a duty. Truly, Thou aboundest in
graciousness and art inexpressibly merciful! Thou hast said, O my Christ:
"He who believes in me shall live and never see death". If faith in Thee
saves the desperate, behold: I believe! Save me, for Thou art my God and my
Maker. May my faith replace my deeds, O my God, for Thou wilt find no deeds
to justify me. May my faith be sufficient for all. May it answer for me; may
it justify me; may it make me a partaker of Thine eternal glory; and may
Satan not seize me, O Word, and boast that He has torn me from Thy hand and
fold. O Christ my Savior: save me whether I want it or not! Come quickly,
hurry, for I perish! Thou art my God from my mother's womb. Grant, O Lord,
that I may now love Thee as once I loved sin, and that I may labor for Thee
without laziness as once I labored for Satan the deceiver. Even more, I will
labor for Thee, my Lord and God Jesus Christ, all the days of my life, now
and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
Orthodox Prayer for the Morning
Al
"Cunneen" <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041014214139...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >I would like for someone to explain some of the basic deifferences
> >between East and West Christianity.
>
> There are no basic differences.
***Well, that's not really true. Read on.
http://www.stxenia.org/wayapart/index.html
What is the Difference Between Orthodoxy
and Western Confessions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev and Galich, 1863-1936, was
one of the most highly respected and deeply loved Orthodox hierarchs of our
times, a candidate for the restored Patriarchal See of Moscow in 1917,
organizer and first primate of the Russian Church Abroad, and the spiritial
father of the whole generation of Orthodox, most of all -- of St. John the
Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco . A careful and discerning reader
of this article, first published in 1911 in St. Petersburg, will not only
learn much about the historical ways of Christianity, but also gain insight
into the legacy of the past century and the challenges we are about to face
in the next one.
What is the Difference Between Orthodoxy and Western Confessions?
Answering this question, many educated Russians would mention the
rites, -- but we hardly need wasting time on this sort of nonsense. Not much
closer to the truth, however, is another opinion, fairly common among those
who are better versed in theology. They would tell us about the filioque,
about Papal supremacy and other teachings rejected by Orthodoxy, and also
about the teachings of both Latin and Orthodox faiths which are rejected by
the Protestants. It would turn out that Orthodoxy has no specific substance
of her own, equally unfamiliar to all of the European confessions. But
because they have originated one from another, we might expect that there
are certain treasures of Christ's truth which cannot be found in any of
them: a heresy born of another heresy must keep some part of the parent if
it is not returning to the True Church.
i. Answer Incomplete
The Slavophile theologians, Khomiakov in particular, were the first to
draw the line between the true Church and the Western denominations based
not on any particular dogmatic element, but rather on the general preference
of the inner ideal of Orthodoxy. This is Khomiakov's outstanding
contribution to theology, to the Church, as well as to the enlightened West,
which appreciated it as high as the Russian religious writers. It is most
clearly seen in the fact that all European theologians friendly to Orthodoxy
speak of her in Khomiakov's terms, using precisely his formulations of the
confessional differences. Specifically, the Old Catholics, who have been
attracted to Orthodoxy and got involved in lengthy official correspondence
concerning a rapprochement with us, follow his views in their presentation
of the main questions which, in their opinion, divide us and Old
Catholicism -- that is, the filioque as an innovation contrary to Church
discipline, which calls us to "guard the unity of the spirit in the bond of
peace", and transubstantiation in the Eucharist as a borrowing from Western
theologians, foreign to the Church tradition (which speaks about change).
Khomiakov's short book [ The Church Is One and a few other essays] is
the most popular of all Russian theological works, both among our own
learned men and abroad. We shall not, therefore, elaborate on it. Just let
us recall that he makes the distinction between the denominations based on
their understanding of the ninth clause of the Creed -- that is, on their
teaching about the Church. Presenting the Orthodox teaching on the Truth,
severely distorted and almost lost everywhere in the non-Orthodox West,
Khomiakov aptly demonstrates the moral significance of our spiritual ideal,
the overall preference of our faith in contrast to the Western confessions
which have lost one of the most holy, uplifting truths of Christianity.
Khomiakov sees the Church not so much as an authority, but rather as a
union of souls, complementing one another by their mystical communion with
Christ Who reveals Himself to the faithful only in their mutual love, in
their unity (epitomized by the the Ecumenical Councils). In all issues of
Church discipline, and in the very process of exploring the divine truth --
just as this has been established by Church tradition -- he brings a spirit
of joy, a spirit alien to subjugation, a spirit carrying us into the
boundless space of communion with the whole world of the faithful, with all
eternity.
Thus, we admit without reservations that Khomiakov has correctly
presented the Orthodox teaching about the Church, and that he has clearly
shown the value of Orthodoxy compared to the Western denominations, which
have lost the understanding of the moral union of the faithful both in life
and teaching, and which have reduced the Kingdom of God to the level of
either a personal achievement or an external government-like organization.
While recognizing this, and paying homage to Khomiakov for his great
theological and missionary works, we have to note that his definition of
Orthodoxy or, in other words, of true, divinely-revealed Christianity, as
opposed to the Western denominations, is incomplete. It has long been our
wish to complete it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ii. Western Theology and Christian Life
Actually, the difference between them is much deeper.
The teaching about the Church is, of course, extremely important, as our
communion has to be renewed continually in our minds. But even apart from
the Church question, in the way one approaches God and one's own life, a
great difference is felt between a non-Orthodox Westerner and an Orthodox.
Things great and small are permeated by this difference. Take for
example the sources of instruction in our personal spiritual life. One part
of them, which we study in schools as dogmatic and moral theology, is a borr
owing from the Catholics and Protestants: only the plainest errors of
non-Orthodoxy, known to all and condemned by the church authorities, are
deleted. Another part, well known both to educated and common men, in our
time and in the past, back to the IX century and earlier, is in our prayers,
hymns of the divine services, and the moral teachings of the Holy Fathers.
But what a remarkable thing! There is almost nothing in common between
the two sources. Certified theologians do not know our Prologues, our
dogmatic hymns (stichera and canons), our Lives of the Saints -- except,
maybe, as simple church-goers, as lovers of church music, but not as
religious scholars. Meanwhile, these Slavonic writings in thick, clumsy
books are the main, if not the only, origin and nourishment of the living
Russian faith, for both the common men and the more educated. But official
theology cannot tap this source, even out of mere curiosity.
Now look at the best Christians among us, our teachers of Christian
life: priest-monk Ambrose of Optina [+1891], Father John of Kronstadt
[+1909], Bishop Theophan the Recluse [+1894; all three have since been
glorified as saints]. By no means can they be called narrow-minded or
ignorant; they are grateful graduates of our seminaries and academies, but
try to find borrowings from and references to academic theology in their
writings. Except for a few scattered instances, there are none.
Offer them mountains of scholarly volumes to help in their teaching;
they will treat them with respect but, believe me, will find nothing to
borrow. The same will be true for the ordinary Christian who seeks
understanding of any event or religious experience. It is quite obvious that
our scholarly theology, having been built upon Western principles, even
though free of the Western errors, is so far removed from the Orthodox
spiritual reality, so little related to it, that not only is it useless as a
source of instruction, but it cannot even come close to the real spiritual
life.
This could not have happened had the Western theology been different
from the Orthodox only in the Church-related teachings. As we see, the
Western religions have altered the very notion of Christian life, of its
aims and conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
iii. A Case of the Two Teachers
Once, as the Rector of the Theological Academy, I gave an assignment to
a gifted student: Compare and contrast the moral teachings of Bishop
Theophan with those of Martensen. Martensen is a venerable Protestant
preacher, recognized as an outstanding moral theologian, influenced less
than others by confessional errors. Bishop Theophan is an educated Russian
theologian, former rector of St. Petersburg Theological Academy. And you
know what? It turnes out that the two authors present Christian morality in
a totally different, often opposite way. Here is the summary of the results:
Bishop Theophan teaches how to make one's life meet the standards of
Christian perfection, while the Western Bishop (sit venia verbo) takes from
Christianity only as much as is consistent with the standards of modern
secular life. That is, the former accepts Christianity as the eternal
foundation of normal life, and demands that we forcibly change ourselves to
bring our lives into compliance with that norm; the latter accepts the
realities of modern secular life as unchangeable, and only where they allow
some variations does he indicate which options are preferred from the
Christian viewpoint. The former calls for moral heroism, for a life-ling
struggle; the latter selects whatever elements of Christianity are suited to
us in our current way of life. For the former, the true life to which man is
called is the life eternal, while our current life on earth with all its
historically shaped devices is all but an illusion; for the latter the
notion of the future life is merely an uplifting, noble idea, an idea which
contributes to continual improvement of our real life here on earth.
In the difference between these two teachers of morality is manifest the
difference between the Orthodox faith and Western religions. One is based
upon the concept of Christian perfection, or sanctity, and from this
standpoint evaluates the present reality; the other is firmly established on
the status quo of the earthly life and strives to determine the minimum of
religious practice which still allows for salvation -- if eternity truly
exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
iv. Sublime and Basic Principle
-- You are pointing not at the false belief, but at the poor religious
attitudes in the West! -- our critics will say.
-- That's correct, -- we will reply, -- thus far we have been concerned with
the attitudes, with the degeneration of Western religious life and thought;
now let us look into a sublime principle which they have lost.
Christianity is a life-long pursuit of virtue. Christianity is a pearl
for which the wise merchant of the Gospel parable has had to sell all his
possessions. It would seem that in the course of history this self-denying
step, this taking up of the cross, meant different things: at the time of
the earthly life of the Savior it was joining His disciples and following
Him; later it became confession of faith and martyrdom; then, from the
fourth to the twentieth centuries, -- seclusion and monasticism. In fact,
however, these various exploits were only the means towards one end, one
goal -- gradual attainment of spiritual perfection on earth, of the freedom
from passions, of all virtues, -- just as we ask in the prayer of St.
Ephraim, repeating it over and over during Great Lent with many bows and
prostrations:
[ O Lord and Master of my life, the spirit of idleness, despondency,
ambition, and idle talk give me not. Prostration.
But rather a spirit of chastity, humble-mindedness, patience, and love
bestow upon me Thy servant. Prostration.
Yea, O Lord King, grant me to see my own failings and not to condemn my
brother; for blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen. Prostration.]
"This is the will of God, your sanctification," -- says the Apostle; we
can attain to it only by setting this as the main and the only goal of our
life, by living for the sake of holiness. This is what the true Christianity
is all about; this is the essence of Orthodoxy vs. the heterodoxy of the
West. In this respect (and, consequently, by their nature) the Oriental
heresies such as Monophysites and Armenians are much closer to Orthodoxy
than are the Western: like us, they have set spiritual perfection as the
goal of a Christian life, but they differ from us in the teachings about the
conditions for the attainment of that goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
v. Ascetic Faith or Worldly Faith?
-- Do the Western Christians really say that there is no need for moral
perfection? Would they deny that Christianity commands us to be perfect?
-- They would not say that, but they don't see it as the essence of
Christianity, either. Moreover, in their view of perfection and the means to
attain it they would disagree with us on every word; they would not even
understand, let alone agree, that it is precisely moral perfection that is
the goal of a Christian life -- and not merely the knowledge of God (as
Protestants would say) or service to the Church (Roman Catholics), for which
virtues, in their opinion, God Himself gives us moral perfection as a
reward.
Moral perfection is gained by intensive, strenuous effort, by inner
struggle, by deprivations, and most of all -- by self-humiliation. An
Orthodox Christian, by virtue of sincerely and diligently following the
spiritual discipline, participates to a large extent in that struggle: the
discipline itself is designed to facilitate our gradual mortification of
passions and acquisition of blessed perfection. In this we are assisted by
our divine services, by the efforts in preparation for the Holy Communion,
by fasting, and by that almost monastic order of Orthodox life, codified in
our Typicon and followed by our ancestors before Peter the Great, and by all
those who live by the tradition up until this very day.
In short, the Orthodox faith is an ascetic faith; Orthodox theological
thought -- that which does not lie a dead scholastic baggage, but influences
our life and spreads among the people -- is a study of the ways of spiritual
perfection. As such it is manifest in our church services through
theological statements, references to Biblical events, commandments and
reminders of the Last Judgement.
This, of course, is not foreign to the Western denominations either; but
they understand salvation as an external reward given either for a certain
amount of good deeds (also external), or for an unflinching faith in the
divinity of Jesus Christ. They have no knowledge, nor interest, in how a
soul should gradually free itself from the bondage of passions, of how we
should go from strength to strength on our way to freedom from sin and
fullness of virtues. There are ascetics in the West, to be sure, but their
life is dominated by dejected, senseless obedience to the age-old rules and
requirements, for which they are promised forgiveness of sins and future
eternal life. Eternal life has already appeared, as Apostle John says, and
blessed communion with God is obtained by unflinching asceticism right now,
in the words of St. Macarius the Great, -- all this is unknown to West.
This ignorance is growing worse and cruder. Thus, contemporary Western
theologians have lost understanding of the aim of Christianity, of the
reason for Christ's incarnation being just that -- the moral perfection of
man. They have, as it were, lost their minds over the fable of Christ's
coming to earth to give some sort of happiness to a mankind of some future
ages -- even though He said with all clarity that His followers must bear a
cross of suffering, that they would be continually persecuted by the world,
by their own brethren, children, and even parents, especially towards the
end.
The good things, which the believers in the "superstition of Progress"
(a witty phrase by S.A.Rachinsky) are looking forward to, are in fact
promised by the Savior in the future life, but neither the Latins nor the
Protestants are willing to accept this for the simple reason that, frankly
speaking, they believe quite feebly in the Resurrection, and quite
strongly -- in the happy life here and now, which the Apostles, on the
contrary, call a vanishing vapor (James 4:14). That is why the
pseudo-Christian West will not and cannot understand the renunciation of
this life by Christianity, which commands us to struggle "having put off the
old man with his deeds and having put on the new, which is renewed after the
image of Him that created him" [Col 3:9-101]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
vi. Love, and How to Keep It
-- But Christianity is love of one's neighbor, and love is compassion in
sorrows, -- modern men and especially women would say, -- and asceticism is
a fabrication of monks.
I will not argue the first point as K. Leontiev [+1891, Russian author
close to the Optina Elders] once did; moreover, I will admit that if love
were at all possible without spiritual effort, without inner warfare, and
without external labors, then neither of these would be necessary. But love
dried up among men just when Luther began speaking on their behalf. The
prediction came true that "for the multiplication of lawlessness the love of
many will dry up." In the absence of external labors and inner struggle,
passions and lawlessness reign, and where sin is in control, love dries up
and men begin to hate one another [Matt 24: 10]
Now let us turn to the second point. It is quite true that love is
expressed most of all in compassion, but not so much for the material
troubles of our fellow men as for their sinfulness, and this compassion is
possible only for someone who is weeping for his own sins, that is, for a
struggler.
Asceticism is a fabrication of monks... A Muscovite lady once made this
point even move vividly: "Your whole religion is a fabrication of churchmen.
I recognize only the Iveron Mother of God and Martyr Triphon (l'Iverskaya et
Triphon le martyr) [like most of the nineteenth-century Russian nobility the
lady spoke French rather than Russian]; the rest is nonsense." This, of
course, is a testimony to the ignorance of the meaning of asceticism among
our educated class.
This concept does not in general predetermine the way of our life; it
requires neither virginity, nor fasting, nor seclusion. Asceticism, or
spiritual struggle, is a life filled with work on oneself, a life aimed at
the destruction of one's own passions -- adultery, fornication, self-love,
spite, envy, gluttony, laziness, etc., -- and filling the soul with the
spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love; love never survives as a
stand-alone virtue, but always follows and helps accomplish other traits of
a human soul mentioned above.
Certainly, a Christian willing to pursue his own way will discover that
he has to withdraw from worldly distractions, to humble the flesh, and pray
much more to God -- but these actions have no ultimate value in the eyes of
God. They have value for us only as means to the acquisition of the gifts of
the Spirit. Of much greater value is the spiritual struggle inside the human
soul -- self-reproach, self-humiliation, self-resistance, self-constraint,
introspection, vision of the Last Judgment and future life, control over
feelings, struggle against evil thoughts, repentance and confession, wrath
against sin and temptation, etc, -- things totally unfamiliar to our modern
learned men, and so clear and well-known to any faithful villager, present
or past. This is precisely the spiritual alphabet mentioned by Bishop Tikhon
of Zadonsk [+1783, glorified as saint] --
"There are two kinds of learned and wise men: some study in schools from
books, and a great many of them are less intelligent than the simple and
unlettered, since they do not know the Christian alphabet; they sharpen the
mind, they correct and adorn words, but they do not wish to reform their
hearts. Others who study in prayer with humility and diligence and are
enlightened by the Holy Spirit are wiser than the philosophers of this age;
they are devout and holy and beloved of God; although these do not know the
alphabet, they well comprehend everything; they speak simply, crudely, but
they live beautifully and auspiciously. These, O Christian, emulate". (III,
193).
-- and this is the essence of true Christianity as a life-time effort.
Disregarded by the Western denominations, it is still at the center of all
Orthodox theology which interprets the entire Divine revelation, all events
and proverbs of the Bible, in the context of these stages of spiritual
perfection.
Having been incarnate, humiliated, and afflicted by our sins, the Savior
has granted us, in His Person and in communion with Him, an opportunity for
this spiritual effort, which is the way to our salvation. Some follow it
[Phil 2:12] voluntarily and consciously, living a spiritual life; others
pass through almost against their will, reformed by sufferings sent from God
and by the Church discipline; still others only facing their death correct
their straying by repentance and receive enlightenment in the future life,
but the meaning of the Christian endeavour is always in asceticism, in the
work on one's soul; such is also the essence of Christian theology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
vii. Ignorance vs. Reason
If we trace all follies of the West, those developed in its religion as
well as those rooted in its customs, which are transmitted to us through the
"window of Europe," we will see them all stemming from ignorance of the
nature of Christian faith as a personal struggle for gradual
self-perfection. Such, for instance, is the Latino-Protestant concept of the
Redemption as the revenge of the Divine Majesty, once offended by Adam, on
Jesus Christ -- a concept which grew out of the feudal notion of knightly
honor, restorable by shedding the blood of the offender; such is the
material teaching about the Sacraments; such is also their teaching about
the new instrument of Divine Revelation -- the Pope of Rome, whoever he
might be in actual life; such, likewise, is the teaching of works of
obligation and of supererogation. Such is, finally, the Protestant dogma of
salvation through faith, which rejects the Church and her structure.
In all these fallacies Christianity is seen as something foreign to us,
to our minds and hearts, some sort of negotiated agreement between us and
the Godhead, stipulating, for reasons unknown, that we accept certain
obscure statements and rules, and receive in return a reward of eternal
salvation.
To defend themselves against obvious objections, Western theologians
have reinforced their teachings on the alleged incomprehensibility not only
of the nature of God, but also of the Divine Law, and sought -- like the
scholastics, Luther, and even Ritschel in our times -- to condemn reason as
the enemy of faith, while the Fathers of the Church, like St. Basil the
Great and even St. Isaac the Syrian, see the enemy of faith not in reason,
but rather in human stupidity, neglect, light-mindedness, and stubbornness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
viii. Moral Values Revisited
Turning from religious errors to the moral values of the West, we see in
some of them direct opposites of the Christian commandments, and these
perversions are so firmly rooted in the foundation of Western social and
personal life that even the greatest upheavals, which have toppled Christian
altars and destroyed royal thrones, have not affected those savage and
brutal prejudices. Thus, the Lord commands us to forgive -- but Western
morality calls for revenge and bloodshed; the Lord demands that we humbly
think of ourselves as great sinners -- but the West puts "self-esteem" above
all; the Lord calls us to rejoice and be glad when we are persecuted and
cast out -- but the West seeks the "restoration of honor"; for the Lord and
His Apostles pride is a demonic sin but for the West it is nobility.
The lowest Russian beggar, or even a half-believing native, a recent
convert who has not yet completely parted with his pagan practices, can tell
good from evil better than the moral authorities of the thousand-year old
Western culture, a dismal mess of the shreds of Christianity with the
delusions of antiquity.
And the reason for these follies is the failure to grasp the simple
truth that Christianity is an ascetic religion, a teaching on gradual
liberation from the passions, on the means and conditions of gradual
acquisition of virtues, conditions both internal, that is, personal
struggle, and external, that is, dogmatic tenets and grace-filled Mysteries,
all having one purpose: to heal human sinfulness and lead us to perfection.
Glory be to our God!
Al
The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church
by Patrick Barnes
Related Articles
Reviews of The Non-Orthodox
On the Status of the Heterodox
Will the Heterodox Be Saved?
For well over a year I had an "Internet essay" on this site entitled "On the
Status of Heterodox Christians." This essay was an attempt to espouse the
Orthodox teaching on the ecclesial and eternal status of the non-Orthodox.
It was finally submitted to His Eminence, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna,
and others on the faculty of the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Licentiate in Orthodox
Theology degree. The essay has now turned into a book entitled The
Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching On Christians Outside of the Church.
This book is a significant revision of the Internet version. It was
published by Regina Orthodox Press in 1999 but is now out of print.
Table of Contents
About the Author viii
Acknowledgements ix
I. A Burning Question
II. The Orthodox View of Grace
III. Western Christianity as Heresy
IV. Culpability, Sincerity, and Victimization
V. An Evaluation of Heterodox Baptism
VI. Can the Non-Orthodox Be Called "Christians"?
VII. Bishop Kallistos' Answer
VIII. St. Ignaty and Daniel Clendenin
EPILOGUE: Orthodoxy's "Exclusive Openness"
APPENDIX I: An Extended Critique of Ecumenist Reasoning
APPENDIX II: The Use of the Term "Heretic"
APPENDIX III: St. Dorotheos of Gaza On Judging Others
APPENDIX IV: A Personal Letter to a Protestant Inquirer
I also encourage you to read the short article by Metropolitan Philaret of
Blessed Memory entitled "Will the Heterodox Be Saved?", as well as the
excerpt from Fr. Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, which
follows Chapter I.
+ + +
Chapter I
In the latest edition of The Orthodox Church, Bishop Kallistos (Ware) raises
the question, "If Orthodox claim to constitute the one true Church, what
then do they consider to be the status of those Christians who do not belong
to their communion?" [1] For many Christians today-both Orthodox and
heterodox who are seriously contemplating a conversion to Orthodoxy-, this
is a burning question.
It is typically Protestants, more than other Christians, who wrestle with
this issue. The exclusivity of the Orthodox Church-namely, Her claim to be
the one and only True Ark of Salvation established by the Lord Jesus Christ,
preserving unadulterated the very criterion of Christianity-runs counter to
everything they have been taught about the nature of the Church. A marketing
manager of a major Orthodox publishing house specializing in "evangelistic"
literature was once heard to remark that the number of phone calls and faxes
her company receives on the question of the ecclesial and eternal status of
heterodox Christians is consistently high. Many Orthodox are interested in
this issue, and this book is in part an attempt to provide a cogent answer.
The problem with this and other questions relating to the boundaries of the
Church is that there currently exists a variety of contradictory answers.
Those who have a reasonable knowledge of the state of Orthodoxy today know
that certain aspects of ecclesiology are hotly debated. This is especially
true with regard to the status of those not in visible communion with the
Church. Several decades ago, the Orthodox theologian and ecumenical activist
Nicolas Zernov made the following comment upon this sad state of affairs:
One of the Anglican delegates [at an ecumenical gathering in Oxford in
1973], Canon Allchin, asked the Orthodox, "Are we, according to your
opinion, inside or outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?" A
lively discussion followed but no answer was given, and one of the leading
Orthodox theologians frankly confessed his ignorance. He said, "I don't
know". Such a lack of knowledge among theologians who claim to speak in the
name of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church can easily perplex those
who are not familiar with the sharp disagreements among Eastern Christians
in regard to the status of other Christian confessions. [2]
There are many reasons for this confusion today, all of which have served to
make questions involving the boundaries of the Church increasingly relevant,
and often emotionally charged:
Ignorance of Orthodoxy, Specifically the Patristic Mindset. [3] "The ...
insufficient grounding [of a large number of Orthodox] in the consensual
body of Patristic doctrine has led many to imagine that the Fathers disagree
on the issue of Mysteries [Sacraments] outside the Orthodox Church.
Separating canons from theology and theological speculation from spiritual
life sets Fathers at artificial odds with one another, when in fact our own
misreading and lack of intellectual acumen, not the Fathers, are at fault."
[4] This is related to a misinterpretation of the Church's historically
divergent policies regarding the reception of non-Orthodox: that the
reception of converts by means other than Holy Baptism, or the declaration
that a heterodox sacrament is "valid," is a tacit recognition of heterodox
sacraments per se; i.e., in and of themselves, apart from the Church.
Orthodox Participation in the Ecumenical Movement. The movement for unity
among Christians was begun by Protestants in the latter part of the
nineteenth century, and most Orthodox Churches fully entered into it only
fifty years ago, if that. Orthodox involvement in the ecumenical movement
has yielded very little fruit. In fact, a compelling case can be made that
our involvement has resulted in the infection of many Orthodox participants
with the bacterium of heretical belief.
A very important fact to be noted...is that exposure again and again through
dialogues to this minimalistic, relativistic mentality [of typical modern
dialogue] has a blunting effect on the Orthodox phronema or mindset. One
becomes infected by the virus-or venom (ios) as the Orthodox Church Fathers
call it-of heresy....
The reason why St. Paul and the other holy men...advise avoiding repeated
religious dialogues with the heterodox is clearly the danger of being
infected spiritually by heretical ideas-it is not to teach hatred towards
the heterodox. Such ideas are compared to poison, the venom of snakes,
causing spiritual death. [5]
Another negative result of the ecumenical movement has been the drafting of
"official" documents that are not faithful to traditional Orthodox
ecclesiology, the most notorious example being the "Balamand Agreement"
issued by Orthodox and Roman Catholics. [6] Though initially girded with
sound ecclesiological principles which countered the Protestant claims that
the aim of the ecumenical movement, and specifically of the World Council of
Churches, was the unity of, or unity within, the Church, [7] many Orthodox
participants-even entire local Orthodox Churches-have, to varying degrees
over the years, lost touch with a proper understanding of Orthodox
ecclesiology, often becoming increasingly estranged from the life-giving
spiritual heritage of Holy Tradition. Serious compromises in the Faith have
resulted, creating confusion and internal division [8] among the Faithful.
For those alarmed by these observations, it is worth pointing out that
doctrinal controversies are nothing new; anyone can discover this by reading
Church history. In our day, ecumenism, which is an ecclesiological heresy,
has ravaged the Church and at times appears to have the characteristics of a
"protracted naval battle," to use a metaphor from Saint Basil the Great (On
the Holy Spirit, Ch. 30). [9] One must keep in mind that there has never
been a "Golden Age" in the Orthodox Church. She has always been beset by
arguments and strife. In fact, ".there must be also heresies, that they
which are approved may be made manifest among you" (I Cor. 11:19). With all
due sympathy to those trying to sort out the nuances of Orthodox
ecclesiology, a consistent Orthodox position is definitely discernible, if
only one resorts to a careful examination of Holy Tradition, and
specifically, Sacred Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the
Sacred Canons.
Observation of Pious Heterodox Believers. In our modern, pluralistic
society, Orthodox Christians have a great deal of personal contact with
non-Orthodox Christians, many of whom exhibit a sincere faith in Christ,
living good and honorable lives that even outshine those of their Orthodox
neighbors. Combine this with the fact that heterodox Christians hold to
varying degrees of Orthodox truth, and one has a recipe for confusion in
those who are ignorant of Orthodox teachings. Two false conclusions are
typically drawn: 1) The heterodox are Christians in the same sense that the
Orthodox are, and 2) the "church" to which they belong is somehow a part or
"branch" of the one true Church of God.
Perhaps the reader wonders why it should take so long to answer such a
simple question as the one posed by Bishop Kallistos. Many undoubtedly would
like an accurate and succinct answer not involving any theological
meandering. To satisfy these readers, it is worthwhile at the outset briefly
to state the Orthodox position vis-vis the heterodox.
The status of the heterodox is properly seen in two ways. When speaking of
their ecclesial status-i.e., their relation to the Orthodox Church-we would
say that the heterodox cannot be seen as Her members, because they have not
been grafted into the one true Body of Christ through Holy Baptism. On the
other hand, when speaking of their eternal status-i.e., the implications of
this ecclesial separation-, we leave them to the mercy of God and do not
judge them. To affirm their separation is not to imply their damnation.
In what follows, we will first lay some of the theological groundwork that
is requisite for a full treatment of our question. In so doing, we will
address many of the issues relating to this question. A critique of various
well-known answers to this question, including that of Bishop Kallistos-one
that, although often cited, raises numerous problems-will bring our study to
a close.
Endnotes
1. Timothy [now Bishop Kallistos] Ware, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin
Books, 1993 [1963]), pp. 307-308.
2. "The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Anglicans,"
Sobornost, 6:8 (1973), p. 529.
3. The concept of a Patristic mindset (i.e., the phronema ton pateron,
consensus patrum, or "ecclesial consciousness") will be discussed in greater
detail in Appendix I. The "Orthodox Christian Information Center"
(Orthodoxinfo.com, henceforth "OCIC") also contains a number of articles on
this and other concepts presented herein. The website's search engine will
help the reader find most of the articles cited in this work.
4. Bishop [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos of Oreoi [now of Etna], "BEM and
Orthodox Spirituality," Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. 32, No.1
(1987), p. 61. BEM stands for "Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry," Paper No. 111
of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches
conference in Lima, Peru in 1983. This article by Archbishop Chrysostomos
contains Patristic insights of a valuable kind. See related comments by His
Eminence and Bishop Auxentios of Photiki in Scripture and Tradition (Etna,
CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1994 [1984], 50-52): "The
diversity of positions we encounter in contemporary Orthodox theological
thought is engendered by the importation, into Orthodoxy, of Western
influence." Also see Christos Yannaras, "Theology in Present Day Greece,"
St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Vol. XVI, No. 4 (1972). For a survey of
this problem from a Russian Orthodox perspective, consult The Collected
Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co., 1979),
Vol. I, "St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers," 105-120;
Vol. IV, "Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church," and
"Western Influences in Russian Theology"; Vol. V, Ways of Russian Theology,
Part One; Vol. VI, Ways of Russian Theology, Part Two.
5. Dr. Constantine Cavarnos, Ecumenism Examined (Belmont, MA: Institute for
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1996), pp. 46-47, 52, emphases his.
6. For more on this heretical document, one that is openly defended as
Orthodox on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocesan website, see "The Balamand
Agreement" page on the OCIC.
7. As opposed to among Christians, or within Christendom. See, for example,
"Christian Unity as Viewed by the Eastern Orthodox Church: Statement of the
Representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church in the USA at the North
American Faith and Order Study Conference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 3-10,
1957":
We admit, of course, that the Unity of Christendom has been disrupted, that
the unity of faith and the integrity of order have been sorely broken. But
we do not admit that the Unity of the Church, and precisely of the "visible"
and historical Church, has ever been broken or lost, so as to now be a
problem of search and discovery. The problem of Unity is for us, therefore,
the problem of the return to the fullness of Faith and Order, in full
faithfulness to the message of Scripture and Tradition and in the obedience
to the will of God: "that all may be one"....
In considering firstly "the nature of the unity we seek," we wish to begin
by making clear that our approach is at variance with that usually advocated
and ordinarily expected by participating representatives. The Orthodox
Church teaches that the unity of the Church has not been lost, because she
is the Body of Christ, and, as such, can never be divided. It is Christ as
her head and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that secure the unity of the
Church throughout the ages.
8. See Bishop Photios of Triaditza, "Orthodox Unity Today," Orthodox
Tradition, Vol. X, No. 4, pp. 4-10.
9. Patrick Barker [now Hieromonk Patapios] writes,
In the twentieth century, the Orthodox Church has been thrown into
tremendous confusion. It could be said that the crisis through which we are
now passing is no less severe than those crises faced by the Church during
the period of the Seven Ocumenical Synods, and in particular the crisis
provoked by the Iconoclast heresy in the eighth and early ninth centuries.
(A Study of the Ecclesiology of Resistance [Etna, CA: Center for
Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1994], p. 10)
This book, as well as supplementary articles on the "Resistance Page" of the
OCIC, are very important for understanding how Orthodox Christians should
respond to innovation and heresy plaguing the Church. Readers who are not
very familiar with Orthodox ecclesiology and Church history must understand
the similarities between our current situation and times past, as well as
how various controversies were resolved.
Book Errata
On page 61, I state in a footnote that Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna was a
student of Father Georges Florovsky. This is incorrect. His Eminence knew
him while both he and Father Georges were at Princeton (the former as a
doctoral student and the latter as a visiting professor), confessed to him,
and audited one of his seminars at Princeton. Bishop Auxentios, the
assistant to His Eminence, is the one who was a student of Fr. Georges.
Al
Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical?
Introductory Note. The reader should be aware that my motivation for
compiling these texts does not stem from a desire to "bash the heterodox"
but rather to help my fellow Orthodox brothers and sisters to understand
that much of the rhetoric we hear today regarding Western Christians is not
faithful to Holy Tradition. It thus undermines the unity and uniqueness of
the one true Church-the Orthodox Church-, which embodies the very criterion
of Christianity, being the sole preserver of the unadulterated Apostolic and
Holy Tradition. Take for example this statement by one of the leading
ecumenical activists, the late Nicolas Zernov:
[Western Christians] present .a mystery of the divided Church which cannot
be solved on precedents taken from the epoch of the Seven Ecumenical
Councils. It is a new problem requiring a search for a fresh approach and
confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in our time
as He guided her in the past.
It is necessary to state from the outset, that the attitude to the Christian
West has never been discussed by any representative body of the Orthodox
Church. Neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants have ever been condemned or
excommunicated as such, so a common policy in regard to them has never been
adopted. ("The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Anglicans,"
Sobornost, 6:8 (1973), 531)
The answers he provides in this misleading article are atrocious from a
Traditional point of view. It is replete with statements and conclusions
that flatly contradict the "Mind of the Church," as I hope you will see
below.
Also, though one should not have to clarify this, in these days of
"ecumeni-speak" and "political correctness" I felt it was important to say
that at times it is entirely proper and necessary to call a person's beliefs
"heretical." When spoken in love this constitutes an act of love. We are to
hate the poison of heresy, but to love and have compassion for those
infected by it. For more on this I highly recommend the essay entitled "The
True Nature of Heresy" and this excerpt from a forthcoming book: The Use of
the Term "Heretic." I also offer these other excerpts from related articles:
"...if our truth is an exclusive truth, it is made open... by our ability to
see virtue even among those in error. This principle is reified by our
constant commitment to love and hospitality. A perfect example of this was a
visit made by some American Uniates to Metropolitan Cyprian several years
ago. His Eminence received his guests as brothers and treated them with
great affection. Yet, one evening, while offering them a beautiful dinner on
the veranda of his cell, he told them: 'Love dictates that I tell you that
you are heretics and must become Orthodox.' One of the clergymen, in fact,
is now a Priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese. It is our openness to the
virtues of those in error, our readiness to be ridiculed and embarrassed by
our 'exclusivity,' and our love of the truth which ultimately make us
Orthodox and open to all things, being all things to all men for the sake of
their salvation." (From "The Exclusive Openness of Truth" in Orthodox
Tradition, Vol. XI, No. 4 (1994), 8 [emphasis theirs])
"The time has come for all faithful Orthodox Christians to speak out and
promptly put an end to this spurious form of Orthodoxy known as 'ecumenistic
Orthodoxy'. It is a betrayal of the Holy Orthodox Church, a negation of its
essence. It is time to take her divine dogmas 'out of the storeroom,' where
[Ecumenical] Patriarch Athenagoras I relegated them [in the sixties], bring
them to the open light, and proclaim them by every means, and in every
land... Let us not offer to the world the pseudo-Orthodoxy of 'Orthodox
ecumenism,' which puts error on the same level as truth... This offering
will be an act of true Christian love, a fulfilling of Christ's commandment
of loving our neighbor as we love ourselves. Christ says, 'What man is there
of you whom if his son asks for bread would give him a stone?' (St. Matt.
7:9) 'Orthodox ecumenism' does precisely the latter... People today are
searching for the truth that saves; yet these ecumenists have put the bread
of truth in the storeroom and have been offering instead the stone of
untruth, of error, and of heresy that leads to perdition. The commandment of
love demands that we take the bread of the teaching of the Orthodox Church
out in the open and offer it lovingly to all who hunger for the truth that
frees and saves." (From a lecture by Dr. Constantine Cavarnos at the Greek
Orthodox Cathedral of the Annunciation, Atlanta, GA, on March 16, 1997)
Having said all this, however, I quote from a letter of Fr. Seraphim to a
Protestant inquirer:
The word "heretic" ... is indeed used too frequently nowadays. It has a
definite meaning and function, to distinguish new teachings from the
Orthodox teaching; but few of the non-Orthodox Christians today are
consciously "heretics," and it really does no good to call them that... .A
harsh, polemical attitude is called for only when the non-Orthodox are
trying to take away our flocks or change our teachings. (Monk Damascene
Christensen, Not of This World: The Life and Teachings of Fr. Seraphim Rose
[Fr. Seraphim Rose Foundation, 1993], pp. 757-58.)
+ + +
From the On Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by Saint Photios: On the heresy of
the Filioque ("and the Son") clause, later officially inserted into the
Nicene Creed by the Latin Church
"Who of our sacred and renowned fathers had said that the Spirit proceeds
from the Son? Which council, established and made eminent by ecumenical
acknowledgment, has proclaimed it? Indeed, which God-called assembly of
priests and high priests inspired by the All-holy Spirit has not condemned
this notion even before it appeared? For they, having been initiated into
the Father's Spirit according to the Master's mystagogy [i.e., St. John
15:26], proclaimed clearly and emphatically that the Spirit proceeds from
the Father. And indeed, they subjected all who did not believe so to the
anathema for being scorners of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; for in
times past, they foresaw with prophetic eyes this newly spawned godlessness,
and they condemned it in script and words and thought, along with the
previous manifold apostasies. Of the Ecumenical Councils, the Second
directly dogmatized that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; the Third
received this teaching in succession; the Fourth confirmed it; the Fifth was
established in the same opinion; the Sixth preached the same; the Seventh
sealed it splendidly with contests; in each Council is seen the open and
clear proclamation of piety and of the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds
from the Father, not from the Son. What godless herd taught you otherwise?
Who of those who contravene the Master's ordinances has led you to fall into
such lawless beliefs?"
(On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by Saint Photios, Patriarch of
Constantinople, trans. by Holy Transfiguration Monastery [Studion
Publishers, Inc: 1983], p. 71.) It is common to find those who are under the
impression that the Filioque clause is a trifling matter-a mere
"word-squabble" among theologians; or that the Filioque is really not a big
issue because some theologians have figured a way to keep the clause but
interpret it in an "Eastern Way" that is acceptable to the Orthodox. Such a
person with an honest, truth-loving soul will not be able to hold these
opinions any longer when they read the Mystagogy. There is no way to get
around the fact that it is a grave heresy and has always been seen as such
by the Orthodox Church.
From the Synodicon of the Holy Spirit (to be read on the second day of
Pentecost)
Background: This is subtitled: "A confession and proclamation of the
Orthodox piety of the Christians, in which all the impieties of the heretics
are overthrown and the definitions of the Catholic Church of Christ are
sustained. Through which the enemies of the Holy Spirit are severed from the
Church of Christ." This Synodicon (a decision, statement, or tome either
originating from a synod or council or possessing conciliar authority) is
attributed to Patriarch Germanos the New (1222-1240). It demonstrates how
the theology of St. Photios the Great became the Church's definitive voice
on the subject of the filioque. There can be no doubt that the filioque was
judged to be heretical by the Orthodox Church. What follows are just a few
of the anathemas from the Synodicon. (This background information, and the
anathemas, are taken from On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, ibid.)
"So likewise do they who despise and disdain piety receive curses;
wherefore, all we in unison, since we constitute the plentitude of piety,
lay upon them the curse which they have put upon themselves." [an excerpt
from the Synodicon of Orthodoxy, read on the Sunday of Orthodoxy during
Great Lent].' To those who do not deign to consent to the unaltered and
unadulterated holy Symbol confessed by the Orthodox, that one, I mean, which
was evangelically formulated by the First and Second Holy Councils and
confirmed by the rest, but who rather amend it and distort it to support
their own belief, thereby not only corrupting the conciliar traditions of
the holy fathers and of the holy and God-instructed apostles, but also the
definitions of our true God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ANATHEMA." ...
"To those who in any way undertake investigations into new doctrines
concerning the divine and incomprehensible Trinity and who search out the
difference between begetting and procession, and the nature of begetting and
procession in God and who increase words and do not abide and persist in the
definitions handed down to us by both the disciples of Christ and the divine
fathers; and who thereby uselessly strive to dispute over things not
delivered to us, ANATHEMA."
"To those who scorn the venerable and holy ecumenical Councils, and who
despise even more their dogmatic and canonical traditions; and to those who
say that all things were not perfectly defined and delivered by the
councils, but that they left the greater part mysterious, unclear, and
untaught, ANATHEMA."
"To those who hold in contempt the sacred and divine canons of our blessed
fathers, which, by sustaining the holy Church of God and adorning the whole
Christian Church, guide to divine reverence, ANATHEMA."
"To all things innovated and enacted contrary to the Church tradition,
teaching, and institution of the holy and ever-memorable fathers, or to
anything henceforth so enacted, ANATHEMA."
St. Mark of Ephesus, one of the three "pillars" of Orthodoxy
"We have cut the Latins off from us for no other reason than that they are
not only schismatics, but heretics. For this reason it is wholly improper to
unite with them.... The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics as
well. However, the Church was silent on this because their race is large and
more powerful than ours... and we wished not to fall into triumphalism over
the Latins as heretics but to be accepting of their return and to cultivate
brotherliness." (1439)
SIGILLION of the Patriarchal formulation of an encyclical to Orthodox
Christians throughout the world not to accept the modernistic Paschalion, or
calendar of the innovated Menologion, but to keep what was once for all and
well-formulated by the three hundred and eighteen Holy God-bearing Fathers
of the First Ecumenical Council, under penalty of penance and anathema.
Background: In 1583, the Pope of Rome, Gregory XIII, who changed the Julian
calendar, repeatedly pressured the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias,
who was called Illustrious, to follow him in the calendar innovation. The
Patriarch repeatedly refused with letters, and finally in the same year,
1583, he convened a council in Constantinople...
"To all the genuine Christian children of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church of Christ of the East residing in Trigovysti and throughout the
world, be grace and peace and mercy from God Almighty.
"No small turbulence overtook that ancient Ark, when, violently beset by
billows, it floated upon the surface of the waters, and had not the Lord God
remembered Noah and seen fit to still the water, there would have been no
hope for it at all. Thus also in regard to the New Ark of our Church,
against which misbelievers have launched an implacable war upon us, by means
of these presents we have decided to leave a note that you may have in what
is herein written the means of upholding and defending your Orthodoxy
against such enemies more safely and surely.
But, lest the composition as a whole be weary to the simpler folks, we have
decided to embody the matter in common langauge, wording it as follows: "In
Common Language "From old Rome have come certain persons who learned there
to wear Latin habits. The worst of it is how, from being Romans of Rumelia
bred and born, they not only have changed their faith, but they even wage
war upon the Orthodox dogmas and truths of the Eastern Church which have
been delivered to us by Christ and the divine Apostles and the Holy Councils
of the Holy Fathers.
Therefore, cutting off these persons as rotten members, we command:
1) That whoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of
the Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit
proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ
says in the Gospel, shall be outside of our Church and shall be
anathematized.
2) That whoever does not confess that at the Mystery of the Holy Communion
the laity must also partake of both kinds, of the Precious Body and Blood,
but instead says that he will partake only of the body, and that that is
sufficient because therein is both flesh and blood, when as a matter of fact
Christ died and administered each seperately, and they who fail to keep such
customs, let all such persons be anathematized.
3) That whoever says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystic Supper had
unleavened bread (made without yeast), like that of the Jews, and not
leavened bread, that is to say, bread raised with yeast, let him depart far
away from us and let him be anathema as one having Jewish views and those of
Apollinarios and bringing dogmas of the Armenians into the Church, on which
account let him be doubly anathema.
4) Whoever says that our Christ and God, when he comes to judge us, does not
come to judge souls together with bodies, or embodied souls, but instead
comes to sentance only bodies, let him be anathema.
5) Whoever says that the souls of Christians who repented while in the world
but failed to perform their penance go to a purgatory of fire when they die,
where there is flame and punishment, and are purified, which is simply an
ancient Greek myth, and those who, like Origen, think that hell is not
everlasting, and thereby afford or offer the liberty or incentive to sin,
let him and all such persons be anathema.
6) That whoever says that the Pope is the head of the Church, and not
Christ, and that he has authority to admit persons to Paradise with his
letters of indulgence or other passports, and can fogive sins as many as a
person may commit if such person pay money to receive from him indulgences,
i.e. licences to sin, let every such person be anathema.
7) That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy
Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with which
they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to
follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion of the atheist
astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to
overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been
handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the
Church of Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful.
8) That ye pious and Orthodox Christians remain faithful in what ye have
been taught and have been born and brought up in, and when the time calls
for it and there be need, that your very blood be shed in order to safeguard
the Faith handed down by our Fathers and your confession: and that ye beware
of such persons as have been described or referred to in the foregoing
paragraphs, in order that our Lord Jesus Christ may help you and at the same
time may the prayer of our mediocrity be with all of you: amen.
Done in the year of the God-man 1583 (MDLXXXIII), year of indiction 12,
November 20 [O.S.]
Jeremiah of Constantinople
Silvester of Alexandria
Sophronius of Jerusalem
In the presence of the rest of the prelates at the Council."
This is found in pages 13-15 of the Rudder, which goes on to add that at
another Pan-Orthodox synod in 1593, the 8th canon, which was headed "For
exclusion of the New Calendar decrees that "all those who dare to disturb
the rules of the Great and Holy Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, as held in the
presence of the pious and most God-beloved King Constantine in regard to the
holy feast of man-saving Pascha, be excommunicated and excluded from the
Church..."
From The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, subtitled "Against the
Calvinists, Held in the Year 1672 Under Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem"
(London: Thomas Baker, 1899), translated and with notes by J.N.W.B Robertson
[Note: keep in mind that the decrees in this Synod are pastoral and
protective in nature. They arose out of the need for the Church to address
the so-called "Confession of Cyril Lucar". This confession, which espoused
many teachings of the Protestant reformer John Calvin, was reportedly
written by Cyril Lucar, a former Patriarch of Constantinople. The strong
words are directed chiefly against those who are in full awareness of their
error and are teaching contrary to the Orthodox Faith, leading "even the
elect" astray. Finally, you must also know that my primary motive for
compiling a document of texts like this is to combat the teaching of some
Orthodox hierarchs and theologians who are compromised by the heresy of
ecumenism. They say that the Orthodox Church has "never officially declared
Roman Catholics or Protestants to be heretics." In saying this, they hope to
further their ecumenical agenda of a false union with Western heterodoxy.
Thus, these excerpts are more for the Orthodox than for Protestants who may
stumble across my site.]
It is to be noted, therefore, that the leaders of these heretics, well
knowing the doctrine of the Eastern Church, declare that she maintains the
same as they themselves do in what concerns God and divine things; but of
set purpose do they malign us, chiefly to deceive the more simple. For being
severed, or rather rent away from the Westerns, and consequently being
absolutely rejected by the whole Catholic [Orthodox] Church, and convicted,
they are manifestly heretics, and the chiefest of heretics. For not only
have they become, from motives of self-love, propounders of new and silly
dogmas (if it is allowable to call what are really only fables dogmas); but
are entirely external to the Church, as having no kind of communion whatever
with the Catholic [Orthodox] Church, as hath been said... . But, as it is
impossible in this matter for light and darkness, or Christ and Belial, to
be together, so it is impossible for our adversaries, so long as they follow
Calvin the heresiarch, as a leader, to be at one with the Eastern Church in
what concerneth faith.
From the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known,
over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the
Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now
flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great
voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).
5, xv. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed
Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the
Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed
heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says:
"If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not
rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic" (Cath. Conf. of Faith which
Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy
Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and
again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy
Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its
maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of
Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and
that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic
Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the
third Ecumenical Council.
7. These illustrious men proved indeed on this point the truth of the words
of our holy father Basil the sublime, when he said, from experience,
concerning the Bishops of the West, and particularly of the Pope: "They
neither know the truth nor endure to learn it, striving against those who
tell them the truth, and strengthening themselves in their heresy" (to
Eusebius of Samosata). Thus, after a first and second brotherly admonition,
knowing their impenitence, shaking them off and avoiding them, they gave
them over to their reprobate mind. "War is better than peace, apart from
God," as said our holy father Gregory, concerning the Arians. From that time
there has been no spiritual communion between us and them; for they have
with their own hands dug deep the chasm between themselves and Orthodoxy.
16. From these things we estimate into what an unspeakable labyrinth of
wrong and incorrigible sin of revolution the papacy has thrown even the
wiser and more godly Bishops of the Roman Church, so that, in order to
preserve the innocent, and therefore valued vicarial dignity, as well as the
despotic primacy and the things depending upon it, they know no other means
shall to insult the most divine and sacred things, daring everything for
that one end. Clothing themselves, in words, with pious reverence for "the
most venerable antiquity" (p. xi. 1.16), in reality there remains, within,
the innovating temper; and yet his Holiness really hears hard upon himself
when he says that we "must cast from us everything that has crept in among
us since the Separation," (!) while he and his have spread the poison of
their innovation even into the Supper of our LORD.
From the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
XXI. Such are, briefly, the serious and arbitrary innovations concerning the
faith and the administrative constitution of the Church, which the Papal
Church has introduced and which, it is evident, the Papal Encyclical
purposely passes over in silence. These innovations, which have reference to
essential points of the faith and of the administrative system of the
Church, and which are manifestly opposed to the ecclesiastical condition of
the first nine centuries, make the longed-for union of the Churches
impossible: and every pious and orthodox heart is filled with inexpressible
sorrow on seeing the Papal Church disdainfully persisting in them, and not
in the least contributing to the sacred purpose of union by rejecting those
heretical innovations and coming back to the ancient condition of the one
holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, of which she also at that
time formed a part.
XXIV... . But, as has been said before, the Western Church, from the tenth
century downwards, has privily brought into herself through the papacy
various and strange and heretical doctrines and innovations, and so she has
been torn away and removed far from the true and orthodox Church of Christ.
How necessary, then, it is for you to come back and return to the ancient
and unadulterated doctrines of the Church in order to attain the salvation
in Christ after which you press, you can easily understand if you
intelligently consider the command of the heaven-ascended Apostle Paul to
the Thessalonians, saying: 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle' ...
Metropolitan PHILARET of blessed memory, former First Hierarch of the
Russian Orthdox Church Abroad, from his First Sorrowful Epistle
Perhaps somebody will say that times have changed, and heresies now are not
so malicious and destructive as in the days of the Ecumenical Councils. But
are those Protestants who renounce the veneration of the Theotokos and the
Saints, who do not recognize the grace of the hierarchy,-or the Roman
Catholics, who have invented new errors,-are they nearer to the Orthodox
Church than the Arians or Semi-Arians?
Let us grant that modern preachers of heresy are not so belligerent towards
the Orthodox Church as the ancient ones were. However, that is not because
their doctrines are nearer to Orthodox teaching, but because Protestantism
and Ecumenism have built up in them the conviction that there is no One and
True Church on earth, but only communities of men who are in varying degrees
of error. Such a doctrine kills any zeal in professing what they take to be
the truth, and therefore modern heretics appear to be less obdurate than the
ancient ones. But such indifference to truth is in many respects worse than
the capacity to be zealous in defense of an error mistaken for truth.
Pilate, who said "What is truth?" could not be converted; but Saul, the
persecutor of Christianity, became the Apostle Paul. That is why we read in
the Book of Revelation the menacing words to the Angel of the Church of
Laodicea: "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would
thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold
nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth" (iii. 15-16).
Metropolitan PHILARET, from his Second Sorrowful Epistle
The Roman Catholic Church with which Patriarch Athenagoras would establish
liturgical communion, and with which, through the actions of Metropolitan
Nikodim of Leningrad and others, the Moscow Patriarchate has already entered
into communion, is not even that same church with which the Orthodox Church
led by St. Mark of Ephesus refused to enter into a union. That church is
even further away from Orthodoxy now, having introduced even more new
doctrines and having accepted more and more the principles of reformation,
ecumenism and modernism.
In a number of decisions of the Orthodox Church the Roman Catholics were
regarded as heretics. Though from time to time they were accepted into the
Church in a manner such as that applied to Arians, it is to be noted that
for many centuries and even in our time the Greek Churches accepted them by
Baptism. If after the centuries following 1054 the Latins were accepted into
the Greek and Russian Churches by two rites, that of Baptism or of
Chrismation, it was because although everyone recognized them to be
heretics, a general rule for the entire Church was not yet established in
regard to the means of their acceptance. For instance, when in the beginning
of the XII century the Serbian Prince and father of Stephan Nemania was
forced into having his son baptized by the Latins upon his subsequent return
later to Rasa he baptized him in the Orthodox Church (Short Outline of the
Orthodox Churches, Bulgarian, Serbian and Rumanian, E. E. Golubinsky,
Moscow, 1871, p. 551). In another monumental work, The History of the
Russian Church (Vols. I/II, Moscow, 1904, pp. 806-807), Professor
Golubinsky, in describing the stand taken by the Russian Church in regard to
the Latins, advances many facts indicating that in applying various ways in
receiving the Latins into the fold of the Orthodox Church, at some times
baptizing them and at others chrismating them, both the Greeks and Russian
Churches assumed that they were heretics.
From "An Open Letter to the Orthodox Hierarchy", by Fr. Michael Azkoul
"... If any have doubts that Papists and Protestants are heretics, let him
have recourse to history, to the reputable and sagacious opinions and
statements of councils, encyclicals and theologians. From the time of
blessed Saint Photius, when Papism was coming into being, the Church of God
has defined Her attitude towards this ecclesiological heresy even as She had
towards the triadological and christological heresies of ancient times. The
Council of Constantinople (879-880) under Photius declared the various
innovations of the West to be heretical (J.D. Mansi, Sacro. Council. nova et
amplis. collect. Venice, 1759, XVI, 174C, 405C); and the Council of the same
imperial city (1009) confirmed the decisions of Photius against the Papists
(Mansi, XXXL, 799f). Theophylact of Ochrida condemned the Papal errors (PG
126 224) as did Nicephorus Blemnydes, Patriarch of Constantinople (PG 142
533-564).
"His successor, Michael Anchialus stated' "Let the Saracen be my lord in
outward things, and let not the Italian run with me in the things of the
soul, for I do not become of one mind with the first; if I do not obey him,
but if I accept harmony in faith with the second, I shall have deserted my
God, whom He, in embracing me, will drive away" (in J. Giesler, Comp. Eccl..
Hist. Edinburg, 1953, p. 490). Again, George of Cyprus (PG 142 1233-1245),
Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople (PG 140 621-757), Saint Marcus
Eugenicos (PG 140 1071-1100) and Patriarch of Constantinople, Gennadius (PG
160 320-373) all condemn the Papist heresies as does Saint Simeon of
Thessalonica (Dial. Christ. Contra Omn. Haer, PG 155 105-108), the
illustrious successor to the most blessed, St. Gregory Palamas, God-mantled
enemy of Latin Scholasticism.
"In the l6th Century, despite the Turkish yoke, Patriarch Jeremiah II of
Constantinople rejected the Lutheran overtures in his Three Answers on the
ground of heresy while the Council of Constantinople (1638) repudiated the
Calvinist heresies; the Council of Jassy (1642) with Peter Moghila denounced
"all Western innovations" and the Council of Jerusalem (1672) under the
famous Patriarch Dositheus published its 18 decrees together with the
pronouncements of the Patriarch, Confessio Dosithei, forming thereby the
shield of truth" which opposed "the spirit of the ancient Church" to "the
heresies of both the Latins and the Protestants" (See I Mesolora, Symbol of
the Eastern Orthodox Church (vol. IV), Athens, 1904). Of course, the heresy
of the Papists and Protestants is a clear affirmation of the Orthodox Church
as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" as declared the Council of
Constantinople (1672), the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), the
Council of Constantinople (1872), the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, the
Holy Russian Synod of 1904, and the memorable words of [the] Patriarch of
Constantinople, Joachim II, "Our desire is that all heretics shall come to
the bosom of the Orthodox Church of Christ which alone is able to give them
salvation ..." (in Chrestos Androutsos, The Basis for Union ...
Constantinople, 1905, p. 36)."
From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, No. 1, 41ff
"... As for those who, in defending the stand taken by Bishop Maximos and
other ecumenists of like mind, claim that the Roman Catholic Church and its
teachings have never been condemned by the Orthodox Church, let us cite the
following statement from the Greek periodical Hagios Kyprianos, a sober and
erudite periodical which has, for a number of years, published significant
assessments of the ecumenical movement from a traditional Orthodox point of
view: "...Two Ecumenical Synods (the eighth / 879-880, concerning St.
Photios the Great, and the ninth / 14th century, concerning St. Gregory
Palamas) and at least fourteen (14) other anti-papist Orthodox Synods have
condemned Papsim and its numberless errors in belief, while more than two
hundred (200) Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers have written against
the Latins and have overturned those dogmas which they hold in opposition to
the Gospels." [Editorial note.-We should point out that many Orthodox
scholars consider the Synods held in Constantinople in 879-880, under
Emperor Basil I, and in 1341, under Emperor Andronicos III, to have an
ecumenical character. In 1351, another Synod, held at the Blacharnai Palace
under Emperor John VI Cantacouzenos, fully upheld the decisions of the Synod
of 1341, further supporting its ecumenical character.]"
From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV, No. 2&3, 26
[In response to a question from a student at St. Vladimir's Seminary ...]
Second, let us see what a "contemporary" Father of the Church-one who was
awarded an honorary doctorate by your seminary, incidentally-has to say, in
keeping with the true consensus of our Orthodox Patristic tradition, about
the heterodox. In his essay, "Attributes of the Church" (Orthodox Life, Vol.
XXXI, No. 1 [Jan.-Feb. 1981], p. 29), the Blessed Archimandrite Justin
(Popovich) writes:
From time to time, heretics and schismatics have cut themselves off and have
fallen away from the One and indivisible Church of Christ, whereby they
ceased to be members of the Church and parts of Her Theanthropic Body. The
first to fall away thus were the Gnostics, then the Arians, then the
Macedonians, then the Monophysites, then the Iconoclasts, then the Roman
Catholics, then the Protestants, then the Uniates, and so on-all the members
of the legion of heretics and schismatics.
From The Creeds of Christendom, ed. by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1990 [1931]). For those not familiar with this book, it is a
classic and scholarly Protestant reference text. See also Augsburg and
Constantinople, by Fr. George Mastrantonis (Brookline: Holy Cross Press,
1982).
After considerable delay, Jeremiah II, [Patriarch of Constantinople] replied
to the Lutheran divines at length, in 1576, and subjected the Augsburg
Confession to an unfavorable criticism, rejecting nearly all its distinctive
doctrines, and commending only its indorsement [sic] of the early ecumenical
Synods and its view on the marriage of priests. The Tubingen professors sent
him an elaborate defense (1577), with other documents, but Jeremiah, two
years afterwards, only reaffirmed his former position, and when the
Lutherans troubled him with new letters, apologetic and polemic, he declined
all further correspondence, and ceased to answer... .
The Answers of Jeremiah received the approval of the Synod of Jerusalem in
1672, and may be regarded, therefore, as truly expressing the spirit of the
Eastern Communion towards Protestantism. It is evident from the transactions
of the Synod of Jerusalem that the Greek Church rejects Lutheranism and
Calvinism alike as dangerous heresies. (51-52)
Calvinism and Cyril Lucar's Confession
The Confession of Cyril Lucar was never adopted by any branch or party of
the Eastern Church, and even repeatedly condemned as heretical; but as it
gave rise to the later authentic definitions of the "Orthodox Faith," in
opposition to the distinctive doctrines of Romanism and Protestantism, it
must be noticed here...
Cyril left no followers able or willing to carry on his work, but the
agitation he had produced continued for several years and called forth
defensive measures. His doctrines were anathematized by Patriarch Cyril of
Berea and a Synod of Constantinople (Sept., 1638), then again by the Synods
of Jassy, in Moldavia, 1643, and of Jerusalem, 1672; (54, 55)
The Synod convened at Jerusalem in March, 1672, by Patriarch Dositheus, for
the consecration of the restored Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem,
issued a new Defense or Apology of Greek Orthodoxy. It is directed against
Calvinism, which was still professed or secretly held by many admirers of
Cyril Lucar. It is dated Jerusalem, March 16, 1672, and signed by Dositheus,
Patriarch of Jerusalem and Palestine (otherwise little known), and by
sixty-eight Eastern bishops and ecclesiastics, including some from Russia.
This Synod is the most important in the modern history of the Eastern
Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent. Both fixed the
doctrinal status of the Churches they represent, and both condemned the
evangelical doctrines of Protestantism... .But although the Synod was
chiefly aimed against Protestantism, and has no direct polemical reference
to the Latin Church, it did not give up any of the distinctive Greek
doctrines, or make any concessions to the claims of the Papacy.
The acts of the Synod of Jerusalem consists of six chapters, and a
confession of Dositheus in eighteen decrees. Both are preceded by a pastoral
letter giving an account of the occasion of this public confession in
opposition to Calvinism and Lutheranism, which are condemned alike as being
essentially the same heresy, notwithstanding some apparant differences. The
Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah given to Martin Crusius, Professor in
Tubingen, and other Lutherans, in 1572, are approved by the Synod of
Jerusalem, as they were by the Synod of Jassy, and thus clothed with a
semi-symbolical authority. The Orthodox Confession of Peter Moghila is
likewise sanctioned again, but the Confession of Cyril Lucar is disowned as
a forgery.
The Six Chapters are very prolix, and altogether polemical against the
Confession which was circulated under the name of Cyril Lucar, and give
large extracts from his homilies preached before the clergy and people of
Constantinople to prove his orthodoxy. One anathema is not considered
sufficient, and a threefold anathema is hurled against the heretical
doctrines.
The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles, a positive
statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril's Confession,
which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative and complete
doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted
articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the
Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of
England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or
conference by all who would be in communion with the Orthodox Church.
(61-62)
+ + +
Love for Heretics
There is no doubt at all that the standard of love put forth by the Holy
Fathers with regard to heretics-a standard inherited from the Apostles-,
reflects wholly the characteristics of the GodMan. This is expressed in the
following inspired words of Saint Maximos the Confessor:
"I write these things not wishing to cause distress to the heretics or to
rejoice in their illtreatment-God forbid; but, rather, rejoicing and being
gladdened at their return. For what is more pleasing to the Faithful than to
see the scattered children of God gathered again as one? Neither do I exhort
you to place harshness above the love of men. May I not be so mad! I beseech
you to do and to carry out good to all men with care and assiduity, becoming
all things to all men, as the need of each is shown to you; I want and pray
you to be wholly harsh and implacable with the heretics only in regard to
cooperating with them or in any way whatever supporting their deranged
belief. For I reckon it misanthropy and a departure from Divine love to lend
support to error, that those previously seized by it might be even more
greatly corrupted" (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 91 col. 465c).
From The Panheresy of Ecumenism, by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
(Etna, CA: The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1995), 32.
+ + +
For Further Reading
St. Photios, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit (Studion Publishers, Inc.,
1983). Aside from a superb English translation of St. Photios' Mystagogy,
this important book also includes the Synodicon on the Holy Spirit, "St.
Photios and the Filioque" by Michael Azkoul, and "The Life of St. Photios"
by St. Justin Popovich.
The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy (Buena Vista, CO: Holy Apostles
Convent and the Dormition Skete, 1990). Contains the lives of St. Photios,
St. Mark of Ephesus, and St. Gregory Palamas. Over 600 pages.
Ostroumoff, Ivan, The History of the Council of Florence (Boston, MA: Holy
Transfiguration Monastery, 1971).
The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern
Church, by Abbe Guettee. Out of print but still available. Read this excerpt
on the False Decretals of Isidore.
Christianity or the Papacy? An Appeal to Roman Catholics, by Fr. Alexey
Young (St. John of Kronstadt Press). A concise explanation of the
differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. 31pp.
The Roman West and the Byzantine East, by Bishop [now Archbishop]
Chrysostomos of Oreoi [now of Etna] and Hieromonk [now Bishop] Auxentios
(Etna, CA: The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1988). A superb,
short treatment of general differences between East and West.
Kalomiros, Alexander, Against False Union (Seattle, WA: St. Nectarios Press,
1982). He is the author of the famous essay "The River of Fire".
Welton, Michael, Two Paths: Papal Monarch-Collegial Tradition (Salisbury,
MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1998). From their website: "[C]ompassionately,
simply, and factually explains the historic, theological, and liturgical
differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions."
Al
"Original Sin" and the Mother of God
First: The use of the term the stain of Original Sin is exclusive Roman
Catholic Church terminology and is NOT Orthodox.
The Orthodox position is that we are all born into a sinful world made
sinful by the Fall of Adam. No one is or ever has been conceived and born
with a "stain" resulting from Adam's sin. In her lifetime, the Blessed
Virgin Mary did not sin by her own choice with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Because Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that all people bear the stain and
guilt of original sin from the moment of their conception in the womb, the
Roman Catholic Church had to devise a "Doctrine of Immaculate Conception" to
confirm that the Holy Mother was sinless because, the Vatican rationalized,
our Lord could not be born of someone sinful. The immaculate conception
doctrine makes her different from the rest of humankind; it makes her not
fully human because she was not by her own choice sinless but by the will of
God. If Mary were sinless by God's choice, not hers, then by virtue of the
fact that she was as fully human as all of humankind is and has been, then
God could make us all sinless and take away the free will given to us by our
being created in His image and likeness.
The following is from the book Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos by
Blessed John Maximovitch, published by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista,
CA:
The Heterodox Teaching
of "Immaculate Conception" and "Original Sin"
"Saint Ambrose (339-397), Bishop of Milan, comments that, 'Of all those born
of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the
Lord Jesus Christ...'
"The Orthodox Church teaches that the Virgin Mary was conceived by Joachim's
seed and the period of gestation was nine months. None of the ancient holy
Fathers (ed.-only the Roman Catholic Church) say that God in miraculous
fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in Anna's womb. Only Jesus Christ
is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have
borne a flesh subject to the law of sin. Many have correctly indicated that
the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was
victorious over temptations and was saved by her Divine Son."
Blessed John Maximovitch (1896-1966) affirms that The Church teaches that
"through the fall of Adam and Eve, all of the human race inherited death,
becoming enslaved to the devil through the passions. The progeny of Adam and
Eve are not guilty of their first parents' tasting of the fruit; we are not
being punished for this first sin or 'original sin.' If, for the sake of
argument, we maintain the invalid heterodox teaching that the Theotokos was
preserved from this 'original sin,' that would make God unmerciful and
unjust. If God preserved her, why then does He not purify all men? But then
that would have meant saving men before their birth, apart from their will.
This teaching would then deny all her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in
the womb of Anna, when she could not even desire anything either good or
evil, was preserved by God's grace from every impurity, and then by that
grace was preserved from sin even after her birth, then in what does her
virtue consist? She would have been placed in the state of being unable to
sin.
"The Virgin, as a true daughter of Adam and Eve, also inherited death. She
was not in a state of never being able to die. Thus, St. John of Damascus
writes on the occasion of her Dormition, 'O pure Virgin, sprung from mortal
loins, thine end was conformable to nature.'"
Blessed Archbishop John continues to comment that the Virgin was not placed
in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for her
salvation and overcame all temptations. The righteousness and sanctity of
the Virgin Mary was manifested in the fact that she, being "human with
passions-like us," so loved God and gave herself over to Him, that by her
purity she was exalted above all other creatures. Mary was to become the
Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to
divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man.
The last comment made by St. John is so important -- "Mary was to become the
Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity,
but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man".
If the Holy Virgin Mary's human will was interfered with (ed.-as in Roman
Catholic doctrine) She would not be totally human and therefore Jesus Christ
would not be totally man (ed.-human) and totally God."
Al
The Ascetic Ideal and the New Testament
Reflections on the Critique of the Theology of the Reformation
by Father George Florovsky
If the monastic ideal is union with God through prayer, through humility,
through obedience, through constant recognition of one's sins, voluntary or
involuntary, through a renunciation of the values of this world, through
poverty, through chastity, through love for mankind and love for God, then
is such an ideal Christian? For some the very raising of such a question may
appear strange and foreign. But the history of Christianity, especially the
new theological attitude that obtained as a result of the Reformation,
forces such a question and demands a serious answer. If the monastic ideal
is to attain a creative spiritual freedom, if the monastic ideal realizes
that freedom is attainable only in God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Spirit, and if the monastic ideal asserts that to become a slave to God
is ontologically and existentially the path to becoming free, the path in
which humanity fully becomes human precisely because the created existence
of humanity is contingent upon God, is by itself bordered on both sides by
non-existence, then is such an ideal Christian? Is such an ideal
Biblical-New Testamental? Or is this monastic ideal, as its opponents have
claimed, a distortion of authentic Christianity, a slavery to mechanical
"monkish" "works righteousness"?
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DESERT
When our Lord was about to begin his ministry, he went into the desert. Our
Lord had options but he selected-or rather, "was lead by the Spirit," into
the desert. It is obviously not a meaningless action, not a selection of
type of place without significance. And there-in the desert-our Lord engages
in spiritual combat, for he "fasted forty days and forty nights." The Gospel
of St. Mark adds that our Lord "was with the wild beasts." Our Lord, the
God-Man, was truly God and truly man. Exclusive of our Lord's redemptive wor
k, unique to our Lord alone, he calls us to follow him. "Following" our Lord
is not exclusionary; it is not selecting certain psychologically pleasing
aspects of our Lord's life and teachings to follow. Rather it is
all-embracing. We are to follow our Lord in every way possible. "To go into
the desert" is "to follow" our Lord. It is interesting that our Lord returns
to the desert after the death of St. John the Baptist. There is an obvious
reason for this. "And hearing [of John the Baptist's death] Jesus departed
from there in a ship to a desert place privately" When St. Antony goes to
the desert, he is "following" the example of our Lord-indeed, he is
"following" our Lord. This in no way diminishes the unique, salvific work of
our Lord, this in no way makes of our Lord God, the God-Man, a mere example.
But in addition to his redemptive work, which could be accomplished only by
our Lord, our Lord taught and set examples. And by "following" our Lord into
the desert, St. Antony was entering a terrain already targeted and stamped
by our Lord as a specific place for spiritual warfare. There is both
specificity and "type" in the "desert." In those geographical regions where
there a no deserts, there are places which are similar to or approach that
type of place symbolized by the "desert." It is that type of place which
allows the human heart solace, isolation. It is the type of place which puts
the human heart in a state of aloneness, a state in which to meditate, to
pray, to fast, to reflect upon one's inner existence and one's relationship
to ultimate reality-God. And more. It is a place where spiritual reality is
intensified, a place where spiritual life can intensify and simultaneously
where the opposing forces to spiritual life can become more dominant. It is
the terrain of a battlefield but a spiritual one. And it is our Lord, not
St. Antony, who as set precedent. Our Lord says that "as for what is sown
among thorns, this is he who hears the word, but the cares of the world and
the deceit of riches choke(s) the word, and it becomes unfruitful." The
desert, or a place similar, precisely cuts off the cares or anxieties of the
world and the deception, the deceit of earthly riches. It cuts one off
precisely from "this worldliness" and precisely as such it contains within
itself a powerful spiritual reason for existing within the spiritual paths
of the Church. Not as the only path, not as the path for everyone, but as
one, fully authentic path of Christian life.
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW
In the Gospel of St. Matthew (5:16) it is our Lord who uses the terminology
of "good works." " Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
your good works and may glorify your Father who is in heaven" Contextually
these "good works" are defined in the preceding text of the Beatitudes.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." "Blessed are they
who are hungering and are thirsting for righteousness, for they shall be
satisfied." "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Is it
not an integral part of the monastic goal to become meek, to hunger and
thirst for righteousness, and to become pure in heart? This, of course, must
be the goal of all Christians but monasticism, which makes it an integral
part of its ascetical life, can in no way be excluded. Are not the
Beatitudes more than just rhetorical expressions? Are not the Beatitudes a
part of the commandments of our Lord? In the Gospel of St. Matthew (5:19)
our Lord expresses a deeply meaningful thought-rather a warning. "Whoever
therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so,
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. And it is in this
context that our Lord continues to deepen the meaning of the old law with a
new, spiritual significance, a penetrating interiorization of the "law." He
does not nullify or abrogate the law but rather extends it to its most
logical and ontological limit, for he drives the spiritual meaning of the
law into the very depth of the inner existence of mankind.
"You heard that it was said to those of old ... but I say to you." Now, with
the deepening of the spiritual dimension of the law, the old remains, it is
the base, but its spiritual reality is pointed to its source. "You shall not
kill" becomes inextricably connected to "anger." "But I say to you that
everyone being angry with his brother shall be liable to the judgment." No
longer is the external act the only focal point. Rather the source, the
intent, the motive is now to be considered as the soil from which the
external act springs forth. Mankind must now guard, protect, control, and
purify the inner emotion or attitude of "anger" and, in so doing, consider
it in the same light as the external act of killing or murder. Our Lord has
reached into the innermost depth of the human heart and has targeted the
source of the external act. "You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you
that everyone who is seeing a woman lustfully, has already committed
adultery with her in his heart. From a spiritual perspective the person who
does not act externally but lusts within is equally liable to the reality of
"adultery." "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor
and you shall hate your enemy'. But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray
for those persecuting you so that you may become sons of your Father in
heaven."
THE INADEQUACY OF THE CRITIQUE BY ANDERS NYGREN
The Christian idea of love is indeed something new. But it is not something
so radically odd that the human soul cannot understand it. It is not such a
"transvaluation of all ancient values," as Anders Nygren has claimed in his
lengthy study Agape and Eros. Although there are certain aspects of truth in
some of Nygren's statements, his very premise is incorrect. Nygren reads
back into the New Testament and the early Church the basic position of
Luther rather than dealing with early Christian thought from within its own
milieu. Such an approach bears little ultimate fruit and often, as in the
case of his position in Agape and Eros, distorts the original sources with
presuppositions that entered the history of Christian thought 1500 years
after our Lord altered the very nature of humanity by entering human
existence as God and Man. There is much in Luther that is interesting,
perceptive, and true. However, there is also much that does not speak the
same language as early Christianity. And herein lies the great divide in the
ecumenical dialogue. For the ecumenical dialogue to bear fruit, the very
controversies that separate the churches must not be hushed up. Rather they
must be brought into the open and discussed frankly, respectfully, and
thoroughly. There is much in Luther with which Eastern Orthodox theologians
especially can relate. Monasticism, however, is one area in which there is
profound disagreement. Even Luther at first did not reject monasticism.
Luther's Reformation was the result of his understanding of the New
Testament, an understanding which Luther himself calls "new." His
theological position had already been formed before the issue of indulgences
and his posting of his Ninety-Five Theses. Nygren, loyal to Luther's
theological vision, has a theological reason for his position in Agape and
Eros Nygren identifies his interpretation of Agape with the monoenergistic
concept of God, a concept of God that would be correct in and of itself, for
God is the source of everything. But once we confront the mystery of
creation, the mystery of that "other" existence, that created existence
which includes mankind, we face a totally different situation. The
existential and ontological meaning of man's created existence is precisely
that God did not have to create, that it was a free act of Divine freedom.
But-and here is the great difficulty created by an unbalanced Christianity
on the doctrine of grace and freedom-in freely creating man God willed to
give man an inner spiritual freedom. In no sense is this a Pelagian or
Semi-Pelagian position. The balanced synergistic doctrine of the early and
Eastern Church, a doctrine misunderstood and undermined by Latin
Christianity in general from St. Augustine on-although there was always
opposition to this in the Latin Church-always understood that God initiates,
accompanies, and completes everything in the process of salvation. What it
always rejected-both spontaneously and intellectually-is the idea of
irresistible grace, the idea that man has no participating role in his
salvation. Nygren identifies any participation of man in his salvation, any
movement of human will and soul toward God, as a pagan distortion of Agape,
as "Eros." And this attitude, this theological perspective will in essence
be the determining point for the rejection of monasticism and other forms of
asceticism and spirituality so familiar to the Christian Church from its
inception.
If Nygren's position on Agape is correct, then the words of our Lord, quoted
above, would have had no basis in the hearts of the listeners for
understanding. Moreover, our Lord, in using the verbal form of
Agape-agapate-uses the "old" commandment as the basis for the giving of the
new, inner dimension of the spiritual extension of that commandment of
agape, of love. If Nygren is correct, the "old" context of agape would have
been meaningless, especially as the foundation upon which our Lord builds
the new spiritual and ontological character of agape. Nygren's point is that
"the Commandment of Love" occurs in the Old Testament and that it is
"introduced in the Gospels, not as something new, but as quotations from the
Old Testament." He is both correct and wrong. Correct in that it is a
reference taken from the Old Testament. Where else was our Lord to turn in
addressing "his people"? He is wrong in claiming that it is nothing but a
quotation from the Old Testament, precisely because our Lord uses the Old
Testament reference as a basis upon which to build. Hence, the foundation
had to be secure else the building would have been flawed and the teaching
erroneous. Indeed, Nygren himself claims that "Agape can never be
'self-evident'." In making such a claim, Nygren has undercut any possibility
for the hearers of our Lord to understand any discourse in which our Lord
uses the term "Agape." And yet Nygren writes that "it can be shown that the
Agape motif forms the principal theme of a whole series of Parables." What
is meant by this statement is that Nygren's specific interpretation of Agape
forms the principal theme of a whole series of Parables. If this is the
case, then those hearing the parables could not have understood them, for
they certainly did not comprehend Agape in the specificity defined by
Nygren, and hence the parables-according to the inner logic of Nygren's
position-were meaningless to the contemporaries of our Lord, to his hearers.
To be filled by the love of and for God is the monastic ideal. In the Gospel
of St. Matthew (22:34-40) our Lord is asked which is the greatest
commandment. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all your soul and with all your mind [understanding]. This the great and
first commandment. And a second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as
yourself. In these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." The
monastic and ascetic ideal is to cultivate the love of the heart, the soul,
and the mind for God. Anders Nygren's commentary on this text in his Agape
and Eros is characteristic of his general position. "It has long been
recognized that the idea of Agape represents a distinctive and original
feature of Christianity. But in what precisely does its originality and
distinctiveness consist? This question has often been answered by reference
to the Commandment of Love. The double commandment, 'Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all they heart' and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself, has been taken as the natural starting-point for the exposition of
the meaning of Christian love. Yet the fact is that if we start with the
commandment, with Agape as something demanded, we bar our own way to the
understanding of the idea of Agape. If the Commandment of Love can be said
to be specifically Christian, as undoubtedly it can, the reason is to be
found, not in the commandment as such, but in the quite new meaning that
Christianity has given it ... To reach an understanding of the Christian
idea of love simply by reference to the Commandment of Love is therefore
impossible; to attempt it is to move in a circle. We could never discover
the nature of Agape, love in the Christian sense, if we had nothing to guide
us but the double command ... It is not the commandment that explains the
idea of Agape, but insight into the Christian conception of Agape that
enables us to grasp the Christian meaning of the commandment, We must
therefore seek another starting-point" (pp. 61-63). This is indeed an odd
position for one who comes from the tradition of sola Scriptura, for the
essence of his position is not sola Scriptura but precisely that Scripture
must be interpreted-and here the interpretation comes not from within the
matrix of early Christianity but from afar, from an interpretation that to a
great extent depends on an interpretation of Christianity that came into the
history of Christian thought approximately 1500 years after the beginning of
Christian teaching, and that is with the assumption that Nygren is following
the general position of Luther. In his analysis of certain interpretations
of what constitutes the uniqueness of Christian love and in his rejection of
these interpretations as that which determines the uniqueness of Christian
love Nygren is in part correct. "This, in fact, is the root-fault of all the
interpretations we have so far considered; they fail to recognize that
Christian love rests on a quite definite, positive basis of its own. What,
then, is this basis?" Nygren approaches the essence of the issue but
neglects the important aspect of human ontology, a human ontology created by
God. "The answer to this question may be found in the text. 'Love your
enemies'. It is true that love for one's enemies is at variance with our
immediate natural feelings, and may therefore seem to display the negative
character suggested above; but if we consider the motive underlying it we
shall see that it is entirely positive. The Christian is commanded to love
his enemies, not because the other side teaches hatred of them, but because
there is a basis and motive for such love in the concrete, positive fact of
God's own love for evil men. 'He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the
good'. That is why we are told: 'Love your enemies ... that ye may be
children of your Father which is in heaven'." What Nygren writes here is
accurate. But it neglects the significance of human ontology; that is, that
we are commanded to love our enemies because there is a spiritual value
within the very fabric of human nature created by God, even fallen nature,
and that that spiritual value is to be found in each and every man, however
dimly we may perceive it. If we begin to love our enemy, we will begin to
perceive in that enemy characteristics, aspects that were veiled, that were
dimmed by the blindness of our hatred. We are commanded to love our enemy
not only because God loves mankind, not only because God "maketh his sun to
rise on the evil and the good" but God loves mankind because there is a
value in mankind. Nygren writes (p.79) that "the suggestion that man is by
nature possessed of such an inalienable value easily gives rise to the
thought that it is this matchless value on which God's love is set." It is
perhaps inaccurate to assert that Nygren misses the central issue that that
which is of value in man is God-created, God-given. It is more accurate to
assert that Nygren rejects completely the issue, and he does so because of
his theological doctrine of God and man. This again is part of that great
divide which separates certain churches within the ecumenical dialogue.
There is a basic and fundamental difference of vision on the nature of God
and man. One view claims its position is consistent with apostolic
Christianity, consistent with the apostolic deposit, and consistent with the
teaching and life of the early Church and of the Church in all ages. Another
view begins with the Reformation. Both views claim the support of the New
Testament. Luther's writings on the Divine nature of love are not only
interesting but valuable, not only penetrating but in one emphasis accurate.
Indeed, if one considers Luther's doctrine of Divine love by itself,
exclusive of his other doctrines, especially those on the nature of man, the
nature of salvation, the nature of justification, the doctrine of
predestination and grace, one encounters a view not dissimilar from that of
ancient Orthodox Christianity. At times Luther can even appear to be
somewhat mystically inclined. Luther's well known description of Christian
love as "eine quellende Liebe" [a welling or ever-flowing love] is by itself
an Orthodox view. For Luther, as for the Fathers of the Church, this love
has no need of anything, it is not caused, it does not come into existence
because of a desired object, it is not aroused by desirable qualities of an
object. It is the nature of God. But, at the same time, it is God who
created mankind and hence the love of God for mankind, though in need of
nothing and attracted by nothing, loves mankind not because of a value in
man but because there is value in man because man is created by God. Herein
lies the difference and it is indeed a great divide when one considers the
differing views on the other subjects closely related to the nature of
Divine love.
PERFECTION, ALMSGIVING, PRAYER, FASTING, AND CHASTITY
In monastic and ascetical literature from the earliest Christian times the
word and idea of "perfect" are often confronted. The monk seeks perfection,
the monk wants to begin to become established on the path that may lead to
perfection. But is this the result of monasticism? Is it the monastic and
ascetical tendencies in early Christianity which bring forth the idea of
perfection, which bring forth the idea of spiritual struggle and striving?
It is our Lord, not the monks, who injects the goal of perfection into the
very fabric of early Christian thought. In the Gospel of St. Matthew (5:48)
our Lord commands: "Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect"
Traditional monastic and ascetical life has included among its activities
almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. Were these practices imposed upon an
authentic Christianity by monasticism or were they incorporated into
monastic and ascetical life from original Christianity? In the Gospel of St.
Matthew it is once again our Lord and Redeemer who has initiated almsgiving,
prayer, and fasting. Our Lord could very easily have abolished such
practices. But rather than abolish them, our Lord purifies them, gives them
their correct status within the spiritual life which is to do them but to
attach no show, no hypocrisy, no glory to the doing of them. It is proper
spiritual perspective that our Lord commands. "Take heed that you do not
your righteousness before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will
have no reward with your Father in heaven" (6:1). Therefore, when you do
alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues
and in the streets, that they may be glorified by men. Truly, I say to you,
they have their reward. But when you are doing alms, do not let your left
hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret;
and your Father who is seeing in secret will reward you" (6:2-4). And prayer
is commanded to be done in a similar manner to ensure its spiritual nature.
At this juncture our Lord instructs his followers to use the "Lord's
Prayer," a prayer that is so simple yet so profound, a prayer that contains
within it the glorification of the name of God, a prayer that contains
within it the invoking of the coming of the kingdom of God, a prayer that
acknowledges that the will of God initiates everything and that without the
will of God man is lost. It is a prayer of humility in that it asks for
nothing beyond daily sustenance. It is a prayer of human solidarity in
forgiveness, for it asks God to forgive us only as we forgive others, and in
this a profound reality of spiritual life is portrayed, a life that unites
man with God only as man is also united with other persons, with mankind, in
forgiveness. And then there is the prayer to be protected from temptation
and, if one falls into temptation, the prayer to be delivered from it. So
short, so simple, yet so profound both personally and cosmically. Is
monasticism a distortion of authentic Christianity because the monks recite
the Lord's Prayer at the instruction of and command of our Lord? If
monasticism used free, spontaneous prayer, then it could be faulted for not
having "followed" our Lord's command. But that is not the case. Is
monasticism a deviation because of the frequent use of the Lord's Prayer?
Our Lord was specific: when praying, pray this. It does not preclude other
prayers but prominence and priority is to be given to the Lord's Prayer.
Indeed, it is certainly foreign to our Lord to restrict the frequency of
prayer. The "vain repetitions," or more accurately in the Greek, the
prohibition of "do not utter empty words as the gentiles, for they think
that in their much speaking they will be heard." This is in essence
different than our Lord's intention. And our Lord says more on this subject,
a subject considered of importance to him. In the Gospel of St. Matthew
(9:15) our Lord makes the point that when he is taken way, then his
disciples will fast. In the Gospel of St. Matthew (17:21) our Lord explains
to his disciples that they were unable to cast out the devil because" this
kind goes out only by prayer and fasting." This verse, it is true, is not in
all the ancient manuscripts. It is, however, in sufficient ancient
manuscripts and, moreover, it is contained in the Gospel of St. Mark (9:29).
It is obvious that our Lord assigns a special spiritual efficacy to prayer
and fasting.
Chastity is a monastic and ascetic goal. Not only an external celibacy but
an inner chastity of thought. Is this too something imposed upon authentic,
original Christianity by a Hellenistic type of thinking or is it contained
within the original deposit of apostolic and Biblical Christianity? Again it
is our Lord who lays down the path of celibacy and chastity. In the Gospel
of St. Matthew (19:10-12) the disciples ask our Lord whether it is expedient
to marry. "Not all men can receive this saying but those to whom it has been
given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are
eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have
made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is
able to grasp it, let him grasp it." The monastic and ascetical goal merely
"follows" the teaching of our Lord. Original Christianity never imposed
celibacy. It was, precisely as our Lord has stated, only for those to whom
it was given, only to those who might be able to accept such a path. But the
path was an authentically Christian path of spirituality laid down by our
Lord. In early Christianity not even priests and bishops were required to be
celibate. It was a matter of choice. Later the Church thought it wise to
require celibacy of the bishops. But in Eastern Christianity celibacy has
never been required of one becoming a priest. The choice to marry or to
remain celibate had to be made before ordination. If one married before
ordination, then one was required to remain married, albeit the ancient
Church witnessed exceptions to this. If one was not married when one was
ordained, then one was required to remain celibate. The Roman Church, not
the Eastern Orthodox Church, extended the requirement of celibacy to priests
and had a very difficult time attempting to enforce it throughout the ages.
One can never force forms of spirituality upon a person and expect a
spiritually fruitful result. The words of our Lord resound with wisdom-to
those to whom it is given, to those who can live in this form of
spirituality.
POVERTY AND HUMILITY
Poverty is not the goal but the beginning point of monastic and ascetical
life in early Christianity. Was this a precedent established by St. Antony,
a new notion and movement never before contained within Christian thought?
Again it is our Lord who establishes the spiritual value of poverty. In the
Gospel of St. Matthew (19:21) our Lord commands the rich man who has claimed
he has kept all the commandments: "If you will to be perfect, go, sell your
possessions and give to the poor ... and come follow me." It was not St.
Antony who established the precedent. Rather it was St. Antony who heard the
word of our Lord and put it into action, who "did the word of the Lord." It
is Christ, the God-Man who has put forth the ideal of perfection, who has
commanded us to be perfect (see also 5:48), who has put forth the ideal of
poverty as a starting-point for a certain form of spiritual life. Elsewhere
in the Gospel of St. Matthew (13:44) Christ makes a similar point, asserting
that one sells everything in exchange for the kingdom of heaven. "The
kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and
covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that
field."
All Christianity exalts humility. It should therefore not be a surprise if
monastic and ascetical spirituality focus on humility. In the Gospel of St.
Matthew (18:4) our Lord proclaims that "he who therefore will humble himself
as this little child, he is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Elsewhere
(23:12) our Lord says that "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and
whoever humbles himself will be exalted." The emphasis on humility may
appear self-evident. Behind it, however, lies a reality of the nature of God
to which few pay much attention. In the Incarnation two very core elements
of any spirituality are clearly evidenced-the love and humility of God. The
idea that humility is rooted in God may appear astonishing. The humility of
God cannot, of course, be considered in the same light as ascetical
humility, or any human form of humility. However, the human forms of
humility are derived from the very nature of God, just as the commandment to
love is rooted in God's love for mankind God's humility is precisely that
being God he desires, he wills to be in communion with everything and
everything is inferior to God. This has great theological significance, for
it reveals the value of all created things, a value willed by God. There is
even a parallel here with the saints who loved animals and flowers. And from
this idea, an idea intrinsically derived from the Incarnation and kenosis of
God the Son, one can clearly see the real Divine origin in action of Christ'
s teaching about "others." In the very notion of a vertical spirituality a
concern for others is presupposed. And while one is ascending to God-an
abomination for Nygren-his fellow man must be included in the dimensions of
spirituality. Through the Incarnation all forms of human existence are
sanctified. Through the Incarnation both the love and the humility of God
are made known. And man is to love God and fellow mankind because love
contains absolute, positive value, a value derived because love is the very
nature of God. And man is to experience humility, to become inflamed by
humility precisely because humility belongs also to God and hence its value
is derived from God. But to become filled innerly with love and humility is
not easy. It demands not a mere acknowledgement of the fact that God is love
and humility is Divine. Rather, it demands the complete purification of our
inner nature by God. And this is the struggle, the spiritual warfare that
must be waged to enter and maintain the reality of love and humility. The
path of monasticism and asceticism is an authentic path, a path also
ordained by our Lord.
THE WRITINGS BY ST. PAUL AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REFORMATION
The writings by or attributed to St. Paul form a critical point in the
entire great divide between the churches of the Reformation and the Orthodox
and Roman Catholic Church. The Epistle to the Romans is one of the most
important references of this controversy. This epistle and the Epistle to
the Galatians formed the base from which Luther developed his doctrine faith
and justification, a doctrine that he himself characterized in his preface
to his Latin writings as a totally new understanding of Scripture. These two
works continue to be the main reference points for contemporary theologians
from the tradition of the Reformation. It was this new understanding of the
Scriptures that the rejection of monasticism obtained in the Reformation In
general it is not an exaggeration to claim that this thought considers St.
Paul as the only one who understood the Christian message. Moreover, it is
not St. Paul by himself nor St. Paul from the entire corpus of his works,
but rather Luther's understanding of St. Paul. From this perspective the
authentic interpreters of our Lord's teaching and redemptive work are St.
Paul, as understood by Luther, then Marcion, then St. Augustine, and then
Luther. Marcion was condemned by the entire early Church. St. Augustine
indeed does anticipate Luther in certain views but not at all on the
doctrine of justification and Luther's specific understanding of faith. It
is more St. Augustine's doctrine of predestination, irresistible grace, and
his doctrine of the total depravity of man contained in his "novel" to quote
St. Vincent of Lerins-doctrine of original sin that influenced Luther, who
himself was an Augustinian monk.
The rejection of monasticism ultimately followed from the emphasis placed
upon salvation as a free gift of God. Such a position is completely accurate
but its specific understanding was entirely contrary to that of the early
Church. That salvation was the free gift of God and that man was justified
by faith was never a problem for early Christianity. But from Luther's
perspective and emphasis any type of "works," especially that of the monks
in their ascetical struggle, was considered to contradict the free nature of
grace and the free gift of salvation. If one was indeed justified by faith,
then-so went the line of Luther's thought-man is not justified by "works."
For Luther "justification by faith" meant an extrinsic justification, a
justification totally independent from any inner change within the depths of
the spiritual life of a person. For Luther "to justify"-dikaion-meant to
declare one righteous or just, not "to make" righteous or just*-it is an
appeal to an extrinsic justice which in reality is a spiritual fiction.
Luther has created a legalism far more serious than the legalism he detected
in the Roman Catholic thought and practice of his time. Morever, Luther's
legalistic doctrine of extrinsic justification is spiritually serious, for
it is a legal transaction which in reality does not and can not exist.
Nowhere was the emphasis on "works" so strong, thought Luther, as in
monasticism. Hence, monasticism had to be rejected and rejected it was. But
Luther read too much into St. Paul's emphasis on faith, on justification by
faith, and on the free gift of the grace of salvation. St. Paul is directly
in controversy with Judaism, especially in his Epistle to the Romans. It is
the "works of the law," the law as defined by and interpreted by and
practiced by Judaism in the time of St. Paul. Our Lord has the same reaction
to the externalization and mechanical understanding of the "law." Indeed,
the very text of the Epistle to the Romans revels in every passage that St.
Paul is comparing the external law of Judaism with the newness of the
spiritual understanding of law, with the newness of the revelation of God in
Jesus Christ through the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord.
God has become Man. God has entered human history and indeed the newness is
radical. But to misunderstand St. Paul's critique of "works," to think that
St. Paul is speaking of the "works" commanded by our Lord rather than the
Judaic understanding of the works of the "law" is a misreading of a
fundamental nature. It is true, however, that Luther had a point in
considering the specific direction in which the Roman Catholic merit-system
had gone as a reference point similar to the Judaic legal system. As a
result of Luther's background, as a result of his theological milieu,
whenever he read anything in St. Paul about "works," he immediately thought
of his own experience as a monk and the system of merit and indulgences in
which he had been raised.
It must be strongly emphasized that Luther does indeed protect one aspect of
salvation, the very cause and source of redemption and grace. But he
neglects the other side, the aspect of man's participation in this free gift
of Divine initiative and grace. Luther fears any resurgence of the Roman
Catholic system of merit and indulgences, he fears any tendency which will
constitute a truly Pelagian attitude, any tendency that will allow man to
believe that man is the cause, the source, or the main spring of salvation.
And here Luther is correct. Nygren's Agape-Eros distinction is correct in
this context, for any spirituality that omits Agape and concentrates only on
Eros, on man's striving to win God's influence, is fundamentally
non-Christian. But the issue is not that simple. Both extremes are false.
God has freely willed a synergistic path-of-redemption in which man must
spiritually participate. God is the actor, the cause, the initiator, the one
who completes all redemptive activity. But man is the one who must
spiritually respond to the free gift of grace. And in this response there is
an authentic place for the spiritually of monasticism and asceticism, one
which has absolutely nothing to do his the "works of the law," or with the
system of merit and indulgences.
ROMANS
In his Epistle to the Romans St. Paul writes in the very introduction
(1:4-5) that through Jesus Christ "we have received grace and apostleship to
bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name." The notion of
"obedience of faith" has a meaning for St. Paul. It is much more than a
simple acknowledgement or recognition of a faith placed within one by God.
Rather, it is a richly spiritual notion, one that contains within it a full
spirituality of activity on the part of man-not that the activity will win
the grace of God but precisely that the spiritual activity is the response
to the grace of God, performed with the grace of God, in order to be filled
by the grace of God. And it will be an on-going spiritual "work," one which
can never be slackened, and one totally foreign from the works" of the
Judaic law.
St. Paul writes (2:6) that God "will render to each according to his works."
If St. Paul was so concerned about the word "works," if he feared that the
Christian readers of his letter might interpret "works" in some totally
different way from what he intended, he certainly could have been more
cautious. But St. Paul clearly distinguishes between the "works" of the
Judaic law and the "works" of the Holy Spirit required of all Christians.
Hence, it is difficult to confuse these two perspectives and it is
significant that the early Church never confused them, for they understood
what St. Paul wrote. If anything-despite the lucidity of St. Paul's
thought-there were tendencies at times to fall not into Luther's one-sided
interpretation but rather to fall somewhat spontaneously into an Eros-type
of striving.
It is the "doers of the law" who will be justified" (2:13). The notion of
"doers" implies action, activity. Elsewhere in the same epistle (5:2) St.
Paul writes that through our Lord Jesus Christ "we have had access [by
faith] into this grace in which we stand." The very idea of "access into
grace" is dynamic and implies spiritual activity on the part of mankind.
After the lengthy proclamation of the grace of God, the impotence of the
"works of the law" in comparison with the "works" of the new reality of the
Spirit, St. Paul resorts to the traditional spiritual exhortation (6:12f).
"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body in order to obey its lusts.
Nor yield your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness." The
exhortation presupposes that man has some type of spiritual activity and
control over his inner existence. The very use of the word "weapon" invokes
the idea of battle, of spiritual warfare, the very nature of the monastic
"ordeal."
In the same chapter (6:17) St. Paul writes: "But grace to God that you who
were slaves of sin obeyed out of the heart a form of teaching which was
delivered to you." In the second chapter of the Epistle to the Romans (2:15)
St. Paul writes about the universal aspect of the "law" that is "written in
the hearts" of mankind, a thought with profound theological implications. In
using the image of the heart St. Paul is emphasizing the deepest aspect of
the interior life of mankind, for such was the use of the image of the
"heart" among Hebrews. When he writes that they obeyed "out of the heart,"
St. Paul is attributing some type of spiritual activity to the "obedience"
which springs from the "heart." And to what have they become obedient? To a
form or standard of teaching or doctrine delivered to them-this is precisely
the apostolic deposit, the body of early Christian teaching to which they
have responded and have become obedient. And in so doing, they have become
"enslaved to righteousness," the righteousness of the new law, of the life
of the Spirit (6:18). And the "fruit" of becoming enslaved to God" is
precisely sanctification which leads to life eternal (6:22). Throughout is a
process, throughout is a dynamic spiritual activity on the part of man. St.
Paul becomes more explicit about the distinction between the old and the new
law (7:6). "But now we are discharged from the law, having died in that
which held us captive, so as to serve in newness of spirit and not in
oldness of letter."
St. Paul writes that we "are children of God, and if children, also heirs,
heirs on the one hand of God, co-heirs on the other hand, of Christ" (8:17).
But all this has a condition, has a proviso, for there is the all important
"if indeed." "If we co-suffer in order that we may be glorified." Our
glorification, according to St. Paul, is contingent upon a mighty "if" and
that "if" leads us to the spiritual reality, the spiritual reality 'of "co-
suffering." The very use of the word "co-suffer" presupposes the reality of
the idea of "cosuffering" and both presuppose an active, dynamic spiritual
action or activity on the part of the one who co-suffers, else there is no
meaning to the "co."
In the Epistle to the Romans (12:1) St. Paul uses language that would be
meaningless if man were merely a passive object in the redemptive process,
if justification by faith was an action that took place only on the Divine
level. "I appeal to you therefore, brethren, through the compassions of God,
to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and well-pleasing to God,
which is your reasonable service." St. Paul is asking the Christian to
present, a reality which presupposes and requires human activity. But not
only "to present" but "to present" the body as a living sacrifice, as holy,
and as acceptable or well-pleasing to God. And this St. Paul considers our
"reasonable service" or our "spiritual worship." The language and the idea
speak for themselves. Using the imperative, St. Paul commands us: "Be not
conformed to this age but be transformed by the renewing of the mind in
order to prove [that you may prove] what [is] that good and well-pleasing
and perfect will of God." Taken by itself and out of context this language
could be misinterpreted as Pelagian, for here it is man who is transforming
the mind, man who is commanded to activate the spiritual life. Such an
interpretation is, of course, incorrect but it reveals what one can do to
the totality of the theological thought of St. Paul if one does not
understand the balance, if one does not understand that his view is
profoundly synergistic. Synergism does not mean that two energies are equal.
Rather it means that there are two wills-one, the will of God which
precedes, accompanies, and completes all that is good, positive, spiritual
and redemptive, one that has willed that man have a spiritual will, a
spiritual participation in the redemptive process; the other is the will of
man which must respond, cooperate, "co-suffer." In 12:9 St. Paul exhorts us
to "cleave to the good." And in 12:12 he exhorts us "to be steadfastly
continuing in prayer." Such a position certainly does not exclude monastic
and ascetical spirituality but rather presupposes it.
I AND II CORINTHIANS
Celibacy is a part of the monastic life and it too has its source in the
teachings of the New Testament. In I Corinthians 7: 1-11 St. Paul encourages
both marriage and celibacy-both are forms of Christian spirituality, and St.
Paul has much to say about marriage in his other epistles. But his point is
that celibacy is a form of spirituality for some, and it therefore cannot be
excluded from the forms of spirituality within the Church. In verse 7 St.
Paul writes that he would like all to be like him. But he realizes that each
person has his own gift from God. "I say therefore to the unmarried men and
to the widows, it is good for them if they remain as I. But if they do not
exercise self-control, let them marry" (verses 37-38). St. Paul summarizes:
"the one who has decided in his own heart to keep himself virgin, he will do
well. So, therefore, both the one marrying his betrothed [virgin], does
well, and the one not marrying will do better." The monastic practice of
celibacy is precisely not excluded by the New Testament. Rather, it is even
encouraged both by our Lord and by St Paul-and without jeopardy to the
married state. The decision cannot be forced. Rather, it must come from the
heart. And, indeed, it is not for everyone.
The comparison of the spiritual life to that of running a race and to that
of warfare is throughout the New Testament. Without diminishing his basis of
theological vision-that it is God who initiates everything-St. Paul writes
in I Corinthians 9:24-27 in a manner, which, if taken by itself, would
indeed appear Pelagian, would indeed appear as though all the essence of
salvation depends upon man. But in the total context of his theology there
is no contradiction, for there are always two wills in redemption-the
Divine, which initiates; and the human, which responds and is, in the very
response has received. "Do you not know that the ones running in a race all
run indeed. But one receives the prize? So run in order that you may obtain.
And everyone struggling exercises self-control in all things. Indeed, those
do so therefore in order that they may receives a corruptible crown, but we
an incorruptible one. I, therefore, so run as not unclearly. Thus I box not
as one beating the air. But I treat severely my body and lead it as a slave,
lest having proclaimed to others, I myself may become disqualified." In this
text we encounter the race-the spiritual race-and the prize; we encounter
the grammatical and the thought structure of "in order that you may obtain,"
a structure which implies contingency and not certainty. We encounter the
race as a spiritual struggle in which "self-control in everything" must be
exercised. And then St. Paul describes his own spiritual battle-he treats
his body severely, leads it as though it were a slave, and to what end? So
that he will not become disapproved. The entire passage is very monastic and
ascetic in its content. Despite St. Paul's certainty of the objective
reality of redemption which has come through Christ as a Divine gift, he
does not consider his own spiritual destiny to be included in that objective
redemption which is now here unless he participates in it-and until the end
of the race. In 10:12 he warns us: "Let the one who thinks he stands, let
him look lest he falls." In 11: 28 he writes: "Let a man prove or examine
himself. " In the latter context the proving" or "examining" is in the most
serious of contexts, for it is spoken in connection with the Holy Eucharist,
which is spoken of so objectively that if one "eats this bread" or "drinks
this cup of the Lord" "unworthily," that person "shall be guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord" and shall "bring damnation to himself"-for that
reason, continues St. Paul, some are weak, sickly, and some have died. But
our focus here is on self-examination, on those who think they stand. This
again is an integral aspect of the monastic and ascetical life; that is, a
constant examination of one's spiritual life In II Corinthians 13:5 St. Paul
again stresses self-examination: "Examine yourselves, if you are in the
faith. Prove yourselves."
In 15:1-2 St. Paul introduces a significant "if' and "also." "I make known
to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you, which you also
received, in which you also stand, through which you also are saved, if you
hold fast to that which I preached to you."
In I Corinthians 14:15 St. Paul speaks of praying with both spirit and mind,
a thought that weaves its way through monastic and ascetical literature. The
use of the mind in prayer finds its fullest expression in the controversial
use of the "mind" in the thought of Evagrius Ponticus. The text, even within
its general context in the chapter, is clear. "I will pray with the spirit,
and I will pray also with the mind; I will sing with the spirit, and I will
also sing with the mind."
St. Paul's hymn to love, to Agape, fills the entirety of I Corinthians 13.
Despite later interpretations of the use of the word "faith" in this
chapter, specifically the interpretations that entered Christian thought
with the Reformation, there was no misunderstanding of this "hymn to love"
in the early Church indeed, in the history of Christian thought until the
Reformation it was understand quite directly. It is only through a
convoluted exegetical method imposed by a specific-and new-theological
understanding that this great "hymn to love" had to be understood by
distinguishing different meanings attached to the word "faith." Though one
speaks with the tongues of men and of angels, though one has the gift of
prophecy, though one understands all mysteries, though one understands all
knowledge, though one has all faith "to remove mountains," though one
bestows all one's goods to feed the poor, though one gives one's body to be
burned-though one has all this, but not love, one is "nothing," one "becomes
as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal," one "profits" not at all. St. Paul
is quite explicit on what love is. "Love suffers long, love is kind, love is
not jealous, does not vaunt itself, is not puffed up, does not act unseemly,
does not seek its own things, is not provoked, does not reckon evil, does
not rejoice over wrong, but rejoices with the truth. Love covers all things,
believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never falls.
But prophecies-they will be abolished; tongues-they will cease; knowledge-it
will be abolished... And now remains faith, hope, love, these three. But the
greatest of these is love." The goal of monastic and ascetical struggle, of
the "ordeal," is love-to love God, to love mankind, to love all created
things, to be penetrated by God's love, to participate in love, which is God
and flows from God, and to enter a union with God, with love. Often monastic
literature will speak of "achieving" this love, as though it is the work of
man. But that it not the total context of love in monastic literature, not
even in those texts which appear as though everything were nothing but a
striving on the part of man in the "ordeal." This language is spoken because
it is spontaneous with spiritual nature. This language is spoken because it
runs parallel with that assumed knowledge-that God is the source of
everything. And yet St. Paul himself often uses language which could come
directly from monastic statements. True, both would be taken out of their
total context, but it is true that the two languages are spoken-the language
referring to God as the source, as the initiator, to the grace of God, to
the gift of all spirituality; and the language which concentrates on man's
activity, on man's response to the love and redemptive work of God in Jesus
Christ and through the Holy Spirit. When one line of thought is being used,
it in no way denies the other line of thought. Rather, it is precisely the
opposite, for monastic and ascetical literature can only speak about man's
activity if it is presupposed that God has accomplished the redemptive
activity in and through our Lord, that God is working in man through the
Holy Spirit. Else, all that is written is without meaning, temporarily and
ultimately. St. Paul's command in I Corinthians 14:1 to "pursue love and
eagerly desire the spiritual things" is responded to directly by monastic
and ascetical spirituality.
In II Corinthians 2:9 St. Paul writes in the very same spirit that an abbot
might employ with his novices: "For to this end indeed I wrote-in order that
I might know your proof, if you are obedient in all things." Obedience is an
important theme and reality in the monastic and ascetic "ordeal" and that
very theme of obedience is mentioned often throughout the New Testament.
Monastic and ascetical literature will often use the terms "fragrance" and
"aroma" and again the source is the New Testament. In II Corinthians 2:14-15
St. Paul writes: "manifesting among us the fragrance of his knowledge in
every place. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being
saved and among those perishing, to the latter an aroma from death unto
death, to the former an aroma from life unto life."
In II Corinthians 3:18 St. Paul uses an expression which is often found in
ascetical literature- "from glory to glory." "But we all, with face having
been unveiled, beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being
changed into the same icon from glory to glory, even as from the Spirit of
the Lord." The Greek verbal structure throughout the New Testament cannot be
stressed enough, for it conveys a dynamic activity that is seldom found in
other languages and in translations. In this text the emphasis is on the
process of "we are being changed." Elsewhere emphasis is often on "we are
being saved"-rather than "we are changed" and "we are saved." When the
objective nature of redemption is the focus, then the Greek verbal structure
uses "we are saved." But mainly, when the process is the focus, the dynamism
is expressed by the verbal structure of "we are being saved." In this text
it is significant that the objective nature is expressed by "having been
unveiled," while the on-going process of our participation in the spiritual
process of salvation is expressed by "we are being changed." Here is
expressed the dynamism of synergy.
In II Corinthians 4:16 St. Paul again emphasizes the dynamism and process of
the spiritual reality in man. "Our inner [life] is being renewed day by
day." The monastic life attempts to respond to such a text by the daily
regulation of prayer, meditation, self-examination, and worship-precisely to
attempt to "renew" daily "our inner" spiritual life. In 10:15 the dynamic
aspect of growth is stressed and precisely in reference to "faith" and
"rule." "But having hope as your faith is growing to be magnified unto
abundance among you according to our rule." In 4:12 St. Paul again places
the inner depth of man's spiritual life in the "heart," something which
Eastern monasticism will develop even in its life of prayer.
The entire fifth chapter of II Corinthians is an exceptionally important
text. Here, as elsewhere, St. Paul uses language which, when used by others,
distresses sorely many scholars working from the Reformation perspective-he
uses the notion of "pleasing God," something which some scholars find
indicative of man's solicitation to "win" God's favor. But when St. Paul
uses such language it passes in silence, it passes without
objection-precisely because St. Paul has established his position that God
is the source of everything. But monastic and ascetical literature also
presuppose that God initiates and is the source of everything. But it is in
the very nature of daily spiritual life in monasticism and in ascetical
spirituality to focus on man's activity. It is precisely focus, not a
theological position. "We therefore are ambitious [to make it our goal],
whether being at home or being away from home, to be well-pleasing to him.
For it is necessary for all of us to be manifested before the tribunal of
Christ in order that each one may receive something good or something
worthless, according to what one has practiced through the body. Knowing,
therefore, the fear of the Lord, we persuade men." In II Corinthians 11: 15
St. Paul writes that one's "end will be according to [one's] works." Also
this is not the only time that the New Testament uses the word "practice," a
word which becomes systematized in monasticism. After a profound exposition
on the initiative of God in the redemptive work of Christ (5:14-20), in
which St. Paul writes that "all things are of God, who, having reconciled us
to himself through Christ." St. Paul writes in verse 21: "Be reconciled to
God." Moreover, he not only uses the imperative form but also precedes this
with "we beg on behalf of Christ." His language here becomes meaningless
unless there is spiritual activity on the part of man. And what is more, St.
Paul uses a very interesting structure in relationship to the "righteousness
of God," for he writes that the redemptive work of Christ was accomplished
"in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him." Here the
significance is on "we might become" rather than "we are" or "we have
become." Implicit is a synergistic dynamism. This is further stressed in
6:1: "And working together [with him] we entreat you not to receive the
grace of God to no purpose." And St. Paul then quotes from Isaiah 49:8 in
which it is said that God "hears" and "helps."
In II Corinthians 6:4-10 St. Paul writes what could be a guide to monastic
spiritual life. "In everything commending ourselves as ministers of God-in
much endurance, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes,
in prisons, in tumults, in labors, in vigils, in fasting, in purity, in
knowledge, in longsuffering, in kindness, in a holy spirit, in unfeigned
love, in a word of truth, in power of God-through the weapons of
righteousness on the right and left hand, through glory and dishonor,
through evil report and good report ... as dying, and behold, we live ... as
being grieved but always rejoicing, as poor but enrichening [sic] many, as
having nothing yet possessing all things." The vigils, the fasting, the
purity, the gnosis or knowledge-these are to be reflected in monastic and
ascetical life. Moreover, St. Paul again uses the image of warfare and
refers to the "weapons of righteousness." The language used by St. Paul in
this passage can only have significance if man participates synergistically
in the redemptive process. If the doctrine of "righteousness" in the thought
of St. Paul has only a one-sided meaning-that is, the "righteousness of
God," which is, of course, the source of all righteousness-then why the talk
of "weapons of righteousness" placed in the very hands, both right and left,
of man? If man is solely "reckoned righteous" by the "vicarious sacrifice"
of our Lord Jesus Christ, why the need to speak of "weapons of
righteousness," unless there is a second aspect of the redemptive process
which ontologically includes man's spiritual participation? In II
Corinthians 10:3-6 St. Paul continues with the reference to it warfare" and
again stresses "obedience." "For though walking in the flesh, we wage war
not according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly
but [have] the power of God to overthrow strongholds, overthrowing
reasonings and every high thing rising up against the knowledge of God and
taking captive every design unto the obedience of Christ."
St. Paul writes in II Corinthians 7:1 about cleansing, about it perfecting
holiness," and about the "fear of God." After referring to our having "these
promises," he exhorts: "Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of
flesh and of spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." This
exhortation is precisely what monastic and ascetical life attempts to
implement. In 13:9 St. Paul writes: "We pray also for you restoration." In
order for one to be "restored," one would have to have been at a certain
level previously. The text bears witness to the dynamic nature of faith, of
spiritual life in Christ, of the rising and falling away, and then the
restoration.
In II Corinthians 7:10 St. Paul speaks in terms quite similar to those found
in monastic and ascetical literature, for he speaks of "grief" which works
"repentance" which leads to "salvation." "For grief, in accordance with God,
works repentance unto unregrettable salvation." St. Paul contrasts this
"Godly grief" with the "grief of the world which works out death." The theme
"sorrow" and "grief" over one's sin-precisely "grief in accordance with God"
or "Godly grief"-is a constant in monastic spiritual life.
St. Paul ends the text proper of II Corinthians with a final exhortation.
"Restore yourselves, admonish yourselves, think the same, become at peace,
and the God of love and of peace will be with you." Here the emphasis is
again on "restoration." St. Paul's sequence of language-if taken by itself
and out of context-could be easily misinterpreted as man causing God's
action, for he writes "become at peace and." It is precisely that "and" that
introduces the activity of God. God "will be with you," if you achieve
peace-this is how this text could well be interpreted if we did not the
possess the body of St. Paul's works. What could have happened to the
thought of St. Paul is what usually happens to the thought expressed in
monastic and ascetical literature.
GALATIANS
Along with the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians is
the other work from the corpus of St. Paul most often quoted by the
theologians of the Lutheran and Calvinistic Reformation and those
theologians who have followed in those theological traditions. They were
also the two works most quoted by St. Augustine to support his doctrine of
irresistible grace and predestination. But one encounters the same problem
in Galatians that is, that there is a second line of thought which, by
itself, could be interpreted in a Pelagian sense. The point here is, of
course, that both views are one-sided, that the thought of St. Paul is far
richer than any one-sided interpretation allows for, far more realistic both
with the glory of God and with the tragedy of man's experience in evil,
corruption, and death. But St. Paul not only extols the glory of God, the
power and initiative of grace but also the joyfulness of an objective
redemption in which each person must participate in order for the redemption
of man to be completed.
In the first chapter of Galatians St. Paul in verse 10 uses language which
implies the seeking of favor with God. "For now do I persuade men or God? Or
do I seek to please men?". At one point, in Galatians 4:9, St. Paul catches
himself falling into the very understandable usage of human language: "But
now knowing God, or rather, being known by God." Imprecision of language
occurs even with St. Paul.
The second chapter of Galatians provides an illumination of the central
controversial issue in the theology of St. Paul. In context St. Paul is
addressing the hypocrisy of St. Peter in Antioch, for St. Peter ate with the
Gentiles until those from the "circumcision" party arrived from Jerusalem.
At that time St. Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, "fearing those of the
circumcision." St. Paul challenges St. Peter face to face. Again the whole
controversy is between the "works of the law" and the "works of the Spirit,"
between the laws of Judaism and the spiritual laws of Christ as a direct
result of his Divine redemptive work. It is, therefore, in this context that
St. Paul brings the doctrine of justification into discussion. In verse 16
St. Paul writes: "And knowing that a man is not justified out of works of
the law but through faith of Christ Jesus, even we believed in Christ Jesus
in order that we might be justified out of faith of Christ and not out of
the works of the law because out of works of the law all flesh will not be
justified." In the Greek construction used by St. Paul a dynamism still
exists, for we believed "in order that we might be justified" and "out of
faith." This latter expression contains breadth, expansion of spiritual life
generating from faith. It is a rich expression and its fulness and dynamism
must not be diminished by a reductionist interpretation. And the very use of
"in order" has implications theologically, as does the construction "that we
might be justified." St. Paul could very well have written that we have
believed and are hence justified. But that is not what he has written. The
objective reality of redemption, the objective reality of mankind being
justified by Christ is one thing. The subjective reality of each person
participating in this already accomplished redemptive work of justification,
of being really "right" with God is another dimension, a dimension which
requires and addresses the entire spiritual composition of man. In the very
next text St. Paul writes "if seeking to be justified in Christ." In 5:5 he
can write "for we in the Spirit eagerly expect the hope of righteousness."
What is the ontological meaning of "the hope of righteousness" if
"righteousness" is "imputed" to us as though a legal transaction, and if it
is the "passive righteousness" of God which "justifies" us? No, St. Paul's
vision is far deeper. The "hope of righteousness" is precisely our hope to
share in that objective "righteousness of God" which is now freely given by
God in and through Christ. But we "hope" because there is "work" for us to
do in order to take hold of and participate in that righteousness eternally.
God creates in his freedom. God created man with this image of freedom.
Christ accepts the Cross in freedom. Freedom is the foundation of creation
and redemption. And man's freedom, however weakened, can still be inspired
by the free gift of Grace. And in this freedom man must, as St. Paul writes
in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:12, "work out your own salvation with
fear and trembling." it cannot be denied that monastic and ascetical
spirituality took this seriously. In Galatians 5:1 St. Paul writes that
"Christ freed us for freedom. Therefore stand firm."
The total theological significance of all that took place in the coming of
Christ, in the Incarnation of the God-Man, in his life, his teachings, his
death, his resurrection, his establishment of the Church and the mystical
sacramental life in the Church, his Ascension, his sending of the Holy
Spirit, and his Second Coming and Judgment-all this has radically altered
the old law of works, and the meaning was clear to the early Church. It is
true that what St. Paul says about the "works of the law" can be applied to
any form of Christianity that deviates from the precision of the balance,
that deviates from the authentic "works of the Spirit," replacing them by a
mechanical and mechanistic attitude. And in Galatians 3:27 St. Paul
immediately connects "justification by faith" with the mystical sacrament of
baptism. "For you are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus, for
as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Within
this context what is the distinction between the "justification by faith"
and "by faith" being "baptized into Christ," and, hence, having "put on
Christ"?
St. Paul is addressing Christians, those who have been baptized, those who
have accepted the faith. Despite all his language about "justification by
faith," about "putting on Christ" through baptism, about the objective
aspect of redemption having been accomplished, St. Paul still can write in
Galatians 4:19 that he "travails in birth until Christ is formed" in them.
What can this mean except that the redemptive process for man is one of
struggle, one of rising and falling, one of continual spiritual dynamism? In
5:7 he writes that they "were running well" and asks "who hindered
you?"-invoking again the image of a race.
In Galatians 5:14 St. Paul repeats Christ's commandment of love, a thought
not foreign to St. Paul, especially when one considers his "Hymn to Love"
[Agape] in I Corinthians 13. "For the whole law has been summed up in one
expression: you shall love your neighbor as yourself." He then distinguishes
the "works of the Spirit" from the "works of the flesh," explicitly linking
the latter with the old law. And then he again exhorts and commands from the
realism of spiritual life (5:25). "If we live in the Spirit, let us also
walk in the Spirit. What is the meaning of such an exhortation? It has a
meaning based on realism only if the "living in the Spirit" refers to the
entirety of the objective work of the redemptive work of Christ now
accomplished and available to mankind, a redemption which surrounds them by
the life of the Church in which they live but a redemption in which they
must actively participate, in which they must "walk" if they are to obtain
and receive the final work of redemption, the union of man and God in love,
in goodness, in truth. The "walk" is an obvious expression of activity, of
movement toward a goal. In Galatians 6:2 St. Paul links the commandment of
love and the "walking in the Spirit" with "the law of Christ." "And thus you
will fulfill the law of Christ." The very language of "the law of Christ"
and the "fulfilling" of that law" is theologically significant, for "the law
of Christ" refers to everything communicated to the Church through Christ.
The monastic and ascetical life is precisely such an attempt to fulfill this
"law of Christ." His concluding thought in Galatians is: "Peace and mercy
upon those many who will walk by this rule." The "new creation" about which
St. Paul speaks is both an already accomplished redemptive reality and, for
us as individuals with spiritual freedom, the "new creation" is a reality
which must be "formed," a reality which can come about only through process,
when the subjective reality of each person is "formed" into the objective
reality of the "new creation" wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ.
EPHESIANS
In Ephesians 1:14 St. Paul uses extremely interesting language in
relationship to our "salvation" in Christ "in whom we believed and
thereafter were sealed with the Holy Spirit "who is an earnest of our
inheritance unto redemption of the possession." The meaning here is clear:
the seal of the Holy Spirit is the "deposit" toward an inheritance of which
we take possession when we acquire it. It is a dynamic text. That possession
of such an inheritance requires that we walk in "good works" in clear in
Ephesians 2:10: "For we are a product of him, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works, which God previously prepared in order that we might walk in
them." In Ephesians 6:11 St. Paul again uses the image of warfare and of
putting on the "whole armor of God." The "walk" is evoked again in 5:8 and
5:15. "Walk as children of the light." "See, therefore, that you walk
carefully." In 5:9 he writes that "the fruit of the light [is] in all
goodness and righteousness and truth." It is the "walking in the light" that
produces "the fruit which is [in] all goodness, righteousness and truth" and
this is described as "proving what is well-pleasing to the Lord."
In Ephesians 5:14 St. Paul quotes from what was probably a hymn of the early
Church, a text which has the ring of a monastic motif to it. "Rise, sleeping
one." And to what purpose ought one to rise? In 5:1 he commands to "be
therefore imitators of God." In 4:23 St. Paul writes that we are "to be
renewed in the spirit of your mind" and "to put on the new man." He begs us
in 4:1 "to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called." In 4:15
he exhorts that "we may grow into him [Christ] in all respects." In 6:18 St.
Paul stresses the importance of prayer. "By means of all prayer and
petition, praying at every time." All these are aspects of the monastic and
ascetical life.
PHILIPPIANS
The Epistle to the Philippians contains many expressions that directly
relate to an active spiritual life. In 1:25 he speaks of "advance and joy of
the faith." In 1:27 he speaks of "conducting" oneself "worthily of the
Gospel." "Stand in one spirit, with one soul striving together in the faith
of the Gospel." Here is the "striving" so disliked by Nygren.
For St. Paul we are required not only to believe but also to suffer. In
Philippians 1:29 he writes: "ou monon to eis auton pisteuein alla kai to
hyper autou paschein." And he refers to this as a "struggle," an "ordeal."
In 2:16 he speaks of the possibility of "running and laboring in vain." In
3:8 St. Paul speaks of "gaining Christ," and this within the context of the
"righteousness of the law" as opposed to the "righteousness based on faith."
Philippians 3:11-16 is one of the more interesting texts. "If somehow I may
attain to the resurrection out of the dead. Not that I received already or
already have been perfected, but I follow if indeed I may lay hold, in as
much as I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brothers, not yet do I reckon
myself to have laid hold. But one thing [I do], forgetting on one hand the
things behind, and stretching forward on the other hand to the things which
are ahead, I follow the mark for the prize of the heavenly calling of God in
Christ Jesus. Therefore, as many as [are] perfect, let us think this.
Nevertheless, to what we arrived, let us walk by the same." Here St. Paul
speaks both of laying hold of Christ and being "laid hold of by Christ." The
synergistic activity is obvious and realistic. All the language in the
passage indicates and underscores the activity of God and the activity of
man, of the objective reality of an achieved redemption and man's process of
"laying hold," of "stretching forward" to the ultimate goal, a goal
unachievable if man does not become spiritually active. The Greek verbal
structures of "I may attain" and "I may lay hold of" are not without
meaning.
In Philippians 4:8-9 St. Paul speaks universally as he does in Romans 1.
"Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever
things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovable,
whatsoever things are well-spoken of, if there be any virtue, and if there
be any praise, consider these things." These qualities-the true, the just,
the pure, the lovable-are not qualities which have been revolutionized by
the new creation wrought by the Incarnation of the God-Man, they have not
come into existence nor been revolutionized by Christian thought. Rather,
they are within the very texture of human nature and existence, things that
every conscience knows spontaneously. What Christianity has done, however,
is to break forth a new path for mankind to participate in the true, the
just, the pure in a new way and with a new power through Christ. They now no
longer exist as ideals, as the absolute, but are existentially and
ontologically accessible to human nature through redemption. St. Paul speaks
almost a Platonic language here, and yet it is thoroughly Christian.
COLOSSIANS
In St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians 1:22-23 and 29 the realism of
synergy is depicted. "But now he reconciled in the body of his flesh through
his death to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,
if indeed you continue in the faith having been founded and steadfast and
not being moved away from the hope of the Gospel which you heard."
The objective reconciliation now exists but in order to participate in it
one must be found holy, blameless, and irreproachable, and this is all
contingent upon the significant "if"-"if indeed you continue in the faith."
In verse 29 we encounter the ideas of "maturity," "labor," and "struggle" or
"ordeal." "In order that we may present every man mature in Christ, for
which also I labor struggling according to his energy energizing in me in
power." Colossians 1:10 expresses the same idea of "worth," of "pleasing"
God, of "bearing fruit in every good work," and of "increasing in the
knowledge of God." But the very power comes from the might of the glory of
God. "With all power dynamized according to the might of his glory."
Colossians 2:6-7 expresses also the two spiritual wills and activities in
the process of redemption. "As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord,
walk in him, and being confirmed in the faith as you were taught."
The depth of the idea of synergy is found not only in co-dying and
co-suffering with Christ but also in co-resurrection with him. In Colossians
3:1 St. Paul writes: "If therefore you were co-raised with Christ, seek the
things above." St. Paul continues the use of many imperative exhortations in
chapter 3. "Put to death therefore your members on earth: fornication,
uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness which is idolatry" (5).
"Put away now all things . . ." (8). And then the command (4:2) to continue
in prayer and vigil.
I AND II THESSALONIANS
In I Thessalonians St. Paul continues this second aspect of the redemptive
process by referring to the "work of faith" (1:3), by expressing concern
that "labor may be in vain" (3:5), by exhorting "if you stand in the Lord"
(3:8), by exhorting that the "breastplate of faith and love" be put on
(5:8), and by commanding to test everything, to hold fast to what is good,
to abstain from every form of evil (5:21-22). In 3:10 St. Paul writes:
"Praying exceedingly night and day ... to adjust the shortcomings of your
faith." Why the need to adjust the shortcomings of faith, if faith "alone"
is the sole criterion of salvation, as is held by certain schools of
theology rooted in the tradition of the Reformation? In 4:4-5 St. Paul
writes interestingly. "For this is the will of God: your sanctification. . .
that each one of you know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and
honor." The goal here of the spiritual life in Christ is sanctification and
the significant text is to "know how to possess" this "vessel." Such
language expresses the dynamism of a synergistic process of redemption. In
5:9 St. Paul uses the expression "unto the obtaining of salvation." In II
Thessalonians 2:14 St. Paul uses the expression unto obtaining of the glory
of our Lord." In II Thessalonians 1: 11 St Paul prays that they may be
deemed worthy of the calling and that they may fulfill every "good pleasure
of goodness and work of faith in power."
I AND II TIMOTHY
In I Timothy 1:5-6 we read: "Now the end of the charge is love out of a pure
heart and a good conscience and unpretended faith, from which things some,
missing aim, turned aside." In 1:18-19 the image of warfare is again used.
"This charge I commit to you, child Timothy ... in order that you might war
by them the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some,
thrusting away, have made shipwreck concerning the faith."
I Timothy 2:1-3 has the same intensity of spiritual activity found in
monastic and ascetical literature: "I exhort, therefore, first of all, that
petitions, prayers, intercessions, and eucharists be made on behalf of all
men, on behalf of kings and all those in high positions, in order that we
may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all piety and seriousness. This is
good and acceptable before God our Savior, who wishes all men to be saved
and to come to a full knowledge of truth." The same emphasis continues in
4:7-10, especially the expressions "exercise yourself" and "for unto this we
labor and struggle." I Timothy 6:11-12 again stresses the "struggle," that
"laying hold" of that which has been objectively accomplished in redemption.
"Struggle the good struggle of the faith, lay hold on eternal life." And in
the verse preceding this one is commanded "to pursue righteousness, piety,
faith, love, endurance, meekness." What spiritual meaning can the "pursuit
of righteousness" have unless it in fact indicates that, although the
"righteousness of God" is established in Christ Jesus, we still must
actively struggle in spiritual warfare in order to "lay hold on" this
"righteousness"? Already in I Timothy 5:9 it is clear that "widows" of a
certain age had a special place within the spiritual life of the Church.
"Let a widow be enrolled." Enrolled into what? It is obviously a special
activity within the spiritual life of the Church to which widows were
enrolled, already a special form of spiritual activity in the earliest life
of the Church.
In II Timothy 1:6 both the objective reality of the gift of redemption and
the subjective, individual work necessary to "lay hold on" this redemptive
work are clearly apparent. "I remind you to fan the flame of the gift of
God, which is in you." The synergy of redemption is spoken of in 2:11-12
with the all significant "if." "For if we co-died with him, we shall also
co-live with him; if we endure, we shall also co-reign with him." In 2:21
sanctification is contingent upon self-purification. "If, therefore, anyone
purifies himself ... he will be a vessel unto honor, having been
sanctified." In 2:22 again we are exhorted to "flee youthful lusts" and "to
pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace" and the "calling on the Lord" must
be done "out of a pure heart." In 4:7 the path of salvation is presented
again as a struggle. "I have struggled the good struggle, I have finished
the course, I have kept the faith."
HEBREWS
The Epistle to the Hebrews is rich in its thought on both aspects of
redemption-on the work of God, and on the spiritual struggle on the part of
man. In 3:14 the language is striking. "For we have become sharers of
Christ, if indeed we hold fast the beginning of the foundation until the
end." In 4:1 the idea is similar. "Let us fear, therefore, lest a promise
being left to enter into his rest, any of you seems to have come short." The
idea of "entering this rest" is continued in 4:11. "Let us be eager,
therefore, to enter into that rest, lest anyone falls in the same example of
disobedience." In 6:1 "the beginning" of the process is spoken of,
accompanied by the exhortation: "let us be borne on to in maturity." In 6:11
one must show eagerness to the "full assurance of the hope unto the end!".
The same exhortations of "let us" are found throughout Hebrews. In 10:22-23
it is: "Let us approach with a true heart" and "Let us hold fast the
confession of our hope unyieldingly."
In 11:1 a definition of faith is proferred. "Now faith is the foundation of
things being hoped, the proof of things not being seen." This definition of
faith is often dismissed too readily. It is a deep idea, especially when
considered in its original Greek structure. Faith is the "foundation," the
"reality" upon which the "hope" of the Christian faith is built. And in its
reality it contains the very proof, the evidence of the heavenly kingdom.
The entire eleventh chapter reveals that "faith" was active under the "old
law," although the faith of and in Christ is of deeper ontological
significance precisely because it is the foundation into a new reality not
available under the "old law." After a lengthy exposition of examples of "
faith" under the "old law," the Epistle to the Hebrews in 12:1 engages in an
exhortation that concerns the very spiritual activity of the new faith.
"Putting away every hindrance and the most besetting sin, let us run through
endurance the struggle set before us." The reality of "discipline" is
stressed in Hebrews, especially in 12:7: "Endure unto disciple." And that
one can "fail from the grace of God" is clear from 12:15.
I AND II PETER
In I Peter 1:9 it is not the beginning of faith or faith in general which
results in salvation but it is precisely the "end of faith" which "obtains"
salvation. Purification and obedience are dominant themes in I Peter.
"Having purified your souls in the obedience of truth unto an unpretended
brotherly love, love one another earnestly from the heart (1:22). The
process of growth in the spiritual life is stressed in 2:2: "in order that .
. . you may grow into salvation." The "war" between lust and the soul is
spoken of in 2:11: "I exhort you as sojourners and aliens to abstain from
fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." In II Peter 1:4 a profound
theological thought is expressed. The promises which God has given are great
and precious; corruption is in the world because of lust; and man can not
only escape this corruption but also become partakers or participators in
the Divine nature, an idea which is developed in early Christian and in
Eastern Orthodox theological thought, an idea which lays the foundation for
the doctrine of theosis, of divinization. "He has given to us precious and
very great promises in order that through these you become partakers of the
Divine nature, escaping from the corruption that is in the world by lust."
Precisely because of this we are instructed in the following verses to
supplement our faith, and then the dynamic spiritual process of growth is
presented. "And for this very reason bringing in all diligence, supply in
your faith virtue, and in virtue [supply] knowledge, and in knowledge
[supply] self-control, and in self-control [supply] endurance, and in
endurance [supply] piety, and in piety [supply] brotherly love, and in
brotherly love [supply] love."
In II Peter 1:10 there is mention of one's "calling" and election." And yet
in the very same text one is exhorted to be "diligence" precisely to make
this "calling and election" firm. "Be diligent to make your calling and
election firm." And in 2:20-22 the falling away from the "way of
righteousness" is not only possible, but it actually takes place, and it is
worse than had one not known the "way of righteousness" at all. And the
texts speaks about those who had a "full knowledge of the Lord." "For if,
having escaped the defilements of the world by a full knowledge of the Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ, these persons again have been defeated, having been
entangled, the last things have become to them worse than the first. For it
was better for them not to have fully known the way of righteousness than,
fully knowing, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has
happened to them."
THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN
In the three Epistles of St. John we encounter the same language, the same
reality of the two aspects of redemption. The same "ifs" are there, the same
emphasis of purification (see I John 3:3), the same language about "pleasing
God," and the same emphasis on "keeping the commandment" and "not sinning."
There is an organic link between loving God and keeping his commandments-the
full range of the commandments of Christ.
THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES AND LUTHER'S EVALUATION
Luther's attitude toward the Epistle of St. James is well known. In fact,
Luther positioned not only James at the end of the German Bible but also
Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. And his criterion was that they lacked
evangelical "purity." He was not the first to do so. His colleague at
Wittenberg, upon whom Luther later turned, Carlstadt, had distinguished
among the books of the New Testament-and the Old Testament-before Luther
took his own action. As early as 1520 Carlstadt divided the entirety of
Scripture into three categories: libri summae dignitatis, in which Carstadt
included the Pentateuch as well as the Gospels; libri secundae dignitatis,
in which he included the Prophets and fifteen epistles; and libri tertiae
dignitatis.
Luther rejected the Epistle of St. James theologically but of necessity
retained it in the German Bible, even if as a kind of appendix. The ending
of Luther's Preface to his edition of the German Bible, which was omitted in
later editions, reads in the German of his time: "... for that reason St.
James' Epistle is a thoroughly straw epistle, for it has indeed no
evangelical merit to it." Luther rejected it theologically "because it gives
righteousness to works in outright contradiction to Paul and all other
Scriptures ... because, while undertaking to teach Christian people, it does
not once mention the passion, the resurrection, the Spirit of Christ; it
names Christ twice, but teaches nothing about him; it calls the law a law of
liberty, while Paul calls it a law of bondage, of wrath, of death and of
sin."
Luther even added the word "alone"-allein-in Romans 3:28 before "through
faith" precisely to counter the words in James 2:24: "You see that a man is
justified by works and not by faith only." What is more is that Luther
became very aggressive and arrogant in his response to the criticism that he
had added "alone" to the Biblical text. "If your papist makes much useless
fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at once: Doctor Martin Luther
will have it so and says: Papist and donkey are one thing; sic volo, sic
jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be pupils and
followers of the Papists, but their masters and judges." Luther continues in
a bantering manner in an attempt to imitate St. Paul in the latter's
response to his opponents. "Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So
am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they
philosophers? So am I. Are they writers of books? So am I. And I shall
further boast: I can expound Psalms and Prophets; which they cannot. I can
translate; which they cannot . . . Therefore the word allein shall remain in
my New Testament, and though all pope-donkeys should get furious and
foolish, they shall not get the word out." In some German editions the word
"allein" was printed in larger type! Some critics of Luther's translation
have accused him of deliberately translating inaccurately to support his
theological view. As early as 1523 Dr. Emser, an opponent of Luther, claimed
that Luther's translation contained "a thousand grammatical and fourteen
hundred heretical errors." This is exaggerated but the fact does remain that
there are numerous errors in Luther's translation.
Indeed, the entire Reformation in its attitude towards the New Testament is
directly in opposition to the thought on this subject of St. Augustine, who
was highly esteemed in many respects by the Reformation theologians and from
whom they took the basis for some of the theological visions, especially
predestination, original sin, and irresistible grace for Luther and Calvin.
On this subject, as on some many others, there is no common ground between
Luther and Calvin on the one hand and St. Augustine on the other. St.
Augustine wrote: "I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the
authority of the Church." It should be pointed out that Calvin did not take
objection to the Epistle of St. James.
Luther was so caught up in the abstraction of a passive righteousness, so
infuriated by his experience as a monk in practicing what he would refer to
as "righteousness of works," so caught up in attempting to create a specific
meaning to one line of the thought of St. Paul that he misses the very
foundation from which the theological thought of St. James comes forth-and
that is the initiative and will of God. Luther's criticism that St. James
does not mention the passion, the resurrection, and the Spirit of Christ is
inane, for his readers knew the apostolic deposit-there was no need to
mention the very basis and essence of the living faith which was known to
those reading the epistle. Such a criticism by Luther reveals the enormous
lack of a sense for the historical life of the early Church, for the Church
was in existence and it is from the Church and to the Church that the
epistles are written. Historically, the Church existed before any texts of
the "new covenant" were written. The Church existed on the oral tradition
received from the apostles, as is clearly revealed from the pages of the New
Testament itself.
The very foundation of the theological vision of St. James is the will of
God. In 1:17-18 St. James writes: "Every good giving and every perfect gift
is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom change has
no place, no turning, no shadow. Having willed, he brought us forth by the
word of truth that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures." In
4:15 St. James writes: "You are instead to say: if the Lord wills, we will
both live and will do this or that." One theologically weak text in the
Epistle of St. James is in 4:8: "Draw near to God and he will draw near to
you." Taken by itself it has a Pelagian ring to it. And in monastic and
ascetical literature one often encounters such expressions. But the meaning
in both this epistle and in monastic and ascetical literature must be
understood within their total context. Once the synergism of the redemptive
process takes place in the human heart, then the existential reciprocity of
grace and response is so dynamic that one can, as it were, use such
expressions, precisely because it is assumed that God has initiated and that
grace is always at work in the human heart, in all the depths of the
interior of man as well as in external life. The text in the Epistle of St.
James must be understood within the context of 1:18 and 4:15. Moreover, it
is to be noted that this text is preceded by "Be subject, therefore, to
God." In being "subject to God," a relationship is already in place, a
relationship which presupposes the initiative of God and the response of
man.
The Epistle of St. James contains many expressions that will be used in
monastic and ascetical life. Temptation (1:14), the passions (4:1),
purifying, cleansing, humbling oneself (4), and "be distressed and mourn and
weep" (4:9). The excoriating words against the rich (5:1-6) underguird the
monastic vow of poverty.
THE LIFE OF THE EARLY CHURCH
The life of the early Church as described in the Acts of the Apostles is so
clear that no analysis or presentation of texts is necessary to demonstrate
that the essentials exist for a form of spirituality similar to that of
monastic and ascetical Christianity. Mention should also be made of the life
of St. John the Baptist: "It is on solid grounds that a student of monastic
origins like Dom Germain Morin upheld his apparent paradox: it is not so
much the monastic life which was a novelty at the end of the third century
and the beginning of the fourth, but rather the life of adaptation to the
world led by the mass of Christians at the time when the persecutions
ceased. The monks actually did nothing but preserve intact, in the midst of
altered circumstances, the ideal of the Christian life of early days ... And
there is another continuous chain from the apostles to the solitaries and
then to the cenobites, whose ideal, less novel than it seems, spread so
quickly from the Egyptian deserts at the end of the third century. This
chain is constituted by the men and women who lived in continence, ascetics
and virgins, who never ceased to be held in honor in the ancient Church."
From The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. X, The Byzantine Ascetic
and Spiritual Fathers (Vaduz, Europa: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), pp.
17-59. This same chapter is duplicated in Vol. XIII on pp. 102-133. Fr.
George placed the Greek text of the New Testament after almost every passage
quoted. For the purposes of Internet dissemination I deleted the Greek
passages. This chapter is copyrighted, though the book is out of print.
+ + +
* For a primary source treatment of the Patristic concept that the grace of
God makes one righteous see On the Incarnation of the Word of God by St.
Athanasius the Great. Here is an important excerpt on this concept:
For it was not things without being that needed salvation, so that a bare
command should suffice, but man, already in existence, was going to
corruption and ruin . It was then natural and right that the Word should use
a human instrument and reveal Himself everywhither. Secondly, you must know
this also, that the corruption which had set in was not external to the
body, but had become attached to it; and it was required that, instead of
corruption, life should cleave to it; so that, just as death has been
engendered in the body, so life may be engendered in it also. Now if death
were external to the body, it would be proper for life also to have been
engendered externally to it. But if death was wound closely to the body and
was ruling over it as though united to it, it was required that life also
should be would closely to the body, that so the body, by putting on life in
its stead, should cast off corruption. Besides, even supposing that the Word
had come outside the body, and not in it, death would indeed have been
defeated by Him, in perfect accordance with nature, inasmuch as death has no
power against the Life; but the corruption attached to the body would have
remained in it none the less. For this cause the Savior reasonably put on
Him a body, in order that the body, becoming wound closely to the Life,
should no longer, as mortal, abide in death, but, as having put on
immortality, should thenceforth rise again and remain immortal. For, once it
had put on corruption, it could not have risen again unless it had put on
life. And death likewise could not, from its very nature, appear, save in
the body. Therefore He put on a body, that He night find death in the body,
and blot it out. For how could the Lord have been proved at all to be the
Life, had He not quickened what was mortal? And just as, whereas stubble is
naturally destructible by fire, supposing (firstly) a man keeps fire away
from the stubble, though it is not burned, yet the stubble remains, for all
that, merely stubble, fearing the threat of the fire - for fire has the
natural property of consuming it; while if a man (secondly) encloses it with
a quantity of asbestos, the substance said to be an antidote to fire, the
stubble no longer dreads the fire, being secured by its enclosure in
incombustible matter; in this very way one may say, with regard to the body
and death, that if death had been kept from the body by a mere command on
His part, it would none the less have been mortal and corruptible, according
to the nature of bodies; but, that this should not be, it put on the
incorporeal Word of God, and thus no longer fears either death or
corruption, for it has life as a garment, and corruption is done away in it.
(Ch. 44)
Al
A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov
During my prayer two great lights appeared before me (deux grandes lumibres
m'ont ete montrees)-one in which I recognized the Creator, and another in
which I recognized myself.
-Francis' own words about his prayer
He (Fr Serge) thought about the fact that he was a burning lamp, and the
more he felt that, the more he felt a weakening, a quenching of the divine
light of truth burning within him.
-L.N. Tolstoy, "Father Serge."
The truly righteous always consider themselves unworthy of God.
-Dictum of St Isaac the Syrian
Studying the biographical data of Francis of Assisi, a fact of the utmost
interest concerning the mysticism of this Roman Catholic ascetic is the
appearance of stigmata on his person. Roman Catholics regard such a striking
manifestation as the seal of the Holy Spirit. In Francis' case, these
stigmata took on the form of the marks of Christ's passion on his body.
The stigmatisation of Francis is not an exceptional phenomenon among
ascetics of the Roman Catholic world. Stigmatisation appears to be
characteristic of Roman Catholic mysticism in general, both before it
happened to Francis, as well as after. Peter Damian, as an example, tells of
a monk who bore the representation of the Cross on his body. Caesar of
Geisterbach mentions a novice whose forehead bore the impress of a Cross.
[1] Also, a great deal of data exists, testifying to the fact that after
Francis' death a series of stigmatisations occurred which, subsequently,
have been thoroughly studied by various investigators, particularly in
recent times. These phenomena, as V. Guerier says, illuminate their primary
source. Many of them were subjected to careful observation and recorded in
detail, e.g.,, the case of Veronica Giuliani (1660-1727) who was under
doctor's observation; Luisa Lato (1850-1883) described by Dr Varleman, [2]
and Madelaine N. (1910) described by Janat. [3]
In Francis of Assisi's case, it should be noted that the Roman Catholic
Church reacted to his stigmatisation with the greatest reverence. It
accepted the phenomenon as a great miracle. Two years after his death, the
Pope canonized Francis as a saint. The chief motive for his canonization was
the fact of the miraculous stigmata on his person, which were accepted as
indications of sanctity. This fact is of singular interest to Orthodox
Christians, since nothing similar is encountered in the lives of the
Orthodox Church's Saints-an outstanding exponent of which is the Russian
Saint, Seraphim of Sarov.
It should be mentioned here, that the historical accounts of Francis'
stigmatisation do not now give rise to any doubts in the scholarly world. In
this regard, reference is made to Sabbatier who studied Francis' life, and
especially his stigmatisation, in detail. Sabbatier came to the conclusion
that the stigmata were definitely real. Sabbatier sought to find an
explanation of the stigmatisation in the unexplored area of mental
pathology, somewhere between psychology and physiology. [4]
Before proceeding with an explanation of Francis' stigmatisation from an
Orthodox mystical standpoint-the primary purpose of this paper-an
investigation of stigmata as physiological phenomena will be undertaken at
this point, since such an investigation will contribute valuable information
for a subsequent Orthodox evaluation of the "mysticism" of the Roman
Catholic saint.
Guerier includes in his work on Francis the scientific findings of G. Dumas
who analysed the process of stigmatisation from a psycho-somatic viewpoint.
[5] The following are the conclusions Dumas came to concerning stigmatics:
1. One must recognize the sincerity of stigmatics and that stigmata appear
spontaneously, i.e., they are not self-inflicted wounds, inflicted while the
person is in an unconscious state.
2. The wounds on stigmatics are regarded as phenomena relating to the
circulatory system (blood vessels) and are explained as effects of mental
suggestion which does affect digestion, circulation of blood, glandular
secretions. It can result in cutaneous injuries.
3. The wounds on stigmatics appear while they are in an ecstatic state which
results when one is absorbed in some sort of contemplated powerful image,
and surrenders control to that image.
4. The stigmata appear not only as a result of one's passive imaging of a
wound on the body, but, according to the testimony of stigmatics, when the
imaging is accompanied by the active action of the image itself-specifically
that of a fiery ray or lance, seen as proceeding from a contemplated wound,
which wounds the stigmatic's body. Often, this happens gradually, and not
with the first vision, until the degree eventually is reached where the
image contemplated during ecstasy finally gains control over the
contemplating subject.
Dumas established the following general criteria for stigmatisation: all
stigmatics experience unbearable pain in the affected parts of the body, no
matter what form the stigmata take-imprint of Cross on the shoulder; traces
of the thorns of a crown of thorns on the head; or, as with Francis of
Assisi, as wounds on the hands, feet and on the side. Together with the
pain, they experience great delight in the thought that they are worthy to
suffer with Jesus, to atone, as He did, for the sins of which they are
innocent. [6] (This, of course, is commensurate with the Roman Catholic
"satisfaction theory," which is unknown to the Orthodox Church.) [7]
Dumas' generalizations are extremely interesting since they imply that in
the process of stigmatisation, apart from the impassioned emotional state
(an emotional ecstasy of the heart) a great role is also played by: a) a
mental element; b) a mental imaging presenting acute suffering; c)
auto-suggestion, i.e., a series of mental and volitional impulses directed
toward translating the sufferings of the imagined image into; d) physical
feelings-pain; and, finally, e) the production on the self of marks (wounds)
of suffering-stigmata.
Dumas' observations recognize factors more than the emotional (which William
James considers the source of mysticism) [8] which play an equal, if not
greater role in the process of stigmatisation. These may be summarized as:
1. An intense labor of mental imagination,
2. Suggestion,
3. Sensual feelings, and,
4. Physiological manifestations.
The significance of these will be apparent later.
Following the brief scientific analysis concerning stigmaties in general,
specific data, regarding Francis' ecstasy and vision, as contained in the
work Fioretti, which will give the background leading to the vision, as well
as a description of the phenomenon.
The stigmatisation of Francis of Assisi, due to the results of his vision,
are ascribed to a singular prayer. The prayer is an intense pleading on his
part that he may experience the sufferings of Christ in his body and soul.
In the prayer, Francis desires Divine instigation of the experience and
thirsts to experience this not just with his soul, but with his body. Thus,
surrendering himself to ecstatic prayer, he did not renounce his body, but
was inviting earthly, or bodily sensations, i.e., physical suffering.
Francis' prayer was answered. The chronicle says that, "Francis felt himself
completely transformed into Christ." This transformation was not only in
spirit, but also in body, i.e., not only in spiritual and psychological
sensations, but also in physical ones. How did the vision actually occur?
First of all, quite unexpectedly for him, Francis saw something described as
miraculous: he saw a six-winged Seraph, similar to the one described by the
Prophet Isaiah, coming down from heaven to him. (First stage of vision).
Then, after the Seraph approached, Francis, thirsting for Jesus and feeling
himself "transformed into Christ," began to see Christ on the Seraph, nailed
to a cross. In the words of the chronicle, "And this Seraph came so close to
the saint that Francis could clearly and distinctly see on the Seraph the
image of the Crucified One." (Second state of vision). Francis recognized in
the image of the Seraph Christ Himself Who had come down to him. [9] He felt
Christ's suffering on his body, whereupon his desire to experience this
suffering was satisfied. (Third stage of vision). Then the stigmata began to
appear on his body. His striving and fervent praying appeared to be
answered. (Fourth stage of vision).
The amazing complexity of Francis' vision is startling. Over the initial
vision of the Seraph, who had, apparently, descended from heaven for
Francis, was superimposed another image-the one Francis thirsted to have
above all, that of the Crucified Christ. The developing process of these
visions leaves one with the impression that the first vision (that of the
Seraph), so unexpected and sudden, was outside the realm of Francis'
imagination, who longed to see the Crucified Christ, and to experience His
sufferings. In this manner, it can be explained how such a complex
conception, in which both visions, both images-that of the Seraph and of
Christ -found room in Francis' consciousness.
The experience of Francis of Assisi is remarkable and of singular interest
to Orthodox Christians, since as mentioned above, nothing similar is
encountered in the experience of the Orthodox Church with a long line of
ascetics, and equally long history of mystical experiences. As a matter of
fact, all of the things Francis experienced in the process of his
stigmatisation are the very beguilements the Church Fathers repeatedly
warned against!
Recalling how the ascetics of the Orthodox Church understand the highest
(spiritual) prayer as detailed in the Philokalia, it is to be emphasized
here that they regarded this prayer alongside their own personal strivings,
as a synergetic operation (man co-operating with God) to achieve detachment,
not only from everything physical or sensory, but also from rational
thought. That is, at best, a direct spiritual elevation of the person to
God, when the Lord God the Holy Spirit Himself intercedes for the supplicant
with "groanings which cannot be uttered." [10] As an example, St Isaac of
Syria in his Directions says, "A soul which loves God, in God, and in Him
alone finds peace. First release yourself from all your outward attachments,
then your heart will be able to unite with God; for union with God is
preceded by detachment from matter." [11] It is the plain speaking of St
Nilos of Sinai, however, that slashes through with distinct clarity to
present a serious juxtaposition to the alleged Divine visitation that
Francis experienced. In the Text on Prayer, he admonishes: "Never desire nor
seek any face or image during prayer. Do not wish for sensory vision or
angels, or powers, or Christ, lest you lose your mind by mistaking the wolf
for the shepherd and worship the enemies-the demons. The beginning of the
beguilement (plani) of the mind is vainglory, which moves the mind to try
and represent the Deity in some form or image. [12]
Francis' ecstatic prayer was answered, but in the light of both St Isaac's
and St Nilos' counsels, clearly not by Christ. The chronicle says that
"Francis felt himself completely transformed into Christ," transformed not
only in spirit, but also in body, i.e., not only in spiritual and
psychological sensations, but also in physical ones. While granting that
Francis was fully convinced that he had been spiritually taken up to the
Logos, the rise of special physical sensations cannot, according to St
Isaac, be ascribed to the action of a spiritually good power.
Francis' physical sensations can be explained as the work of his own mental
imagination moving parallel to his spiritual ecstasy. It is hard to say, in
this given instance, which was dominant in Francis' beguilement (plani): his
spiritual pride, or his mentalism (mental imaging); but, in any case, the
mentalism was rather strong. This is confirmed by the substantive
circumstances of the unusually complex vision which was presented to Francis
after he felt himself completely transformed into Jesus which is clearly a
very severe state of plani, having its roots, as St Nilos says, in
vainglory.
The exaggeratedness of Francis' exaltation, which was noted in the
description of his vision, is revealed very boldly when compared with the
majestic vision of Christ which St Seraphim of Sarov experienced while
serving as a deacon on Great Thursday of Passion Week. [13]
In contrast to Francis, St Seraphim did not seek to "feel himself
transformed into Jesus" through his prayers and labors. He prayed simply and
deeply, repenting of his sins. During the course of his prayer, and as a
result of his great ascetic acts, the mystical power of Grace grew in him
which he neither felt, nor realized. Standing before the throne (Holy Table)
with a burning heart, as in the words of Elias of Ekdik "...the soul, having
freed itself from everything external, is united with prayer, and that
prayer, like a sort of flame surrounding the soul as fire does iron, makes
it all fiery," [14] St Seraphim unexpectedly was stunned with the appearance
of the Mysterious Divine Power. St Seraphim neither imagined, nor dreamt,
nor expected such a vision. When it occurred, he was so stunned that it took
two hours for him to "come to his senses." Later, he himself described what
had happened. At first he was struck by an unusual light as if from the sun.
Then he saw the Son of Man in glory, shining brighter than the sun with an
ineffable light and surrounded "as by a swarm of bees" by the heavenly
powers. Coming out of the North Gate (of the sanctuary) Christ stopped
before the amvon and, lifting up His hands, blessed those who were serving
and those who were praying. The vision then vanished.
Several items in the account of St Seraphim's vision are of interest in this
study. Firstly, in direct contrast to prayer, St Seraphim's prayer is devoid
of any element that would remotely suggest that he desired any visible
(sensory) signs of the Divine Presence. Least of all, did he think in his
life that he was ever worthy of being "transformed into Jesus," as Francis
prayed. The key characteristic of the Saint's prayer is a profound humility,
evidenced by his articulated confession of sinfulness which prompted him
toward prayerful repentance. The significance of this, as the Church Fathers
repeatedly point out, is that true humility effectively prevents one from
falling into vainglory.
A second profound aspect of St Seraphim's prayer is the fact that no favor
of Divine Manifestation is asked of God. Neither, of course, as mentioned
previously, was anything extraneous to his repentance, thought or imaged
while he prayed. This, of course, would be commensurate with St Seraphim's
repentance, since his articulation of it indicates quite clearly that he
himself was never deceived to think that he had achieved a level of
worthiness where, in spite of his sins, he could boldly ask for Holy things.
If he had thought about himself in this manner, he would have easily slipped
into conceit. St Seraphim's prayer was intended for the exact opposite which
did indeed make him worthy of the Divine Vision. St Maximos the Confessor in
the First Century of Love expressed it thus, "He who has not yet attained to
knowledge of God inspired by love, thinks highly of what he does according
to God. But a man who has received it repeats in his heart the words of our
forefather Abraham, when God appeared to him, 'I am earth and ashes'
(Gn.18:27)."
Concerning St Seraphim's vision, it should be noted that the highest
spiritual state, attained through the way indicated by the ascetics in the
Philokalia, develops in a person's heart outside the mental and sensual
spheres, and, consequently, outside the sphere of mental imagination. Abba
Evagrios in his Texts on Active Life-To Anatolios, says:
The mind will not see the place of God in itself, unless it rises above all
thoughts of material and created things; and it cannot rise above them
unless it becomes free of the passions binding it to sensory objects and
inciting thoughts about them. It will free itself of passions by means of
virtues, and of simple thoughts by means of spiritual contemplation; but it
will discard even this when there appears to it that light which, during
prayer, marks the place of God. [16]
The experience of man's mystical union with God is, therefore, usually very
difficult to convey in human terms. It happens, however, that visions are
allowed people who have cultivated passionlessness in themselves, but in the
majority of these cases these visions are momentary, and they strike the
inner being of the person-they come as if from within. St Isaac the Syrian
elaborates: "If you are pure, then heaven is within you; and in yourself you
will see angels, and with them and in them, the Lord of Angels." [17] The
Fathers of the Orthodox Church teach that all these experiences are beyond
any expectation of the humble man, for the ascetic in his humility does not
feel himself worthy of this.
Recapitulating St Seraphim's experience, it can be seen that it bore the
following characteristics:
1. Simplicity;
2. Repentance;
3. Humility;
4. An unexpected vision beyond sensory and rational categories;
5. Spiritual ecstasy or ravishment.
Emphasizing the last item, St Isaac, quoted above, explains: "...the
contemplation of a hyper-conscious vision, granted by Divine Power, is
received by the soul-within itself immaterialy, suddenly and unexpectedly;
it is discovered and revealed from within, because, in Christ's words, 'the
kingdom of heaven is within you'-This contemplation inside the image,
imprinted in the hidden mind (the higher intellect) reveals itself without
any thought about it." [18]
From the above points taken from a comparison of the two visions and of what
Francis and St Seraphim experienced in these, there is a sharp difference in
the mysticism of the two. St Seraphim's mysticism appears as a purely
spiritual ecstasy, as something bestowed on the ascetic, as a gift of a
spiritual vision, as an enlightenment of his higher intellect, [19] while
Francis' spiritual experience is a mysticism induced by his will, and
obviously darkened by his own imagination and sensuality.
A further distinctive difference between the two is the different
relationship expressed by them toward Christ. In contrast to Saint Seraphim,
who experienced Christ's spiritual power in his heart and accepted Christ
within himself, Francis in his imaging, received his impression primarily
from Christ's earthly life. Francis was absorbed in Christ's external aspect
of suffering. This impression came upon him at Monte La Verna as if from
without.
Concomitant with his very strong desire to experience Christ's suffering,
was his compulsion to imitate other earthly aspects of Jesus' life. He not
only sent his own "Apostles" to various regions of the earth to preach,
giving them virtually the same instructions the Saviour gave to His
Apostles, [20] but he even produced before his disciples not long before his
death something similar to the great Mystical Supper itself. "He recalled,"
says his biographer, "that sanctified meal which the Lord celebrated with
His disciples for the last time." [21] This presumption cannot be excused on
the basis of his flamboyant life, regardless how severe his asceticism was
or how many virtuous things he did. It stands as a prime indication, from an
Orthodox point of view, of the severity of his fall into the condition of
spiritual beguilement.
Before proceeding it is imperative to outline briefly the condition called
plani. In general terms, according to Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky,
plani (prelest, in Russian) usually results when the devil deludes the
person by suggesting the thought that he has been granted visions (or other
gifts of Grace). Then the evil one constantly blinds his conscience,
convincing him of his apparent sanctity and promises him the power of
working wondrous acts. The evil one leads such an ascetic to the summit of a
mountain or the roof of a church, and shows him a fiery chariot, or some
other such wondrous thing, which will bear him to Heaven. The deluded one
then steps into it (that is, he accepts the delusion) and falls headlong
into the abyss, and is dashed to death without repentance. [22]
What is clear from such a brief analysis of plani is that the subject who
undergoes the experience usually has succumbed to some form of pride,
usually vainglory, hence the presumption that one has finally achieved a
state from whence he is deluded to think that he no longer must be watchful
concerning the possibility of a fall into sin, or even blasphemy against
God. It is, of course, the Luciferian sin, and by definition the most
difficult to contend with, hence, the importance and constant emphasis in
religious writing, concerning ascetic obedience and humility until the very
end of one's earthly life.
It has already been shown above that Francis' vision contains strong marks
of spiritual deception. What remains, therefore, is a characterization of
Francis' work and acts which will stand as the prime characterization of his
mysticism. Presenting a few incidents from Francis' life, and then,
contrasting these with incidents from the life of St Seraphim of Sarov, it
will be possible to draw a final conclusion regarding the mysticism of these
two ascetics. It should be stated here that the example incidents chosen are
generally characteristic of the subjects.
It is recorded in the Fioretti that Francis at one time failed to fulfil the
rules of a strict fast because of an illness. This oppressed the ascetic's
conscience to such a degree that he decided to repent and punish himself.
The chronicle states:
... he commanded that the people be gathered on the street in Assisi for a
sermon. When he had finished the sermon, he told the people that no one
should leave until he returned; he himself went into the cathedral with many
brethren and with Peter de Catani and told Peter to do what he would tell
him to do according to his vow of obedience and without objecting. The
latter answered that he could not and should not desire or do anything
against his [Francis'] will either to him or to himself. Then Francis took
off his outer robe and ordered Peter to put a rope around his neck and lead
him half-naked out to the people to the very place from which he had
preached. Francis commanded another brother to fill a cup with ashes and,
having climbed up onto the eminence from which he had preached, to pour
these ashes on his head. This one, however, did not obey him, since he was
so distressed by this order because of his compassion and devotion to
Francis. But Brother Peter took the rope in his hands and began dragging
Francis behind him as the latter had commanded. He himself cried bitterly
during this, and the other brothers were bathed in tears from pity and
grief. When Francis had thus been led half-naked before the people to the
place from which he had preached, he said, 'You and all who have left the
world after my example and follow the way of life of the brethren consider
me a holy man, but before the Lord and you I repent because during this
sickness of mine I ate meat and meat drippings'. [23]
Of course Francis' sin was not so great and hardly deserved the dramatic
form of penance in which Francis clothed his repentance, but such was a
general characteristic of Francis' piety. He strove to idealize everything
which an ascetic was obliged to do; he strove also to idealize the very
ascetic act of repentance.
Francis' idealization of Christian acts of asceticism can also be noted in
his relationship to the act of almsgiving. This can be seen in the way
Francis reacted to beggars. In Francis' eyes beggars were creatures of a
very high stature in comparison to other people. In the view of this Roman
Catholic mystic, a beggar was the bearer of a sacred mission, being an image
of the poor, wandering Christ. Therefore, in his instructions Francis
obliges his disciples to beg for alms. [24]
Finally, Francis' idealized enthusiasm was especially revealed in his
recollections of Christ's earthly suffering. In the biography of Francis it
says that, "being drunk with love and compassion for Christ, blessed Francis
once picked up a piece of wood off the ground and, taking it in his left
hand, he rubbed his right hand over it as if it were a bow over a violin,
while humming a French song about the Lord Jesus Christ. This singing ended
with tears of pity over Christ's suffering, and with earnest sighs, Francis,
falling into a trance, gazed at the sky...." [25]
There can be no doubt, as even Francis' biographers euphemistically attest,
that this important founder of the Franciscan Order was demonstrative in his
acts of repentance, revealing quite graphically the absence of a critical
degree of watchfulness necessary in the ascetic life for the acquisition of
true humility. As a matter of fact, whenever indications of Francis'
humility are expounded upon in the Fioretti they are never lacking in a
compromising presumptuousness whether God allegedly speaks to him, as an
example, through the mouth of Brother Leon, [26] or when he presumes that he
has been chosen by God "to see good and evil everywhere," when tested by
Brother Masseo for his humility. [27] It is true that Francis describes his
vileness and wretchedness, but there is lacking in all this any attendant
remorse, or contrition that would indicate that he considered himself
unworthy before God. Although he frequently spoke of the necessity of
humility, and gave the Franciscan brethren useful instruction in this
regard, he himself throughout his life experienced this only in isolated
fits, albeit very strong ones; it came in fits not entirely free, as
indicated above, from exaggeration and melodrama. Nothing can be so
revealing in this matter, however, as his own statements to the brethren. At
one time he was to say to his disciples, "I do not recognize any
transgression in myself for which I could not atone by confession and
penance. For the Lord in His mercy has bestowed on me the gift of learning
clearly in prayer in what I have pleased or displeased Him." [28] These
words, of course, are far from genuine humility. They suggest, rather, the
speech of that virtuous man who was satisfied with himself (the Pharisee)
who, in the parable, stood in the temple, while the Publican prostrated
himself in a corner, begging God in words of true humility: "God be merciful
to me a sinner."
When Francis' acts of "humility" are compared with St Seraphim's thousand
day struggle on the rock, a stark contrast results. There, while in battle
with his passions, [29] St Seraphim cried out the very words of the Publican
over and over again: "0 God be merciful to me a sinner." In this feat there
is neither exaltation, nor ostentatious display. Saint Seraphim is simply
having recourse to the only possible means open to him for forgiveness
after, a. recognition of his passions; b. a contrition welling forth from
his remorse over his spiritual condition; c. a need to overcome the
passions; d. his awareness of his inability and unworthiness to accomplish
this alone and; e. his long and arduous appeal to God for mercy.
Even during his last years, when Saint Seraphim experienced many perceptions
of extra-ordinary spiritual strength, as well as direct communion with God,
he never succumbed to self-satisfaction, or self-adulation. This is quite
apparent in his now famous conversation with N. Motovilov,[30] as well as
during his talk with the monk John when he manifested, through the Grace of
God, an unusual luminosity. Indeed, Saint Seraphim was unable to express the
state of the latter luminosity in his own words. Also, it is well known that
Saint Seraphim was the bearer of an extraordinary gift of clairvoyance as
well as of prophetic vision. The hearts of people who came to him were an
open book to him, yet not once does he compromise the extraordinary gifts he
has received with any display of self-importance or conceit. His statements
and acts (in contrast -to those of Francis of Assisi- Francis' consciousness
was that he had atoned for his sins and was pleasing to God) are in
consonance with what the ascetics detail in the Philokalia, about the humble
man. In the words of St Isaac the Syrian:
The truly righteous always think within themselves that they are unworthy of
God. And that they are truly righteous is recognized from the fact that they
acknowledge themselves to be wretched and unworthy of God's concern and
confess this secretly and openly and are brought to this by the Holy Spirit
so that they will not remain without the solicitude and labour which is
appropriate for them while they are in this life. [31]
Francis' emotional impulses toward humility, similar to the above mentioned
incident in the square of Assisi, were in general rare manifestations.
Usually his humility appeared not as a feeling, but as a rational
recognition of his weak powers in comparison to the Divine Power of Christ.
This was clearly stated in his vision on Monte La Verna when, "two great
lights," as it says in the chronicle, "appeared before Francis: one in which
he recognized the Creator, and the other in which he recognized himself. And
at that moment, seeing this, he prayed: Lord! What am I before You? What
meaning have I, an insignificant worm of the earth, Your insignificant
servant, in comparison to Your strength?" By his own acknowledgement,
Francis, at that moment, was submerged in contemplation in which he saw the
endless depth of the Divine Mercy and the abyss of his own nothingness.
Needless to point out, it is the first declaration of the "two great
lights," that manifestly bares the cognitive character of his subsequent
query addressed to God which, in essence, is a very daring process of
comparison. There appears, therefore, a severe contradiction in the passage
that cannot be compared in any sense to the lucid scriptural or patristic
accounts regarding humility.
St Seraphim's humility, as noted, was not so much a rational consciousness
of his sins, but a constant deeply felt emotion. In his teachings, both oral
and written, nowhere does it say that he compared himself to the Divinity,
drawing conclusions from this regarding his spiritual status. He constantly
gave himself up only to a single emotional impulse: the feeling of his own
unworthiness (imperfection) which resulted in heartfelt contrition. Theophan
the Recluse, a Russian ascetic of the Orthodox Church, expressed the sense
of this thus: "The Lord accepts only the man who approaches Him with a
feeling of sinfulness. Therefore, he rejects anyone who approaches Him with
a feeling of righteousness." [32]
If, as a result of the above, one were to draw a conclusion about Francis'
humility on the basis of the ascetic prescriptions for monastics regarding
humility in the Philokalia, then the Latin mystic does not appear as the
ideal of Christian humility. A substantial dose of his own righteousness was
added to his consciousness that he was pleasing to God. Something similar,
from an Orthodox analysis of Francis' mysticism, may be applied from Lev
Tolstoy's story Father Serge: "He [the ascetic Serge] thought," says
Tolstoy, "about how he was a burning lamp, and the more he felt this, the
more he felt a weakening, a quenching of the spiritual light of truth
burning in him." [33]
Recalling St Nilos' warning, mentioned before, this sad evaluation of the
spiritual results of Francis' asceticism is corollary, or more to the point,
is an antecedent plani to the severe beguilement he underwent on Monte La
Verna, where he announced that he had become a great luminary.
Thus, Francis' consciousness that he also was "a light," that he had the
gift to know how to be pleasing to God, meets with the dour pronouncement of
the father of the ascetic life, Antony the Great, who states that if there
is not extreme humility in a person, humility of the whole heart, soul and
body, then he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. [34] St Antony's
affirmation recognizes that only deep humility can root out the evil mental
power leading to self-affirmation and self-satisfaction. Only such humility
entering into the very flesh and blood of the ascetic can, according to the
sense of the teaching of the Orthodox Christian ascetics, save him from the
obsessive associations of prideful human thought.
Humility is the essential power which can restrain the lower mind with its
mental passions, [35] creating in a man's soul the soil for the unhindered
development of the higher mind, [36] and from there, through the Grace of
God, to the highest level of the ascetic life-knowledge of God.
"The man wise in humility," says St Isaac the Syrian, "is the source of the
mysteries of the new age." [37]
CONCLUSION
The chief cause which obfuscated the path of Francis' ascetic life may be
attributed to the fundamental condition of the Roman Catholic Church in
which Francis was nurtured and trained. In the conditions of that time and
in the conditions of the Roman Church itself, true humility could not be
formed in the consciousness of the people. The "Vicar of Christ on earth"
himself with his pretensions not only to spiritual, but also to temporal
authority, was a representative of spiritual pride. Spiritual pride greater
than the conviction of one's own infallibility cannot be imagined. [38] This
basic flaw could not but affect Francis' spirituality, as well as the
spirituality of Roman Catholics in general. Like the Pope, therefore,
Francis suffered from spiritual pride. This is very evident in his farewell
address to the Franciscans when he said: "Now God is calling me, and I
forgive all my brethren, both those present and those absent, their offenses
and their errors and remit their sins as far as it is in my power." [39]
These words reveal that on his death bed, Francis felt himself to be
powerful enough to remit sins like the Pope. It is known that the remission
of sins outside the Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist in the Roman
Church was a prerogative of papal power. [40] Francis' assumption of this
prerogative could only have been with the assurance of his own sanctity.
In contrast, the ascetics of Holy Orthodoxy never allowed themselves to
appropriate the right of remitting sins. They all died in the consciousness
of their own imperfection and with the hope that God in His Mercy would
forgive them of their sins. It suffices to recall the words of the great
fifth century Thebaid ascetic Saint Sisoe in support of this. Surrounded at
the moment of his impending repose, by his brethren, he appeared to be
conversing with unseen persons, as the chronicle relates, and the brethren
asked: "Father, tell us with whom you are carrying on a conversation?" St
Sisoe answered, "They are angels who have come to take me, but I am praying
them to leave me for a short time so that I may repent." When the brethren,
knowing that Sisoe was perfect in virtue, responded, "You have no need of
repentance, father," the Saint answered, "Truly I do not know if I have even
begun to repent." [41]
Finally, as evidenced in the preceding paragraphs, the mysticism of Francis
of Assisi reveals that this highly regarded founder of the Franciscan Order
moved progressively in his life in a growing condition of plani from the
time he heard the command to renew the Roman Catholic Church, through the
extraordinary vision of the Crucified Christ on Monte La Verna and until the
time of his death. As startling as it may appear to some, he bore many
characteristics which are prototypical of Antichrist, who will also be seen
as chaste, virtuous, highly moral, full of love and compassion, and who will
be regarded as holy (even as a deity) by people who have allowed carnal
romanticism to replace the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Church.
The sad fact is that the attainment of a true spiritual relationship with
Christ was never a possibility for Francis, for being outside the Church of
Christ, it was impossible that he could have received Divine Grace, or any
of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. His gifts were from another spirit.
Endnotes
1. Guerier, V., Francis, pp 312-313.
2. Seventeen year old Luisa Lato, usually enjoying complete good health,
fell into a condition of ecstasy every Friday; blood flowed from her left
side, and on her hands and feet were wounds exactly corresponding to the
position of the wounds on the body of the crucified Saviour, in the form of
the wounds depicted on crucifixes.
3. Guerier, pp 314-315.
4. Ibid., p 308.
5. Dumas, G., "La Stigmatisation chez les mystiques cretiens," Revue des
deux Mondes, 1 May 1907; in Guerier, pp 315-317.
6. Guerier, p 315.
7. According to the Orthodox, the Cross was not a necessity imposed on God,
nor was the blood of the Only-begotten Son a source of satisfaction to God
the Father, as the Latin Scholastics teach. The matter of "satisfying the
Divine Justice of God" is a phrase nowhere to be found in the Scriptures,
nor in the writings of the Church Fathers, but was a fabrication of Anselm
of Canterbury (ca 1100) which was developed by Thomas Aquinas to become the
official soteriological doctrine in the Latin West. (compare this with
Athanasius the Great, The Incarnation of the Word of God).
8. It will be evident from the comparison in this paper that "mysticism'' in
the Orthodox Church is beyond all sensory as well as all rational
categories. The normative for this in the ascetic life is dispassion, or
detachment from all needs, feelings and even, ultimately, thoughts, positive
or negative (compare, Abba Evagrios to Anatolios, cited above, p 9).
9. See the life of St Isaaky the Recluse of the Kiev-Caves, God's Fools.
Synaxis Press, Chilliwack, B.C., Canada, 1976, p 21.
10. Hyperconsciousness, p 292-293, 2nd ed.
11. Kadloubovsky, E. and Palmer, G., Early Fathers from the Philokalia, "St
Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training," Faber and Faber, London,
1959. (hereafter referred to as Early Fathers).
12. Early Fathers, p 140, paragraphs 114, 115, 116.
13. Saint Seraphim of Sarov, pp 61-62 (Rus. ed.), cited in the notes
translated from the Russian, see above.
14. Philokalia, Vol 3, p 322, para 103 (Greek ed.).
15. Early Fathers, p 297, 47.
16. Op. cit., p 105, para 71.
17. Works of St. Isaac the Syrian, 3rd ed., Sermon 8, p 37.
18. Philokalia, Vol 2, p 467, para 49. Here we must note that the quoted
dictum of St Isaac the Syrian-that a spiritual vision is unexpected-should
not be understood as an absolute law for all instances of such visions. By
way of an exception to the cited dictum, but as completely exceptional
phenomena, certain holy ascetics have had such unusual visions which were
anticipated by them; but they had a presentiment as an unconscious prophecy,
as a prophecy about what unavoidably must happen. Such an exceptional
instance, as it were, a prophecy of a miracle which was going to happen,
occurred with St Serge of Radonezh at the end of his life. This instance is
described in detail in the Russian work, Hyperconsciousness, p 377. (The
bibliography was not available to the author. It was cited in the notes
translated from the Russian, see above.)
19. See footnote 13, Ch 1, pp 13-22.
20. "Go by two's to various regions of the earth, preaching peace to people
and repentance for the remission of sins." Guerier, p 27 (cf Mk.6:7-12.)
21. Guerier, p 115.
22. Khrapovitsky, Antony, Confession: A Series of Lectures on the Mystery of
Repentance. Holy Trinity Monastery Press, Jordanville, N.Y., 1975.
23. Guerier, p 127 (our emphasis).
24. Op. cit., p 129.
25. Op. cit., pp 103-104.
26. Brown, Raphael, The Little Flowers of St. Francis. Image Books, Garden
City, N.Y., 1958, p 60.
27. Ibid., p 63.
28. Guerier, p 124.
29. The word passions, as used here, denotes all the contranatural impulses
of man (pride, vanity, envy, hatred, greed, jealousy, etc.) that resulted
after the disobedience and fall of the forefathers.
30. Motovilov, N.A., A Conversation of St. Seraphim. St Nectarios Press,
Seattle, 1973 (reprint).
31. Works of St. Isaac the Syrian, 3rd ed., Sermon 36, p 155.
32. Collected Letters of Bishop Theophan, 2nd part, Letter 261, p 103.
33. Posthumus Artistic Works of L. Tolstoy, Vol 2, p 30.
34. Philokalia, Vol 1, p 33.
35. Hyperconsciousness, On Mental Passions, 2nd ed., pp 65-74.
36. See above, On the Lower and Higher Minds, pp 6-23.
37. Works of St. Isaac the Syrian, p 37.
38. Compare Dostoevsky, The Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov.
39. Sabbatier, p 352.
40. In the 15th century, Luther protested against this prerogative as
expressed in the practice of granting indulgences.
41. Lives of Saints, Book 11, pp 119-120.
Originally printed in Synaxis: Orthodox Christian Theology in the 20th
Century, Vol. 2, pp. 39-56. Authored by the now-reposed George Macris, who
was a Priest in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in Portland, Oregon at
the time of this writing. Synaxis is published by the New-Ostrog Monastery
in Canada.
+ + +
Francis of Assisi
In the OCA, we have a strong devotion to St. Francis of Assisi, and a lot of
us have Icons of him....Your bishop's opposition to this great Christian
figure is strange. I read a statement in which he said that while he enjoyed
some of the poetry of St. Francis, that he was not a Saint and was
spiritually deluded. No Orthodox writer of father ever said anything like
that. Nicholas Zernov once compared St. Francis to St. Seraphim of Sarov.
Your bishop's views are not traditional, it seems to me, and you are the
real innovators. (M.P., NY)
The Orthodox Church does not include Francis of Assisi among its Saints. He
was a fanatic Papist, lived after the separation of the Roman Catholic
Church from Orthodoxy, and practiced a romantic and emotional spirituality
foreign to genuine Orthodox spiritual traditions. One can indeed appreciate
the literature attributed to Francis, as Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna has
rightly pointed out, but devotion to him, let alone in the form of the
veneration of his "Icons," is wholly un-Orthodox. We would hope that what
you say about such in the OCA is exaggerated; if not, perhaps that
jurisdiction's Greek Catholic roots are showing and need, to be sure, some
trimming.
With regard to the Fathers of the Church, among whom no sober individual
has-whatever his opinion of the man-ever included Nicholas Zernov, Francis
of Assisi is not held in high esteem in Patristic writings.
Characteristically, St. Ignaty (Brianchaninov), the famous ascetic Bishop
recently Glorified by the Moscow Patriarchate, speaks of Francis' life in
the context of spiritual delusion:
'When Francis was caught up to heaven,' says a writer of his life, 'God the
Father, on seeing him, was for a moment in doubt to as [sic] to whom to give
the preference, to His Son by nature or to His son by grace-Francis.' What
can be more frightful or madder than this blasphemy, what can be sadder than
this delusion[?]! [The Arena, Ch. 11]
For several centuries, various Orthodox intellectuals-among them, Nikos
Kazantzakis (1885-1957), the famous Greek writer, and numerous Slavic men of
letters (e.g., S. Sitianovich [1629-16701, L. Tolstoy [1828-1910], and many
of the "Paris School" in the twentieth century)-have succumbed to the lure
of a theatrical and romantic Western vision of sanctity largely unknown in
the pre-Schism East or West (except as a symptom of spiritual delusion), but
perfectly captured in the cultus of Francis of Assisi. Not only have these
individuals contributed to the distortion of our Orthodox Faith, a
distortion which still plagues the Church, but have sometimes betrayed the
Church and lost their personal Faith. The kind of splenetic firmness that
your question shows in calling untraditional Archbishop Chrysostomos' wholly
traditional outlook on Francis of Assisi, we are obliged to say, is a first
step in the process by which these individuals came to spiritual ruin. We
would ask you and all those with a personal, emotional commitment-and
especially a peevish one-to post-Schism Western notions of sanctity and to
post-Schism Western "saints" to reflect on this observation.
Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 2, 41-42.
john j
entire East including all the patriarchs were .Some of these criticisms
are a bit lame.
john j
The Julian Calendar is an abomination . It glorifies a Pagan God, for
christians to elevate such a thing is a blatent Violation of the First
Commandment !
( You wanted to be technical )
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Unitarians are HERETICS..
Protestants and Catholics are HETERODOX..
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
Bill McHale
> "Cunneen" <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041014214139...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> > >I would like for someone to explain some of the basic deifferences
> > >between East and West Christianity.
> >
> > There are no basic differences.
>
> ***Well, that's not really true. Read on.
>
> http://www.stxenia.org/wayapart/index.html
>
The article was interesting, thanks for posting it, but I have one
question, the way it is written it seems to indicate that Orthodox
believe that an individual saves themselves through the practice of
self denial?
Catholics believe that self denial is important, but we also believe
that self denial and service to others is pointless and indeed may not
even be possible.
So I guess my specific question is, what exactly is the role that
Christ and Grace play in the equation for the Orthodox?
--
Bill
amicus
> http://aggreen.net/theotokos/orig_sin.html
>
Nice website.
Al
"amicus" <mat...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:e775934e.04102...@posting.google.com...
***Thanks. Go to the main page for my site:
Orthodox Church and Bible Study Links
http://aggreen.net/orth_links/orthlink.html
amicus
Already bookmarked. Thanks.
learner
There was no agreement on this issue in the early Church.
Leo I, the Bishop of Rome from [440-461 A.D.], rejected the notion
that anybody but Christ was sinless saying: "Alone therefore among the
sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because alone conceived
without pollution of carnal concupiscence."
The early Fathers taught that Mary had sinned. Even Roman Catholic
historians and theologians admit this, including the great Catholic
historian Dr. Ludwig Ott, who writes that: "individual Greek Fathers
(Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary
suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity...."
Tertullian [On the Flesh of Christ, 7], Basil [Epistle 260], John
Chrysostom [Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44], and
many other Church Fathers clearly denied that Mary was sinless.
Also, several Roman bishops denied that Mary was sinless. Some argue
that Mary was sinless because Justin Martyr and Tertullian referred to
her as a "Second Eve". However, this does not prove that these men
viewed her as sinless. In fact, Tertullian viewed Mary as a "Second
Eve" and as a sinner.
The sinlessness of Mary mythology really got going with Anslem and his
student Eadmer. However, this idea was not accepted as dogma by the
Church of Rome until in 1854 by Pius IX - who by all historical
accounts was insane. Even Saints Lombard, Aquinas, and Bonaventure
regarded the whole issue as complete nonsense. They reasoned that
since Mary was conceived in the ordinary way, she could not have been
exempt/immune from sin.
This absurdity reached its peak in the 15th century, when Bernardino
of Siena proclaimed that Mary actually did more for God than God did
for man.
My problem with the whole argument is : if Mary, a mortal woman born
of mortal parents could have lived a sinless life, then she would be
greater than Jesus Christ who was born fully God and fully man.
Therefore, Mary would have received great praise and attention from
the Apostles and the early Church Fathers. However, neither the
Apostles nor early Fathers deem her worthy of mention for anything
other than the fact of the Virgin Birth - and Paul does not mention
her at all.
Learner
Al
understanding of Orthodox teaching on Mary.
Al
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04102...@posting.google.com...
brachypodium
learner
> ***Hold those thought, O Learned One. They show a total lack of
> understanding of Orthodox teaching on Mary.
So, as is often the case, you have no response?
Learner
learner
> ***Hold those thought, O Learned One. They show a total lack of
> understanding of Orthodox teaching on Mary.
So, as is often the case, you have no response?
Learner
learner
> ***Hold those thought, O Learned One. They show a total lack of
> understanding of Orthodox teaching on Mary.
So, as is often the case, you have no response?
Learner
brachypodium
Al failed his exams because he thought that if he wrote down the title of an
essay, that would be enough. He went to the Joe Stalin school of theology.
Al
***No for or to you. I've long since learned that you are only interested in
arguing, not enlightenment. Besides, all of your "core" beliefs and
arguments have already been shot full of holes. There is nothing left to
discredit you about and/or over.
Al
Joe Orthodox
name-dropping of Church Fathers just like you did a few weeks ago
claiming most of 'em didn't believe in the real presence. The BS alarm
goes off every time you invoke a Church Father without providing a source.
learner wrote:
> My problem with the whole argument is : if Mary, a mortal woman born
> of mortal parents could have lived a sinless life, then she would be
> greater than Jesus Christ who was born fully God and fully man.
> Therefore, Mary would have received great praise and attention from
> the Apostles and the early Church Fathers. However, neither the
> Apostles nor early Fathers deem her worthy of mention for anything
> other than the fact of the Virgin Birth - and Paul does not mention
> her at all.
>
> Learner
This is hilarious. Once again you make use of the fallacy of argumentum
ex siletio. You were spanked several times over this exact same virgin
birth rant of yours, and you continue in your attempt at this air ball.
Moreover, you continue making this hint that the virgin birth is a
false doctrine, even though it is in the Nicene Creed, a statement that
if denied makes you a heretic, which you've agreed with.
You just can't get away from the spankings.
Read from Wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
"The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics
against the virgin birth of Christ. St Paul, for example, does not
mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence
that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted
proof of Paul's ignorance, it is a logical fallacy, because ignorance is
only one possible reason for Paul's silence: it's also possible that he
did not think the virgin birth was important or relevant to his
reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost or
mutilated. However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is
used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant. From the fact that Paul
refers to the resurrection, it is certain that he knew of it; from the
fact that Paul does not refer to the virgin birth, it is not certain
that he knew of it, therefore he may have been ignorant of it."
LEARNER... THIS IS THE EXACT SAME FALLACY ABOUT THE VIRGIN BIRTH YOU'VE
USED IN SEVERAL POSTS!!
Al
"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:_x%dd.191613$nA6.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Ahhhh, here we go again with your made up nonsense, engaging in
> name-dropping of Church Fathers just like you did a few weeks ago
> claiming most of 'em didn't believe in the real presence. The BS alarm
> goes off every time you invoke a Church Father without providing a source.
>
> learner wrote:
>
> > My problem with the whole argument is : if Mary, a mortal woman born
> > of mortal parents could have lived a sinless life, then she would be
> > greater than Jesus Christ who was born fully God and fully man.
> > Therefore, Mary would have received great praise and attention from
> > the Apostles and the early Church Fathers. However, neither the
> > Apostles nor early Fathers deem her worthy of mention for anything
> > other than the fact of the Virgin Birth - and Paul does not mention
> > her at all.
> >
> > Learner
>
> This is hilarious. Once again you make use of the fallacy of argumentum
> ex siletio. You were spanked several times over this exact same virgin
> birth rant of yours, and you continue in your attempt at this air ball.
> Moreover, you continue making this hint that the virgin birth is a
> false doctrine, even though it is in the Nicene Creed, a statement that
> if denied makes you a heretic, which you've agreed with.
>
> You just can't get away from the spankings.
***For some people, spankings are a sexual experience!!
learner
> Ahhhh, here we go again with your made up nonsense, engaging in
> name-dropping of Church Fathers just like you did a few weeks ago
> claiming most of 'em didn't believe in the real presence. The BS alarm
> goes off every time you invoke a Church Father without providing a source.
Your reading comprehension problem is showing again. I did provide a
couple of sources:
> Tertullian [On the Flesh of Christ, 7], Basil [Epistle 260], John
> Chrysostom [Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44], and
> many other Church Fathers clearly denied that Mary was sinless.
> learner wrote:
> > My problem with the whole argument is : if Mary, a mortal woman born
> > of mortal parents could have lived a sinless life, then she would be
> > greater than Jesus Christ who was born fully God and fully man.
> > Therefore, Mary would have received great praise and attention from
> > the Apostles and the early Church Fathers. However, neither the
> > Apostles nor early Fathers deem her worthy of mention for anything
> > other than the fact of the Virgin Birth - and Paul does not mention
> > her at all.
> > Learner
>
> This is hilarious. Once again you make use of the fallacy of argumentum
> ex siletio. You were spanked several times over this exact same virgin
> birth rant of yours, and you continue in your attempt at this air ball.
This response has nothing to do with the virgin birth and little to do
with the fallacy of argumentum ex siletio. If Mary [a mortal woman]
lived a sinless life, then she is greater than Jesus who was born
fully God and fully man.
> Moreover, you continue making this hint that the virgin birth is a
> false doctrine, even though it is in the Nicene Creed, a statement that
> if denied makes you a heretic, which you've agreed with.
I did not say that it was a false doctrine. I said that it was a
doctrine which developed over time. Matthew saw the virgin birth as
the fulfillment of the words of the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin
shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel
(which means, God with us)"
Sadly, this was not what Isaiah really said. He said, to Ahza, the
'almah, ["young woman"] was pregnant and would give birth. The
original Hebrew text was not set in the future, contrary to the Greek
text that Matthew used.
Mark, Paul, and even John, say nothing about it at all.
> You just can't get away from the spankings.
You middle age guys creep me out!
> Read from Wikepedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
> "The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics
> against the virgin birth of Christ.
Then you can argue for any belief. Mary had a pet pink unicorn, for
example. The virgin birth is a matter of faith. No one can possibly
prove, or disprove, that a woman who lived 2000 years ago was, or was
not, a virgin. A the evidence is strong that she did not remain a
virgin, having other children.
Learner
Al
>
> Then you can argue for any belief. Mary had a pet pink unicorn, for
> example. The virgin birth is a matter of faith. No one can possibly
> prove, or disprove, that a woman who lived 2000 years ago was, or was
> not, a virgin. A the evidence is strong that she did not remain a
> virgin, having other children.
>
> Learner
***Read the pseudo-gospel (protoevangelium) of St. James as an historical
document and you'll learn that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were the
widower St. Joseph the Betrothed's children from his marriage.
***You'll also learn the names of the Blesed Sinless Virgin's mother and
father.
brachypodium
That's it. In order of importance: Father, Mother, Holy Spirit, Son. Or, in
short: Man, God.
brachypodium
>
> "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c53bb03c.04102...@posting.google.com...
>
>>
>> Then you can argue for any belief. Mary had a pet pink unicorn, for
>> example. The virgin birth is a matter of faith. No one can possibly
>> prove, or disprove, that a woman who lived 2000 years ago was, or was
>> not, a virgin. A the evidence is strong that she did not remain a
>> virgin, having other children.
>>
>> Learner
>
>
> ***Read the pseudo-gospel (protoevangelium) of St. James as an historical
> document and you'll learn that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were
> the
> widower St. Joseph the Betrothed's children from his marriage.<
Throw in the Qur'an while you're at it.
Joe Orthodox
>
> Then you can argue for any belief. Mary had a pet pink unicorn, for
> example. The virgin birth is a matter of faith. No one can possibly
> prove, or disprove, that a woman who lived 2000 years ago was, or was
> not, a virgin. A the evidence is strong that she did not remain a
> virgin, having other children.
>
> Learner
Read carefully, Lerner: The issue of the virgin birth is not the issue
of perpetual virginity. Once again, you're unable to put forth a
coherent thought.
All you’ve done is reposted previous fallacious harangues, which were
already exposed for the nonsense they are. You’ve repeated the same
rants, misquotes, invented quotes, logical fallacies (i.e. argumentum ex
siletio, poisoning the well, and the fallacies of division and
composition being your favorites) for two years. And yet… you go on
raving in the newsgroup of a religion that you claim to have left,
letting loose nothing but one erroneous invective after another
demonstrating a profound ignorance of the Orthodox faith, and your newly
adopted Nondenominational religion in your Calvary Chapel club which is
nothing more than a hybrid between Baptist and Pentecostal theology.
When a ridiculous comment of yours is exposed for what it is, what do
you do? Dishonestly snip posts, divert the topics, start new threads on
the same topics hoping to run from your spankings, whine, complain,
evade, fail to offer a consistent and coherent viewpoint, in general do
everything but carry on the semblance of reasonable dialogue. Continue
doing it. Your credibility is in tatters.
The spanking you’d like to escape…
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=fW%256d.48827%24B51.21554%40twister.rdc-kc.rr.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl3004416507d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3DfW%25256d.48827%2524B51.21554%2540twister.rdc-kc.rr.com%26rnum%3D1
Here’s the easy-as-pie, peasant’s prayer magic that “saves” which you’d
like to pretend isn’t your theology…
http://www.calvarychapel.com/gospel/
"Jesus is everywhere all the time. He can hear you now if you ask Him
for forgiveness. Please turn your life over to Him NOW. Time slips by so
quickly, don't miss this opportunity. If you want to pray and ask Jesus
to be your Savior, you can say a prayer something like this:
'Jesus, I know that I have sinned against you. I know the truth is that
I have sinned by my own choice, and I am the one responsible for it. I
know that I have earned punishment from You, and that the fair
punishment would be death. Jesus, I believe that You died in my place.
Forgive me for my sin. I cannot cover or take my sin away, I am relying
totally and only on You. You are the only one who can save me. I reject
my sin, I turn away from it, I repent. Come into my life, take away my
sin, and show me how to live my life in a way that is right and pleasing
to You.'
If you have prayed this, YOU ARE SAVED! You are now completely forgiven,
a new creation, innocent in the eyes of God. Welcome to the family of God!"
learner
> ***Read the pseudo-gospel (protoevangelium) of St. James as an historical
> document and you'll learn that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were the
> widower St. Joseph the Betrothed's children from his marriage.
It is called a pseudo-gospel for a reason. The fact is, the Church
does not, and never has considered it as Scripture.
> ***You'll also learn the names of the Blesed Sinless Virgin's mother and
> father.
The Orthodox Church aggressively (mis)interprets the Bible through
what is known as the "Epiphanian View" [named after a Bishop of
Salamis named Epiphanius (c315-403 A.D.)]. Epiphanius came up with
the idea that the brothers and sisters mentioned in the gospels were
children of Joseph from a prior marriage.
This opinion is based on the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James,
which you mentioned. The Protoevangelium of James is a mid second
century work which had an unhealthy fascination with Mary's post
partum virginity. According to this tale, Joseph was an old widower
with children when the chief priest "entrusted" the twelve year old
Mary to his care.
The Epiphanian viewpoint suffers from two irreconcilable problems:
1. The Protoevangelium was written by someone who had absolutely no
knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs. It is a very
bad conflation of Matthew and Luke. No scholar takes this work
seriously and it was clearly written by someone who was not an
eyewitness nor someone who had any access to reliable tradition.
2. In Luke 2:6-7, the fact that Jesus was Mary's firstborn loses much
of its meaning if He was also not Joseph's first born. After all,
inheriting the kingdom of David must go to the eldest in the family.
Therefore if Jesus had elder brothers through Joseph's previous
marriage, Luke's wording is meaningless. Luke wrote this passage
because he knew of no tradition that Jesus had an older brother.
Of course, if we want to take this to any even more absurd level, we
can go to the Hieronymian View which teaches that Joseph was also an
"eternal virgin."!
It is interesting to note that The Protevangelium appears in history
sometime in the 200s and only in Egypt. This is the same period of
history and place which gave birth to monasticism.
The Protevangelium, and its depiction of Mary, was used by ascetics to
glorify asceticism. Some of the most notable proponents of Mary's
semper virgo were also leaders of the asceticist movement including
Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Augustine, and
Ambrose.
They all used this unnatural and historically inaccurate view of Mary
to teach that virginity was "superior" to marriage.
This is why I always insist on looking at the history behind what is
being taught by any Church. One can easily see how untruth can
squeeze out the truth.
Learner
learner
> > ***Read the pseudo-gospel (protoevangelium) of St. James as an historical
> > document and you'll learn that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were
> > the
> > widower St. Joseph the Betrothed's children from his marriage.<
>
> Throw in the Qur'an while you're at it.
You raise a very interesting point.
The Qur'an's account of Christ's birth is based on the same apocryphal
"gospels" which the Orthodox use. Muhammad most likely heard from the
many heretical Christian sects in the Hijaz (Arabia). If you have
time, read Sura 3:35-38 and compare it to the earlier "The
Protevangelium of James" and the "Arabic Gospel of the Infancy" to see
how these strange myths evolved, first in Orthodoxy, and then it
Islam.
Learner
learner
> learner wrote:
> > Then you can argue for any belief. Mary had a pet pink unicorn, for
> > example. The virgin birth is a matter of faith. No one can possibly
> > prove, or disprove, that a woman who lived 2000 years ago was, or was
> > not, a virgin. A the evidence is strong that she did not remain a
> > virgin, having other children.
> >
> > Learner
>
> Read carefully, Lerner: The issue of the virgin birth is not the issue
> of perpetual virginity.
I never said that it was.
> Once again, you're unable to put forth a
> coherent thought.
And once again you prove that you cannot understand a discussion, and
most certainly cannot provide an intelligent answer.
Learner
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<rrbed.2149$Df1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>>learner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>Then you can argue for any belief. Mary had a pet pink unicorn, for
>>>example. The virgin birth is a matter of faith. No one can possibly
>>>prove, or disprove, that a woman who lived 2000 years ago was, or was
>>>not, a virgin. A the evidence is strong that she did not remain a
>>>virgin, having other children.
>>>
>>>Learner
>>
>>Read carefully, Lerner: The issue of the virgin birth is not the issue
>>of perpetual virginity.
>
>
> I never said that it was.
Prove to me you never said that it was.
>>Once again, you're unable to put forth a
>>coherent thought.
>
>
> And once again you prove that you cannot understand a discussion, and
> most certainly cannot provide an intelligent answer.
>
> Learner
You can say it, but you haven't shown otherwise. I've obeyed simple
rules of logic in my posts, I provided accurate quotes, and I haven't
made false claims about what a Church Father wrote.
Joe Orthodox
> "Al" <A_G_G@no_spam.net> wrote in message news:<clav8...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>
>
>>***Read the pseudo-gospel (protoevangelium) of St. James as an historical
>>document and you'll learn that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were the
>>widower St. Joseph the Betrothed's children from his marriage.
>
>
> It is called a pseudo-gospel for a reason. The fact is, the Church
> does not, and never has considered it as Scripture.
Oh, really? "Who" calls it a pseudo-Gospel, Learner? Please answer
this question. I've asked you this before and you refuse to answer it.
By what standard do you judge a work to be pseudo-Gospel?
You've betrayed yourself big time with these words. What "Church" are
you referring to? What do you mean by "never?" Please explain
yourself. I will continue asking this until you answer. I would like
you to explain how you decided what constitutes Scripture, and what
doesn't. For example, you've written:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c53bb03c.0410120518.5c260e22%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlearner%2Bhermas%2Bscripture%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dalt.religion.christian.east-orthodox%26selm%3Dc53bb03c.0410120518.5c260e22%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1
"Hermas was consider as Scripture by Clement, Athanasius, and Rufinus.
It is also found in the Codex Sinaiticus in the Ethiopic Canon."
So is the Shepherd of Hermas Scripture? The Church never considered it
Scripture. Is the Didache Scripture? The Church never considered it
Scripture. So now are you going to say, "But... but... Saint XYZ
considered it inspired!" But then you can find Saint XYZ who believes
the Protoevangelium of James to be inspired. In fact, I bet you can
find more who such, than those who believe the Hermas to be inspired.
You refuse to put forth a coherent statement on what constitutes
Scripture, and how you arrived at that decision. This is important,
Learner, because everything else you believe about Christianity flows
from sola scriptura, but if you can't define it then the doctrine is
worthless.
> This is why I always insist on looking at the history behind what is
> being taught by any Church. One can easily see how untruth can
> squeeze out the truth.
>
> Learner
But you don't look at the history behind your Bapto-Nondenom doctrines.
This again goes against your ability to explain a consistent position.
For example, you claimed here and elsewhere:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c53bb03c.0308250647.3cf796c2%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlearner%2Bhermas%2Bscripture%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dalt.religion.christian.east-orthodox%26selm%3Dc53bb03c.0308250647.3cf796c2%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2
"Some of the early Church Fathers appear to be supporters of the
pre-tribulational rapture. Specifically, Hermas taught that believers
would escape the future great tribulation period (Hermas, Shepherd of
Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2). Irenaeus wrote: "And
therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up from
this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been
since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of
the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with
incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 29)."
You never provided any quotes from any Church Father showing they
supported pre-tribulational rapture. You invented this claim out of
thin air, then didn't "look at the history" being taught by your church.
In the _Shepherd of Hermas_ 4:2, which you claim shows this rapture,
actually says:
"Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say
to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is
coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart,
and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your
heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your
life in serving the Lord blamelessly."
But then the next passage (4:3) clarifies further:
"For as gold is tested by fire, and thus becomes useful, so are you
tested who dwell in it. Those, therefore, who continue steadfast, and
are put through the fire, will be purified by means of it. For as gold
casts away its dross, so also will ye cast away all sadness and
straitness, and will be made pure so as to fit into the building of the
tower. But the white part is the age that is to come, in which the elect
of God will dwell, since those elected by God to eternal life will be
spotless and pure. Wherefore cease not speaking these things into the
ears of the saints. This then is the type of the great tribulation that
is to come. If ye wish it, it will be nothing."
In other words, believers would have to endure the tribulation just like
everyone else.
What's further amazing is that you provide that quote repeatedly from
Irenaeus which says nothing about being whisked away to heaven, and
which also says believers will have to live through the tribulation.
You also never investigated the history of this statement from the
Calvary Chapel, your church:
http://www.calvarychapel.com/gospel/
"Jesus is everywhere all the time. He can hear you now if you ask Him
for forgiveness. Please turn your life over to Him NOW. Time slips by so
quickly, don't miss this opportunity. If you want to pray and ask Jesus
to be your Savior, you can say a prayer something like this:
'Jesus, I know that I have sinned against you. I know the truth is that
I have sinned by my own choice, and I am the one responsible for it. I
know that I have earned punishment from You, and that the fair
punishment would be death. Jesus, I believe that You died in my place.
Forgive me for my sin. I cannot cover or take my sin away, I am relying
totally and only on You. You are the only one who can save me. I reject
my sin, I turn away from it, I repent. Come into my life, take away my
sin, and show me how to live my life in a way that is right and pleasing
to You.'
If you have prayed this, YOU ARE SAVED! You are now completely forgiven,
a new creation, innocent in the eyes of God. Welcome to the family of God!"
This turns prayer into a talisman for salvation. It's a dangerous
deception.
Joe Orthodox
How do you judge a myth to be strange, or even that a story is a myth?
Which myths are you referring to? A virgin gave birth to a man? That
this man was born, died, and was resurrected? That this man is God?
Adam lived for several hundred years? Jonah being swallowed by a whale?
Moses parting the Red Sea? God creating the earth in seven days? Why
are these things not strange, but the idea that a woman remained a
virgin the rest of her life is strange and mythical? Your logic boggles
the mind.
You once again make a claim - the Koran provides an account based on the
Apocrypha - and you failed to back it up. Which books in the Apocrypha
talk about Christ's birth, Learner? The Protevangelium of James and the
Gospel of Infancy are not in the Apocrypha, nor are they in any Bible
used by the Orthodox Church. Read carefully, Learner: the Apocrypha is
composed of Old Testament material. They were written BEFORE the birth
of Christ!
Please explain you reasoning, Learner. You want others to take
seriously your historical scholarship. Here's your chance.
Joe
Al
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.0410...@posting.google.com...
Al
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04102...@posting.google.com...
Al
> learner wrote:
> Here’s the easy-as-pie, peasant’s prayer magic that “saves” which you’d
> like to pretend isn’t your theology…
> http://www.calvarychapel.com/gospel/
>
> "Jesus is everywhere all the time. He can hear you now if you ask Him
> for forgiveness. Please turn your life over to Him NOW. Time slips by so
> quickly, don't miss this opportunity. If you want to pray and ask Jesus
> to be your Savior, you can say a prayer something like this:
>
> 'Jesus, I know that I have sinned against you. I know the truth is that
> I have sinned by my own choice, and I am the one responsible for it. I
> know that I have earned punishment from You, and that the fair
> punishment would be death. Jesus, I believe that You died in my place.
> Forgive me for my sin. I cannot cover or take my sin away, I am relying
> totally and only on You. You are the only one who can save me. I reject
> my sin, I turn away from it, I repent. Come into my life, take away my
> sin, and show me how to live my life in a way that is right and pleasing
> to You.'
>
> If you have prayed this, YOU ARE SAVED! You are now completely forgiven,
> a new creation, innocent in the eyes of God. Welcome to the family of
God!"
>
***I admire your brass!
Cunneen
>of Man. Where is the room for those of us who are optimistic about
>human nature? Maybe we should look for alternative theologies.
>
Oh, no, it is classic Protestantism that is pessimistic. The Ancient Churches
affirm that man's nature has been damaged, but not completely corrupted.
Cooperation with God and deification are possible; grace is ultimately sharing
in God's own nature.
But Sacred Tradition is also realistic. You don't have to look very far to see
the universal effects of sin. Even monks have been known to riot; every person
I know is a sinner, and the person I know best (myself) is definitely an even
worse sinner.
"The things I want to do, I don't do." The law of the flesh fights the law of
the spirit. And what is the law of the flesh than Original Sin, that damage in
our natures that inclines us to act selfishly, greedily, proudly, with fear and
hatred and anger?
Cunneen
>the womb of Anna, when she could not even desire anything either good or
>evil, was preserved by God's grace from every impurity, and then by that
>grace was preserved from sin even after her birth, then in what does her
>virtue consist? She would have been placed in the state of being unable to
>sin.
Non sequitur. If being preserved from Original Sin means being unable to sin,
then Adam and Eve could not have sinned in the first place. Nor could the
Devil and his angels.
>"The Virgin, as a true daughter of Adam and Eve, also inherited death. She
>was not in a state of never being able to die.
Freedom from Original Sin is not the same as freedom from death. We baptize
infants and free them from Original Sin, and yet they still may die. Does that
mean that the baptism didn't take???
The rest of this is pure polemics. There is no attempt to discuss or
understand the Catholic position, merely a knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk)
stereotyping of a Catholic position. If one of your saints wrote this, then
his lack of due diligence taints his holiness.
He also ignores Orthodoxy's OWN devotional words for the Theotokos: All Pure,
All Holy. By trying so hard to NOT be TOO Roman, Orthodox writers have
undermined their own faith traditions. Mary IS special; the Divine Liturgy
accents the many ways she IS special. To try to reduce her to just another
sinner is to not do justice to your OWN traditions.
brachypodium
What is very strange is that people who have every outward appearance of
being serious, respectable persons should claim to know that a couple,
living together for at least eight years, who were almost totally obscure
until thirty years after their marriage, never had intercourse. Very strange
indeed. What can have induced such a crazy claim? Or who?
brachypodium
Twelve, of course!
Apologies.
learner
> How do you judge a myth to be strange, or even that a story is a myth?
The development of mythology, such as much of Mariology, can be traced
throughout history.
> Which myths are you referring to? A virgin gave birth to a man? That
> this man was born, died, and was resurrected? That this man is God?
> Adam lived for several hundred years? Jonah being swallowed by a whale?
> Moses parting the Red Sea? God creating the earth in seven days? Why
> are these things not strange, but the idea that a woman remained a
> virgin the rest of her life is strange and mythical? Your logic boggles
> the mind.
Where does the Bible say that Mary remained a virgin? Are you arguing
from silence again? You mentioned James, the brother of the Lord in
an earlier message. From where did he come?
> You once again make a claim - the Koran provides an account based on the
> Apocrypha - and you failed to back it up. Which books in the Apocrypha
> talk about Christ's birth, Learner? The Protevangelium of James and the
> Gospel of Infancy are not in the Apocrypha, nor are they in any Bible
> used by the Orthodox Church.
I should have said Pseudographia. You will find many myths in these
books concerning both Mary and Jesus.
Learner
learner
> > The Qur'an's account of Christ's birth is based on the same apocryphal
> > "gospels" which the Orthodox use. Muhammad most likely heard from the
> > many heretical Christian sects in the Hijaz (Arabia). If you have
> > time, read Sura 3:35-38 and compare it to the earlier "The
> > Protevangelium of James" and the "Arabic Gospel of the Infancy" to see
> > how these strange myths evolved, first in Orthodoxy, and then it
> > Islam.
> You once again make a claim - the Koran provides an account based on the
> Apocrypha - and you failed to back it up. Which books in the Apocrypha
> talk about Christ's birth, Learner? The Protevangelium of James and the
> Gospel of Infancy are not in the Apocrypha, nor are they in any Bible
> used by the Orthodox Church. Read carefully, Learner: the Apocrypha is
> composed of Old Testament material. They were written BEFORE the birth
> of Christ!
Your lack of reading comprehension shows once again. Read carefully
Slow Orthodox. I said apocryphal "gospels" [meaning of questionable
authenticity], not Aprocrypha [which your denominations of Orthodoxy
don't agree on anyway]. These works are properly called the
Pseudographia.
Learner
Al
news:<m_ied.96$ye4...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
> > How do you judge a myth to be strange, or even that a story is a myth?
>
> The development of mythology, such as much of Mariology, can be traced
> throughout history.
>
> > Which myths are you referring to? A virgin gave birth to a man? That
> > this man was born, died, and was resurrected? That this man is God?
> > Adam lived for several hundred years? Jonah being swallowed by a whale?
> > Moses parting the Red Sea? God creating the earth in seven days? Why
> > are these things not strange, but the idea that a woman remained a
> > virgin the rest of her life is strange and mythical? Your logic boggles
> > the mind.
>
> Where does the Bible say that Mary remained a virgin? Are you arguing
> from silence again? You mentioned James, the brother of the Lord in
> an earlier message. From where did he come?
***James, the son of St. Joseph the Betrothed (and widower), was Jesus'
step-brother (so to speak). In that area of the world, "brother" is used
(even to this day) to describe step-brothers, cousins, even very close
friends. The biblical reference to James as the brother of the Lord does not
necessarily mean that James was born of Mary. James was, in fact, Joseph's
son.
***BTW, the woman Salome, one of the myrrh-bearing women on Resurrection
morning, was Joseph's daughter and Jesus' step-sister.
Al
Al
From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
http://www.gnosis.org/library/gosjames.htm
Al
Al
Yawn!
"Cunneen" <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041023044157...@mb-m07.aol.com...
brachypodium
>
> "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c53bb03c.04102...@posting.google.com...
>> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:<m_ied.96$ye4...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>
>> > How do you judge a myth to be strange, or even that a story is a myth?
>>
>> The development of mythology, such as much of Mariology, can be traced
>> throughout history.
>>
>> > Which myths are you referring to? A virgin gave birth to a man? That
>> > this man was born, died, and was resurrected? That this man is God?
>> > Adam lived for several hundred years? Jonah being swallowed by a
>> > whale?
>> > Moses parting the Red Sea? God creating the earth in seven days?
>> > Why
>> > are these things not strange, but the idea that a woman remained a
>> > virgin the rest of her life is strange and mythical? Your logic
>> > boggles
>> > the mind.
>>
>> Where does the Bible say that Mary remained a virgin? Are you arguing
>> from silence again? You mentioned James, the brother of the Lord in
>> an earlier message. From where did he come?
>
>
> ***James, the son of St. Joseph the Betrothed (and widower), was Jesus'
> step-brother (so to speak).<
That is a lie, because it is unknown.
> In that area of the world, "brother" is used
> (even to this day) to describe step-brothers, cousins, even very close
> friends.<
And brothers, too!
brachypodium
> Al
Thanks, Al. It shoots itself in the foot. But as the thick Orthodox never
read the Bible, how would they know?
But maybe Al's bluffing.
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<m_ied.96$ye4...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>How do you judge a myth to be strange, or even that a story is a myth?
>
>
> The development of mythology, such as much of Mariology, can be traced
> throughout history.
That's an answer, but not the answer. Why is the idea that a woman
remained a virgin her entire life strange, but the idea that a virgin
gave birth to God isn't strange? The severe attitude of Protestants
towards Mary is one of the most bizarre overreactions in their belief
systems. It's no wonder Billy Graham said he was afraid many
Protestants are going to find themselves suffering because of the way
they've treated the Mother of God.
>>Which myths are you referring to? A virgin gave birth to a man? That
>>this man was born, died, and was resurrected? That this man is God?
>>Adam lived for several hundred years? Jonah being swallowed by a whale?
>> Moses parting the Red Sea? God creating the earth in seven days? Why
>>are these things not strange, but the idea that a woman remained a
>>virgin the rest of her life is strange and mythical? Your logic boggles
>>the mind.
>
>
> Where does the Bible say that Mary remained a virgin? Are you arguing
> from silence again? You mentioned James, the brother of the Lord in
> an earlier message. From where did he come?
Where does the Bible say it ALONE is the source of truth? No one is
arguing from silence, Learner. Your problem is that you set up a
limited test for truth, depending on whatever house of cards you are
trying to present. When someone provides you extra-Biblical sources as
evidence for an Orthodox belief, you say it isn't in the Bible. When
someone show you evidence in Scripture, you say it isn't in Paul's
letters. When someone shows you evidence in Paul's letters, you say
it's not in the Didache.
You claim James is the son of Mary... where does Scripture OR tradition
OR any extra-Biblical source state that James is the son of Mary?????
You can have brothers who are not of your mother but are of your father
or they are adopted. There are also times when the word "brother" is
used but it doesn't denote a literal blood relationship.
It is you who are arguing from silence, by insisting James is the son of
Mary. The burden is on you to prove this claim.
>>You once again make a claim - the Koran provides an account based on the
>>Apocrypha - and you failed to back it up. Which books in the Apocrypha
>>talk about Christ's birth, Learner? The Protevangelium of James and the
>>Gospel of Infancy are not in the Apocrypha, nor are they in any Bible
>>used by the Orthodox Church.
>
> I should have said Pseudographia. You will find many myths in these
> books concerning both Mary and Jesus.
>
> Learner
And those works of Pseudographia are not in any Orthodox canon.
Joe Orthodox
No, your lack of facts is the problem. You wrote "the same apocryphal
gospels which the Orthodox use", which is false. No one is arguing that
the Protoevangelium was truly written by James. If we thought such,
it'd be in the canon. That said, it is a historical document that
expresses the beliefs at that time, roughly 150 AD, and it is also in
harmony with Patristic sources.
And aren't you the one putting the forth the Shepherd of Hermas as a
source for the doctrine of the rapture?
learner
> ***YAWN! Same ol' Learner B.S.
YYAAAWWWNNN! Same Al, no answer.
Learner
brachypodium
> learner wrote:
>
>> Joe Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:<m_ied.96$ye4...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>
>>
>>>How do you judge a myth to be strange, or even that a story is a myth?
>>
>>
>> The development of mythology, such as much of Mariology, can be traced
>> throughout history.
>
> That's an answer, but not the answer. Why is the idea that a woman
> remained a virgin her entire life strange, but the idea that a virgin gave
> birth to God isn't strange? The severe attitude of Protestants towards
> Mary is one of the most bizarre overreactions in their belief systems.<
Protestants accept everything the Bible says about Mary. They do not
misconstrue 'hail' to mean that Gabriel venerated Mary, or mistranslate
'favoured' into 'full of grace'. They think Mary blessed on account of
Christ, and do not invent any stories about her having any more merit than
anyone else, and account her as needing salvation as much as anyone.
> It's no wonder Billy Graham said he was afraid many
> Protestants are going to find themselves suffering because of the way
> they've treated the Mother of God.<
Many Protestants believe that Graham is a false teacher who will have much
to answer for in due course.
learner
> > ***Hold those thought, O Learned One. They show a total lack of
> > understanding of Orthodox teaching on Mary.
> > Al
> Al so sprach. All bow.
Shouldn't that be "also sprach Al?"
Also Sprach Anfänger
brachypodium
No, no. Have you heard of 'Franglais'?
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Oh, no, it is classic Protestantism that is pessimistic. The Ancient Churches
>affirm that man's nature has been damaged, but not completely corrupted.
>Cooperation with God and deification are possible; grace is ultimately sharing
>in God's own nature.
>
>But Sacred Tradition is also realistic. You don't have to look very far to see
>the universal effects of sin. Even monks have been known to riot; every person
>I know is a sinner, and the person I know best (myself) is definitely an even
>worse sinner.
>
>"The things I want to do, I don't do." The law of the flesh fights the law of
>the spirit. And what is the law of the flesh than Original Sin, that damage in
>our natures that inclines us to act selfishly, greedily, proudly, with fear and
>hatred and anger?
I agree that it's human nature to fall short of perfection. (After
all, only God is perfect.) But merely falling short of perfection is
not the same as active, culpable sin. God made us what we are. We
should just accept that we're going to have a certain amount of greed,
selfishness, lust, anger, pride, etc., in our lives. In fact, all of
these things, in moderation, have their beneficial uses. Traditional
Christianity makes us feel guilty about such things, when feelings of
guilt are actually inappropriate.
Al
***You're so far over the edge that your message is totally uninteligible.
Al
***YYAAAWWWNNN! Same heretic Learner, bum arguments.
Al
> And aren't you the one putting the forth the Shepherd of Hermas as a
> source for the doctrine of the rapture?
>
***Are we to believe that "Learner" is an advocate of the "rapture"? Since
Learner disbelieves anything not in the Bible, where in the Bible is the
word "rapture" along with its theological explanation?
Al
brachypodium
Seems you hit a sore spot, learner! Al knows German, if he knows no Greek!
learner
> > The development of mythology, such as much of Mariology, can be traced
> > throughout history.
> That's an answer, but not the answer.
Yes, it is.
> Why is the idea that a woman remained a virgin her entire life strange, but
> the idea that a virgin gave birth to God isn't strange?
It is strange because it is untrue. Even the prophecies of OT deny
that Mary remained a virgin:
"For I endure scorn for your sake, and shame covers my face. I am a
stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons; for zeal
for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you
fall on me." [Psalm 69:7-9]
> The severe attitude of Protestants
> towards Mary is one of the most bizarre overreactions in their belief
> systems. It's no wonder Billy Graham said he was afraid many
> Protestants are going to find themselves suffering because of the way
> they've treated the Mother of God.
Perhaps the Orthodox over-do the whole Mary thing?
"As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out,
"Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied,
"Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.""
[Luke 11:27-28]
> > Where does the Bible say that Mary remained a virgin? Are you arguing
> > from silence again? You mentioned James, the brother of the Lord in
> > an earlier message. From where did he come?
> Where does the Bible say it ALONE is the source of truth?
But this has been your line all along! Where does the Bible forbid
infant baptism, icons, etc., etc......
> No one is arguing from silence, Learner.
You are.
> Your problem is that you set up a limited test for truth, depending on
> whatever house of cards you are trying to present.
No, my problem, in your eyes, is that I set up *any* test for the
truth rather than simply turning off my mind.
> When someone provides you extra-Biblical sources as evidence for an Orthodox
> belief, you say it isn't in the Bible.
I examine the "extra-Biblical" sources on their own merits.
In the case of the Protoevangelium, it was written by someone who had
absolutely no knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customsm,
and is a very bad conflation of Matthew and Luke. No scholar takes
this work seriously and it was clearly written by someone who was not
an eyewitness nor someone who had any access to reliable tradition.
But, it sort of serves your Church's need of the moment.
> When someone show you evidence in Scripture, you say it isn't in Paul's
> letters.
Like it, or not, Paul's Epistles are the earliest NT Scripture and
they say nothing of Mary's virginity, nor does the first Gosple [Mark]
or the last [John]. Don't you find that odd? Why is it that only
Matthew [and Luke - who copied Matthew] figured out that the
"prophecy" of Isaiah *really* referred to Mary?
> When someone shows you evidence in Paul's letters, you say
> it's not in the Didache.
When did I say this?
> You claim James is the son of Mary... where does Scripture OR tradition
> OR any extra-Biblical source state that James is the son of Mary?????
Ignatius wanted to meet James, the brother of Jesus, because he
believed that they were half-brothers (by Mary). He also said that
James bore a remarkable similarity to Jesus. ["A Second Epistle of
Ignatius To St. John His Friend"]
Josephus refered to James as the blood brother of Jesus. Victorinus
[who was the Bishop of Petavium], Tertullian, and Hegesippus also
denied the perpetual virginity of Mary.
> You can have brothers who are not of your mother but are of your father
> or they are adopted. There are also times when the word "brother" is
> used but it doesn't denote a literal blood relationship.
No.
The most natural reading of the Scriptures, offered most notably by
Helvidius of Rome, is that Jesus and His 'brothers' were in fact blood
brothers.
Let's look at James. Paul calls James "the Lord's brother [adelphos]"
Also, there is much repetition of this term in Eusebius' "The History
of the Church" [which relies on the writings of Hegesippus].
If these early Christians, especially Paul, wanted to say that Jesus
and James were, for example, cousins, instead of brothers, why did
they not use the term anepsios, which means 'cousin', rather than
adelphos which is subject to confusion?
Eusebius uses this word twice (once on his own, once when quoting
Hegesippus) in describing the relationship between Jesus and the above
mentioned Symeon [who was the second Bishop of Jerusalem, after
James]. Thus he was certainly able to use it in describing the
relationship between Jesus and James, but did not.
Eusebius believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, but he did not
attempt to explain the problem of James. He simply stated the
tradition that James is the brother [adelphos] of Christ.
The term anepsios was not used during James's lifetime, or shortly
after, because there was no need to defend the idea of the perpetual
virginity of Mary since this idea was not a part of the early Church's
teachings. James (and Jesus's other siblings) would have been obvious
evidence to the contrary.
The term adelphos was used because that was exactly what Jesus and
James were -blood brothers. James was most held in high esteem in the
early Church, so much so that he outranked even Peter, because James
was Jesus's blood brother. Remember, this was a Semitic society which
saw Priesthood as the property of a lineage, from fathers to sons (the
Aaronic priesthood is an example). It would perfectly logical for a
brother of Christ [since Christ had no children] to take the position
of leadership of the Christian movement after Christ's death.
> It is you who are arguing from silence, by insisting James is the son of
> Mary. The burden is on you to prove this claim.
In every case in Eusebius' works, James is stated to be the adelphos
of Christ.
Eusebius clarifies the relationship between Jesus and James thus:
James is Joseph's son (II.1); James has an uncle named Clopas who is
also an uncle of Christ's (IV.22 and III.32)); the son of Clopas,
Symeon, is a cousin of both James and of Christ's (III.11); Clopas is
the husband of Mary's sister (III.11) mentioned at John 19:25. Thus
James and Jesus share the same [human] father and the same maternal
uncle and cousin. Clearly, they shared the same mother as well.
Learner
Joe Orthodox
> Slow Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<HVDed.4333$Df1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
LOL! I'll pull the big guns out, real slow like. Do you feel lucky? :D
>>Why is the idea that a woman remained a virgin her entire life strange, but
>>the idea that a virgin gave birth to God isn't strange?
>
>
> It is strange because it is untrue. Even the prophecies of OT deny
> that Mary remained a virgin:
>
> "For I endure scorn for your sake, and shame covers my face. I am a
> stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons; for zeal
> for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you
> fall on me." [Psalm 69:7-9]
No, it's not answer, O' Logically-Challenged One, it's a diversion. It
doesn't follow that something that is untrue is therefore strange. If I
say that I had Grape-Nuts® for breakfast, it's certainly untrue but
hardly strange. You failed to make a case why a woman who bore God in
her womb and chooses to not share that space with another human being is
behaving strangely, yet the fact that she gave birth while a virgin or
that she gave birth to God isn't strange. It isn't inconceivable that
people remain virgins for their entire lives. Refer to Revelation
14:1-5 and you can see that God values such people. Frankly, I would
find it strange that a woman who bore God could share that space with
any man afterwards.
And again, you fail to understand that reference to the words
"brothers", "sisters", "fathers", and "sons" doesn't necessarily denote
blood relationship. Since you like OT prophecy so much, here's one that
supports the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos.
Eze 44:2 - "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it
shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD,
the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut."
>>The severe attitude of Protestants
>>towards Mary is one of the most bizarre overreactions in their belief
>>systems. It's no wonder Billy Graham said he was afraid many
>>Protestants are going to find themselves suffering because of the way
>>they've treated the Mother of God.
>
>
> Perhaps the Orthodox over-do the whole Mary thing?
Orthodox over-do the Mary thing? Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and the
Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches all believe in the perpetual
virginity, and yet you choose to throw this all away because it doesn't
fit your new theories.
"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'... It
is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because
there are several mentions of Christ's brethren" (John Calvin, NT
Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had
several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers
of Christ."-- John Calvin, quoted by Bernard Leeming in "Protestants and
Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.
Ulrich Zwingli wrote, "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the
words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God
and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact
Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate
Virgin Mary."-- Ulrich Zwingli, quoted by E. Stakemeier in "De
Mariologia et Oecumenismo", K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a
Virgin."-- Martin Luther, Weimar edition of "Martin Luther's
Works"(Translation by William J. Cole), volume 11, 319-320
"I believe that he (the Son of God) was made man, joining the human
nature with the divine in one person, being conceived by the singular
operation of the Holy Ghost and born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as
well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted
virgin." -- John Wesley, "Letter to a Roman Catholic"
> "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out,
> "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied,
> "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.""
> [Luke 11:27-28]
>
>
>>>Where does the Bible say that Mary remained a virgin? Are you arguing
>>>from silence again? You mentioned James, the brother of the Lord in
>>>an earlier message. From where did he come?
>
>
>
>>Where does the Bible say it ALONE is the source of truth?
>
>
> But this has been your line all along! Where does the Bible forbid
> infant baptism, icons, etc., etc......
It's our line when debating YOU because you've made the assumption that
all Christian truth is derived from Scripture. We don't subscribe to
this theory.
>>No one is arguing from silence, Learner.
>
>
> You are.
Another Tu Quoque. How quaint. Again, you clearly don't know the
meaning of argumentum ex siletio. Orthodox are not arguing for the
perpetual viriginity based on silence. We've referenced historical
documents outside of Scripture, all of which you dismiss when the
evidence doesn't match your theory, or you complain it isn't "early"
enough, a standard you never apply to your own contrived beliefs. It is
you who argue against the perpetual viginity based on what you perceive
as silence from Paul's letters.
>>Your problem is that you set up a limited test for truth, depending on
>>whatever house of cards you are trying to present.
>
>
> No, my problem, in your eyes, is that I set up *any* test for the
> truth rather than simply turning off my mind.
It's patently obvious it's been off for the better of two years. The
problem is that your test for the truth amounts to dumping the evidence
that doesn't fit the Bapto-Nondenom theory, regardless if no one
believed in the new theory for nearly two millennia and there's no
historical evidence to support it.
>>When someone provides you extra-Biblical sources as evidence for an Orthodox
>>belief, you say it isn't in the Bible.
>
>
> I examine the "extra-Biblical" sources on their own merits.
>
> In the case of the Protoevangelium, it was written by someone who had
> absolutely no knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customsm,
Here we go again... unsubstantiated and irrelevent information.
> and is a very bad conflation of Matthew and Luke. No scholar takes
LOL. The world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten, credits
the work as proving the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary
before, in, and after the birth of Christ (Patrology, 1:120–1). I know
of no Orthodox, Oriental or Catholic scholar who doesn't take this work
seriously as an accurate reflection of belief in the perpetual
virginity. That doesn't mean we regard it as having truly been written
by James. That's why it's not in the NT canon, which you got from us.
> this work seriously and it was clearly written by someone who was not
> an eyewitness nor someone who had any access to reliable tradition.
>
> But, it sort of serves your Church's need of the moment.
Read closely, Lerner. The Protoevangelium is respected because it is
one document among others, supported by the Catholic, Orthodox, and
Oriental Tradition. You go off with this eyewitness baloney again
whenever it suits the rant of the day, yet it doesn't bother you the
slightest that Paul never knew Christ, didn't see the Crucifixion or
Resurrection, or wasn't there at the Pentecost.
>>When someone show you evidence in Scripture, you say it isn't in Paul's
>>letters.
>
>
> Like it, or not, Paul's Epistles are the earliest NT Scripture and
> they say nothing of Mary's virginity, nor does the first Gosple [Mark]
> or the last [John]. Don't you find that odd? Why is it that only
> Matthew [and Luke - who copied Matthew] figured out that the
> "prophecy" of Isaiah *really* referred to Mary?
First of all, you're wrong. Matthew is dated at the earliest 50 AD, as
is the first letter of Peter, and the epistle of James. Secondly, which
NT book is earlier is irrelevent. The Gospels have pre-eminence over
Paul's writings. The purpose in collating the NT canon is because not
one book contains everything.
This again proves my point. You cry that an Orthodox belief isn't in
Scripture. When we show you it is in Scripture, you cry it isn't in
Paul's letters. When we show it in Paul's letters, you cry it's not in
the Didache. You shift your truth test depending on the harangue of the
moment.
And you go again with Paul's silence about Mary's virginity. Are you
that unable to see you're committing argumentum ex siletio? Do you have
that much trouble understanding bog bottom logic? Your example is even
in Wikepedia!
I ask you again, because you dance all over the place... Are you
denying Mary's virginity? Why do you keep hinting at such with by
noting Paul's silence on the matter?
Read from Wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
"The argument from silence has also famously been used
by skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ. St
Paul, for example, does not mention the virgin birth,
and skeptics therefore argue from his silence that he
did not know of it. If this argument is used as an
attempted proof of Paul's ignorance, it is a logical
fallacy, because ignorance is only one possible reason
for Paul's silence: it's also possible that he did not
think the virgin birth was important or relevant to
his reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that
have now been lost or mutilated. However, the argument
from silence is not fallacious if it is used to prove
that Paul may have been ignorant. From the fact that
Paul refers to the resurrection, it is certain that he
knew of it; from the fact that Paul does not refer to
the virgin birth, it is not certain that he knew of
it, therefore he may have been ignorant of it."
>>When someone shows you evidence in Paul's letters, you say
>>it's not in the Didache.
>
>
> When did I say this?
Example. You challenged the title of "Priests" in the Orthodox Church,
which is a shortening of the word "Presbyter" and can be found in Paul's
letters. You've then ranted that there are no "Priests" in the Didache.
>>You claim James is the son of Mary... where does Scripture OR tradition
>>OR any extra-Biblical source state that James is the son of Mary?????
>
>
> Ignatius wanted to meet James, the brother of Jesus, because he
> believed that they were half-brothers (by Mary). He also said that
> James bore a remarkable similarity to Jesus. ["A Second Epistle of
> Ignatius To St. John His Friend"]
This is the same Ignatius that you labelled as making up the "false"
doctrine of apostolic succession which was much easier to prove at that
time, but now you want to cite him as an expert on someone's virginity
in the first century. Here you go again, changing clothes depending on
the harangue of the moment. You discredit a particular Church Father
when he supports Orthodox doctrine, but he's a saint when you can find
one of his few errors (which were rejected by most Church Fathers and
the Church) which are now embraced by a small minority of Protestants.
> Josephus refered to James as the blood brother of Jesus. Victorinus
> [who was the Bishop of Petavium], Tertullian, and Hegesippus also
> denied the perpetual virginity of Mary.
How does Josephus know this? You're about to get spanked on Hegesippus...
>>You can have brothers who are not of your mother but are of your father
>>or they are adopted. There are also times when the word "brother" is
>>used but it doesn't denote a literal blood relationship.
>
>
> No.
>
> The most natural reading of the Scriptures, offered most notably by
> Helvidius of Rome, is that Jesus and His 'brothers' were in fact blood
> brothers.
No, it's not natural. If you look at Luke 1:34, after being informed
she would bear a child, Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since
I am a virgin?" But if you go back to Luke 1:27, you will notice that
she is already betrothed to Joseph. Under Jewish Law, a man betrothed
to a woman was considered legally married to her. By betrothal (as in
Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27), or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of
her husband, forbidden to others. So when Mary answers Gabriel's
announcement that she would "conceive in your womb" by saying, "How can
this be, since I am a virgin?", she is questioning Gabriel from the
context of her vowed virginity. If Mary had not made a vow of virginity
then her thoughts would have turned to her "betrothed Joseph" and the
question would have never reached her lips. She would have understood
Gabriel's words in the natural way of things for he did not say to her,
"you will conceive in your womb without knowledge of Joseph, your
betrothed."
> Let's look at James. Paul calls James "the Lord's brother [adelphos]"
> Also, there is much repetition of this term in Eusebius' "The History
> of the Church" [which relies on the writings of Hegesippus].
You are corrected on your adelphos error below. Hegesippus actually
writes the opposite of what you are claiming. Read below.
> If these early Christians, especially Paul, wanted to say that Jesus
> and James were, for example, cousins, instead of brothers, why did
> they not use the term anepsios, which means 'cousin', rather than
> adelphos which is subject to confusion?
No confusion arose until a small minority of Protestants nearly two
millennia later decided to distort "adelphos" into meaning ONLY blood
relations. No one had any doubt that James was called the Lord's
brother but that James was not the uterine son of Mary. It's you who
are confused.
> Eusebius uses this word twice (once on his own, once when quoting
> Hegesippus) in describing the relationship between Jesus and the above
> mentioned Symeon [who was the second Bishop of Jerusalem, after
> James]. Thus he was certainly able to use it in describing the
> relationship between Jesus and James, but did not.
You're misrepresenting your source. Get ready for the spanking. It's
coming up.
> Eusebius believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, but he did not
> attempt to explain the problem of James. He simply stated the
> tradition that James is the brother [adelphos] of Christ.
He didn't need to explain the "problem." No one at the time thought it
was a problem. See below.
> The term anepsios was not used during James's lifetime, or shortly
> after, because there was no need to defend the idea of the perpetual
> virginity of Mary since this idea was not a part of the early Church's
> teachings. James (and Jesus's other siblings) would have been obvious
> evidence to the contrary.
Here you go again. The Protoevangelium, a document from 120-150 AD,
indicates that by that date the perpetual virginity of Mary was common
belief. You continue referring to the words "early Church" but you
never define "early" or "Church", and their meanings change depending on
your harangue of the moment. If you're going to continue referring to
the "early Church", it's your duty to set a fixed date for this "early
Church" and tell us who is in this Church as you've repeatedly disputed
the existence of "the Church" until the fourth century. Orthodox say
the P. of James shows early belief in the perpetual virginity, but you
say 120-150 AD is not early. When we refer to an NT source as support
for early belief of an Orthodox doctrine, you say it's not early because
Paul doesn't talk about it. When Paul talks about something, well then
it's not the early Church because it's not in the Didache. It's also
funny that you elevate the non-eyewitness Paul's letters above even
those like Peter, John, and James who knew the Lord personally.
You know, Lerner, this whole talk about "early Church" is a joke coming
from a Bapto-Nondenom/Calvary Chapel member. You follow a whole slew of
doctrines that can't be traced to the early, middle, or even late
Church. Why do you care about what anyone believed in the "early
Church?" It's not a litmus test for your belief system. As far as your
concerned, a true Christian belief might appear out of thin air
tomorrow, and you will say it's more valid than the Orthodox "error" it
contradicts.
> The term adelphos was used because that was exactly what Jesus and
> James were -blood brothers. James was most held in high esteem in the
> early Church, so much so that he outranked even Peter, because James
> was Jesus's blood brother. Remember, this was a Semitic society which
> saw Priesthood as the property of a lineage, from fathers to sons (the
> Aaronic priesthood is an example). It would perfectly logical for a
> brother of Christ [since Christ had no children] to take the position
> of leadership of the Christian movement after Christ's death.
And yet, James' epistle says you are saved by faith and works, and that
a faith without works is a dead faith. But then you'll come back and
say this epistle isn't as old as Paul's letters.
Your adelphos logic doesn't hold up. Refer to below.
>>It is you who are arguing from silence, by insisting James is the son of
>>Mary. The burden is on you to prove this claim.
>
>
> In every case in Eusebius' works, James is stated to be the adelphos
> of Christ.
The word 'adelphos' isn't limited to blood relationship. In the _Vines
Expository Dictionary of Bible Words_, a Protestant work, it is written:
"Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek,
denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic
languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a
cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son
of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called 'a brother (adelphos) of
Jesus.' In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of
origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male
children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same
parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
(4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor
(Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7)
persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40);
(9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8)."
> Eusebius clarifies the relationship between Jesus and James thus:
>
> James is Joseph's son (II.1); James has an uncle named Clopas who is
> also an uncle of Christ's (IV.22 and III.32)); the son of Clopas,
> Symeon, is a cousin of both James and of Christ's (III.11); Clopas is
> the husband of Mary's sister (III.11) mentioned at John 19:25. Thus
> James and Jesus share the same [human] father and the same maternal
> uncle and cousin. Clearly, they shared the same mother as well.
>
> Learner
Firstly, you once again failed to provide the work you are citing
(judging by your numbering I believe it is from _History of the Church_
even though you've misrepresented the logic), and you didn't delineate
where the supposed words of Eusibius end and yours begin. I'm guessing
the last sentence ("Clearly, they shared the same mother as well") are
your words, even though the conclusion you've drawn still doesn't follow
from the material you provided. You promote Eusibius here when he's
writing from the 3rd century, but a document written in 120-150 A.D.
(the Protoevangelium of James) is regarded by you as spurious. In other
words, you choose the LATER document when it suits your needs. You're
really interested in stacking the deck and not factual history.
But let's look at the facts. In Eusibeus' book, History of the Church,
St. Symeon followed St. James as bishop of Jerusalem (3:11). Symeon is
indeed the son of Cleopas. But what else does it say about him? It says
he is the Symeon the Gospel mentions! Now, let's look in the Gospels
where Symeon is mentioned. You'll find him in Matthew 13:55 ("Is not
this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his
brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?"). But how is this
possible? How can can this man be the son of the carpenter, the son of
Mary, AND the son of Cleopas??? Here is your answer.
1. Joseph and Cleopas are brothers.
2. Cleopas died and left a widow and several children, including Simon.
3. The widow, whose name is Mary, goes to live with her husband's
brother, who is Joseph the carpenter.
This is further supported by these passages in Scripture. Matthew 27:56
has Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark 15:40, 16:1 has Mary as
the mother of James the Less and Joseph. John 19:25 mentions "his
mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas"
Conclusion - Christ's mother, Mary, is the near kinswoman of another
Mary, the wife of Cleopas, who is the actual mother of James, Joseph,
Simon, etc.
This is further explained in the fragments of St. Hegesippus:
"Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon
the son of Cleopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian.
And on these charges he suffered martrydom when he was 120 years old, in
the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was Consular legate in Syria.
And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then
being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the
accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of
reason it could be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw
and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the
Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the [wife] of Cleopas,
who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father. The same
historian mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed
brothers of the Savior, named Judas, as having survived until this same
reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time
of Domitian, as already recorded. He writes as follows: They came, then,
and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as
being of the kindred of the Lord. And after profound peace had been
established in every church they remained down to the reign of Trajan
Caesar: that is, until the time then he who was sprung from an uncle of
the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Cleopas, was informed against
by various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and
for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and while suffering
outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all,
including the legate himself were astonished above measure that a man
120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was
finally condemned to be crucified...
..."and after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord
also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Cleopas, descended
from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by
all as being a kinsman of the Lord."
brachypodium
news:Yfgfd.4186$T02....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> learner wrote:
>> Slow Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:<HVDed.4333$Df1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
> LOL! I'll pull the big guns out, real slow like. Do you feel lucky? :D
>
>>>Why is the idea that a woman remained a virgin her entire life strange,
>>>but
>>>the idea that a virgin gave birth to God isn't strange?
>>
>>
>> It is strange because it is untrue. Even the prophecies of OT deny
>> that Mary remained a virgin:
>>
>> "For I endure scorn for your sake, and shame covers my face. I am a
>> stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons; for zeal
>> for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you
>> fall on me." [Psalm 69:7-9]
>
> No, it's not answer, O' Logically-Challenged One, it's a diversion. It
> doesn't follow that something that is untrue is therefore strange. If I
> say that I had Grape-Nuts® for breakfast, it's certainly untrue but hardly
> strange. You failed to make a case why a woman who bore God in her womb
> and chooses to not share that space with another human being is behaving
> strangely, yet the fact that she gave birth while a virgin or that she
> gave birth to God isn't strange. It isn't inconceivable that people
> remain virgins for their entire lives. Refer to Revelation 14:1-5 and you
> can see that God values such people.<
So sexual reproduction is defilement? Orthodoxy is for homosexuals, I
suppose.
> Frankly, I would find it strange that a woman who bore God could share
> that space with any man afterwards.<
Maybe that's the problem. Orthodox are so squeamish about sex that they have
to re-invent history to suit them.
>
> And again, you fail to understand that reference to the words "brothers",
> "sisters", "fathers", and "sons" doesn't necessarily denote blood
> relationship. Since you like OT prophecy so much, here's one that
> supports the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos.
>
> Eze 44:2 - "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall
> not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God
> of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut."<
Now read verse 3.
>
>>>The severe attitude of Protestants towards Mary is one of the most
>>>bizarre overreactions in their belief systems. It's no wonder Billy
>>>Graham said he was afraid many Protestants are going to find themselves
>>>suffering because of the way they've treated the Mother of God.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the Orthodox over-do the whole Mary thing?
>
> Orthodox over-do the Mary thing? Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and the
> Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches all believe in the perpetual
> virginity<
They don't. Calvin, Luther and Zwingli are all dead. Calvin was arguably a
murderer, Luther incited murder, and Zwingli died in battle. And a Pope
struck a medal to celebrate the murder of thousands of Protestants.
Believers in perpetual virginity are evidently not safe to be near.
> The Protoevangelium is respected because it is one document among others,
> supported by the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Tradition. You go off
> with this eyewitness baloney again whenever it suits the rant of the day,
> yet it doesn't bother you the slightest that Paul never knew Christ,
> didn't see the Crucifixion or Resurrection, or wasn't there at the
> Pentecost.<
But Peter called his letters 'Scripture'. And 'Peter's successors'
condemned the Protevangelium.
> No, it's not natural. If you look at Luke 1:34, after being informed she
> would bear a child, Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a
> virgin?" But if you go back to Luke 1:27, you will notice that
> she is already betrothed to Joseph. Under Jewish Law, a man betrothed to
> a woman was considered legally married to her. By betrothal (as in Mt
> 1:18; Lk 1:27), or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her
> husband, forbidden to others. So when Mary answers Gabriel's announcement
> that she would "conceive in your womb" by saying, "How can this be, since
> I am a virgin?", she is questioning Gabriel from the context of her vowed
> virginity.<
What vowed virginity? Mary's virginity was presumed, not vowed.
>> The term anepsios was not used during James's lifetime, or shortly
>> after, because there was no need to defend the idea of the perpetual
>> virginity of Mary since this idea was not a part of the early Church's
>> teachings. James (and Jesus's other siblings) would have been obvious
}
> Here you go again. The Protoevangelium, a document from 120-150 AD,
> indicates that by that date the perpetual virginity of Mary was common
> belief.<
So the beginning of a rumour is now its culmination?
> And yet, James' epistle says you are saved by faith and works<
Nothing could be further from the truth:
'For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is
guilty of breaking all of it.' (James 2:10 NIV)
Murderers and heretics, if not homosexuals, believe in perpetual virginity.
learner
> > It is strange because it is untrue. Even the prophecies of OT deny
> > that Mary remained a virgin:
> > "For I endure scorn for your sake, and shame covers my face. I am a
> > stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons; for zeal
> > for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you
> > fall on me." [Psalm 69:7-9]
> No, it's not answer, O' Logically-Challenged One, it's a diversion. It
> doesn't follow that something that is untrue is therefore strange.
No, the statement that Mary had no other children is simply untrue.
> And again, you fail to understand that reference to the words
> "brothers", "sisters", "fathers", and "sons" doesn't necessarily denote
> blood relationship. Since you like OT prophecy so much, here's one that
> supports the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos.
> Eze 44:2 - "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it
> shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD,
> the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut."
The funny thing is, if you use Ezekiel 44 as a prophecy of Mary, then
she was not a virgin to begin with!
Read down to verse 7:
"In addition to all your other detestable practices, you brought
foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary,
desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and
you broke my covenant."
So, if Mary's perpetual "virginity" is the "gate", then who were the
"uncircumcised foreigners" who desecrated her?
Also, if Mary is the "Gate", please elaborate on who the following
are: the outer court (40:17), the north gate (40:20), the south gate
(40:24), the inner court (40:28), the rooms for preparing sacrifices
(40:38), the room for the priests (40:44), the temple (40:48), the
outer sanctuary (41:1), the inner sanctuary (41:3), more rooms for
priests (42:1). Also, who is the prince (44:3)who can eat by the east
gate?
This is yet another example of Scripture twisting that you Church did
to support other teachings, which were unknown to early Christians.
In this case, the Church is trying to torture Ezekiel 44 to support
the perpetual virginity of
Mary. St. Ambrose (340-397) was the first to use the "prophecy" of
Ezekiel in a private letter to Pope Siricius from the Synod of Milan.
John 2:17 refers to the Psalm that I mentioned above and Matthew 27:34
alludes to verse 21. I accept John's contention that this Psalm
applied to Jesus, it is a far clearer prophecy of Jesus than Ezekiel
44, which must be tortured to
glean out what you are claiming.
> > Perhaps the Orthodox over-do the whole Mary thing?
> Orthodox over-do the Mary thing? Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and the
> Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches all believe in the perpetual
> virginity, and yet you choose to throw this all away because it doesn't
> fit your new theories.
Perhaps they over-do it as well. I don't go gaga every time a
Protestant says something. I am skeptical of them as well.
> > "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out,
> > "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied,
> > "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.""
> > [Luke 11:27-28]
This shoots a hole in your Mariology!
> >>>Where does the Bible say that Mary remained a virgin? Are you arguing
> >>>from silence again? You mentioned James, the brother of the Lord in
> >>>an earlier message. From where did he come?
> >>Where does the Bible say it ALONE is the source of truth?
> > But this has been your line all along! Where does the Bible forbid
> > infant baptism, icons, etc., etc......
>
> It's our line when debating YOU because you've made the assumption that
> all Christian truth is derived from Scripture. We don't subscribe to
> this theory.
I said no such thing. I believe that the Bible is the most accurate
[from an historical standpoint] source for information on early
Christianity, but I have cited other sources, so stop whining.
> >>No one is arguing from silence, Learner.
> > You are.
> Another Tu Quoque. How quaint. Again, you clearly don't know the
> meaning of argumentum ex siletio. Orthodox are not arguing for the
> perpetual viriginity based on silence.
So, you have medical proof that a woman who lived 2000 years ago died
a virgin?
> >>Your problem is that you set up a limited test for truth, depending on
> >>whatever house of cards you are trying to present.
> > No, my problem, in your eyes, is that I set up *any* test for the
> > truth rather than simply turning off my mind.
> It's patently obvious it's been off for the better of two years. The
> problem is that your test for the truth amounts to dumping the evidence
> that doesn't fit the Bapto-Nondenom theory,
No, I dump nothing. I sift through the evidence to determine what is
most likely true.
> regardless if no one believed in the new theory for nearly two millennia and
> there's no historical evidence to support it.
Well, humans have been on earth for roughly 160,000 years, and we have
had the "new theory" of Christianity for 2000 years, or about .001% of
our history. So your point is?
> >>When someone provides you extra-Biblical sources as evidence for an Orthodox
> >>belief, you say it isn't in the Bible.
> > I examine the "extra-Biblical" sources on their own merits.
> > In the case of the Protoevangelium, it was written by someone who had
> > absolutely no knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customsm,
> Here we go again... unsubstantiated and irrelevent information.
It is the opinion of historians and scholars.
> > and is a very bad conflation of Matthew and Luke. No scholar takes
>
> LOL. The world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten, credits
> the work as proving the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary
> before, in, and after the birth of Christ (Patrology, 1:120?1).
How does a spurious document prove such a thing?
> I know of no Orthodox, Oriental or Catholic scholar who doesn't take this
> work seriously as an accurate reflection of belief in the perpetual
> virginity.
Yet, you do not include it in the Canon of the NT? Why not? Origen -
who is not a Church Father - is also cited in the argument for Mary's
perpetual virginity. So why is the "pillar of the truth" cherry
picking things from sources that it doesn't trust?
> That doesn't mean we regard it as having truly been written
> by James. That's why it's not in the NT canon, which you got from us.
Then why trust it at all? I'll get to the answer in a minute.
The Protoevangelium of James was written by someone who had absolutely
no knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs. It is a very
bad conflation of Matthew and Luke. No scholar takes this work
seriously and it was clearly written by someone who was not an
eyewitness nor someone who had any access to reliable tradition.
> > this work seriously and it was clearly written by someone who was not
> > an eyewitness nor someone who had any access to reliable tradition.
> > But, it sort of serves your Church's need of the moment.
> Read closely, Lerner. The Protoevangelium is respected because it is
> one document among others, supported by the Catholic, Orthodox, and
> Oriental Tradition. You go off with this eyewitness baloney again
> whenever it suits the rant of the day, yet it doesn't bother you the
> slightest that Paul never knew Christ, didn't see the Crucifixion or
> Resurrection, or wasn't there at the Pentecost.
No, this is not the point. Back to the topic at hand. The
Protoevangelium is respected by the Church because it supported the
odd-ball teachings that were going around in your Church at a
particular point in history.
It is interesting to note that The Protevangelium appears in history
sometime in the 200s and only in Egypt. This is the same period of
history and place which gave birth to monasticism.
The Protevangelium, and its depiction of Mary, was used by ascetics to
glorify asceticism. Some of the most notable proponents of Mary's
semper virgo were also leaders of the asceticist movement including
Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Augustine, and
Ambrose. They all used this unnatural and historically inaccurate view
of Mary to teach that virginity was "superior" to marriage.
> >>When someone show you evidence in Scripture, you say it isn't in Paul's
> >>letters.
> > Like it, or not, Paul's Epistles are the earliest NT Scripture and
> > they say nothing of Mary's virginity, nor does the first Gosple [Mark]
> > or the last [John]. Don't you find that odd? Why is it that only
> > Matthew [and Luke - who copied Matthew] figured out that the
> > "prophecy" of Isaiah *really* referred to Mary?
> First of all, you're wrong. Matthew is dated at the earliest 50 AD, as
> is the first letter of Peter, and the epistle of James. Secondly, which
> NT book is earlier is irrelevent. The Gospels have pre-eminence over
> Paul's writings. The purpose in collating the NT canon is because not
> one book contains everything.
How does this make me wrong? You have a serious problem with reading
comprehension. I said that Mark was the earliest Gospel. It is the
near universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is
dependent upon the Gospel of Mark, which was written earlier.
> This again proves my point. You cry that an Orthodox belief isn't in
> Scripture. When we show you it is in Scripture, you cry it isn't in
> Paul's letters. When we show it in Paul's letters, you cry it's not in
> the Didache. You shift your truth test depending on the harangue of the
> moment.
No, you have no point.
I use historical documents to attempt to figure out what early
Christians really believed. You take your Church's current beliefs
and then search the garbage dump of history, for things such as the
Protevangelium, to pick out some support. Of course, you would not
accept the entire work, because that would contradict other beliefs of
your Church.
> And you go again with Paul's silence about Mary's virginity. Are you
> that unable to see you're committing argumentum ex siletio? Do you have
> that much trouble understanding bog bottom logic? Your example is even
> in Wikepedia!
Paul's silence does not deny it. I find this silence, along with Mark
and John's silence, interesting since this is a belief that is so
essential in the modern Church. Perhaps they didn't know, perhaps
they didn't care, who knows?
> I ask you again, because you dance all over the place... Are you
> denying Mary's virginity? Why do you keep hinting at such with by
> noting Paul's silence on the matter?
I have no idea. Mary's virginity is something that can only be
accepted as a matter of faith, since no scholars have unearthed her
medical records.
> Read from Wikepedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
>
> "The argument from silence has also famously been used
> by skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ. St
> Paul, for example, does not mention the virgin birth,
> and skeptics therefore argue from his silence that he
> did not know of it.
Or he didn't care, or he didn't believe in it, who knows? Paul's
Mark's, and John's silence may not "prove" anything, but their silence
is deafening on this issue.
> >>When someone shows you evidence in Paul's letters, you say
> >>it's not in the Didache.
> > When did I say this?
> Example. You challenged the title of "Priests" in the Orthodox Church,
> which is a shortening of the word "Presbyter" and can be found in Paul's
> letters. You've then ranted that there are no "Priests" in the Didache.
There were no "Presbyters" in the Didache which resemble modern
Orthodox Priests.
> >>You claim James is the son of Mary... where does Scripture OR tradition
> >>OR any extra-Biblical source state that James is the son of Mary?????
> > Ignatius wanted to meet James, the brother of Jesus, because he
> > believed that they were half-brothers (by Mary). He also said that
> > James bore a remarkable similarity to Jesus. ["A Second Epistle of
> > Ignatius To St. John His Friend"]
> This is the same Ignatius that you labelled as making up the "false"
> doctrine of apostolic succession which was much easier to prove at that
> time, but now you want to cite him as an expert on someone's virginity
> in the first century. Here you go again, changing clothes depending on
> the harangue of the moment. You discredit a particular Church Father
> when he supports Orthodox doctrine, but he's a saint when you can find
> one of his few errors (which were rejected by most Church Fathers and
> the Church) which are now embraced by a small minority of Protestants.
No. I am looking at his historical observations, not his opinions on
Church government. I read Ibn Kathur and Ibn Batutu for historical
information, yet I do not accept their Islamic religion.
I look for what is true, not for what fits my current beliefs.
> > Josephus refered to James as the blood brother of Jesus. Victorinus
> > [who was the Bishop of Petavium], Tertullian, and Hegesippus also
> > denied the perpetual virginity of Mary.
> How does Josephus know this? You're about to get spanked on Hegesippus...
He was an historian who lived around this time. Also, what's with the
"spanking"? You middle-age guys are really creepy. Do you spend all
of your time on the web? .....just wondering....
> > The most natural reading of the Scriptures, offered most notably by
> > Helvidius of Rome, is that Jesus and His 'brothers' were in fact blood
> > brothers.
> No, it's not natural. If you look at Luke 1:34, after being informed
> she would bear a child, Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since
> I am a virgin?" But if you go back to Luke 1:27, you will notice that
> she is already betrothed to Joseph. Under Jewish Law, a man betrothed
> to a woman was considered legally married to her.....
<cut-and-paste snipped>
Joseph had sexual intecourse with his wife Mary after the birth of
Jesus according to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 1.
Now, I know that you will do some Ortho-twisting cut-and-pasting to
change the clear words of Matthew. There is no Biblical evidence that
Mary made any "vows" to abstain from sexual intercourse with her
husband Joseph. Also, nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that Mary
was married to the Spirit
of God.
Otherwise, Mary would be a polyandrist.
> > Let's look at James. Paul calls James "the Lord's brother [adelphos]"
> > Also, there is much repetition of this term in Eusebius' "The History
> > of the Church" [which relies on the writings of Hegesippus].
> You are corrected on your adelphos error below. Hegesippus actually
> writes the opposite of what you are claiming. Read below.
No, he uses the word "adelphos", or brother.
> > If these early Christians, especially Paul, wanted to say that Jesus
> > and James were, for example, cousins, instead of brothers, why did
> > they not use the term anepsios, which means 'cousin', rather than
> > adelphos which is subject to confusion?
> No confusion arose until a small minority of Protestants nearly two
> millennia later decided to distort "adelphos" into meaning ONLY blood
> relations. No one had any doubt that James was called the Lord's
> brother but that James was not the uterine son of Mary. It's you who
> are confused.
No, the confusion arose when the Church wanted to promote the
un-Biblical and un-natural teaching of asceticism.
> You know, Lerner, this whole talk about "early Church" is a joke coming
> from a Bapto-Nondenom/Calvary Chapel member....
You might want to read a book on your Church before you make these
silly statements. When it comes to Mary's perpetual viginity, the
Eastern Church had three groups:
1) those opposed to the idea
2) those supporting the idea; and
3) those who though it was of little, or no, consequence.
The three groups peacefully co-existed for some time. An example of
this is John Chrysostom and his pupil Proclus who were on opposite
sides of the issue.
> > The term adelphos was used because that was exactly what Jesus and
> > James were -blood brothers. James was most held in high esteem in the
> > early Church, so much so that he outranked even Peter, because James
> > was Jesus's blood brother. Remember, this was a Semitic society which
> > saw Priesthood as the property of a lineage, from fathers to sons (the
> > Aaronic priesthood is an example). It would perfectly logical for a
> > brother of Christ [since Christ had no children] to take the position
> > of leadership of the Christian movement after Christ's death.
>
> And yet, James' epistle says you are saved by faith and works, and that
> a faith without works is a dead faith. But then you'll come back and
> say this epistle isn't as old as Paul's letters.
James said no such thing. He did not say that we were saved by works,
he said the "faith without works is dead".
> The word 'adelphos' isn't limited to blood relationship...
OK....
> Firstly, you once again failed to provide the work you are citing
> (judging by your numbering I believe it is from _History of the Church_
> even though you've misrepresented the logic), and you didn't delineate
> where the supposed words of Eusibius end and yours begin. I'm guessing
> the last sentence ("Clearly, they shared the same mother as well") are
> your words,...
Yes, they are.
> even though the conclusion you've drawn still doesn't follow
> from the material you provided. You promote Eusibius here when he's
> writing from the 3rd century, but a document written in 120-150 A.D.
> (the Protoevangelium of James) is regarded by you as spurious. In other
> words, you choose the LATER document when it suits your needs. You're
> really interested in stacking the deck and not factual history.
Truth is more important than dates. Also Josephus, who said that
James was Christ's brother, predates the Protoevangelium.
> But let's look at the facts. In Eusibeus' book, History of the Church,
> St. Symeon followed St. James as bishop of Jerusalem (3:11). Symeon is
> indeed the son of Cleopas. But what else does it say about him? It says
> he is the Symeon the Gospel mentions! Now, let's look in the Gospels
> where Symeon is mentioned. You'll find him in Matthew 13:55 ("Is not
> this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his
> brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?"). But how is this
> possible? How can can this man be the son of the carpenter, the son of
> Mary, AND the son of Cleopas??? Here is your answer.
It is really funny when you cut-and-paste things you barely
understand!
> 1. Joseph and Cleopas are brothers.
This has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Cleopas' son was James the Younger, or Less. Zebedee's son is James
the Greater. Jesus' brother is James the Righteous (Just).
> 2. Cleopas died and left a widow and several children, including Simon.
Symeon was the cousin of the Lord.
> 3. The widow, whose name is Mary, goes to live with her husband's
> brother, who is Joseph the carpenter.
Biblical evidence please?
> This is further supported by these passages in Scripture.
No, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3 and Galations 1:19, all tell us that
Jesus had a brother(s).
> Matthew 27:56 has Mary the mother of James and Joseph.
Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) say that both James and Judas were sons
of the Virgin Mary and brothers of Jesus. Paul affirms that James was
"the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19).
> Mark 15:40, 16:1 has Mary as the mother of James the Less and Joseph.
Cleopas' son was James the Younger, or Less. while Jesus' brother is
James the Righteous (Just). There were more than one James in the NT.
> John 19:25 mentions "his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of
> Cleopas"
OK....
> Conclusion - Christ's mother, Mary, is the near kinswoman of another
> Mary, the wife of Cleopas, who is the actual mother of James, Joseph,
> Simon, etc.
Perhaps, but James the Righteous was the son of Mary and brother of
Jesus.
> This is further explained in the fragments of St. Hegesippus:
> "Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon
> the son of Cleopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian.
> And on these charges he suffered martrydom when he was 120 years old, in
> the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was Consular legate in Syria.
Hegesippus mentions both James the brother of the Lord, and Symeon the
cousin of the Lord. Why would he not call james the Righteous a cousin
if this were the case?
Hegesippus does not help your argument, he destroys it!
> ..."and after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord
> also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Cleopas, descended
> from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by
> all as being a kinsman of the Lord."
Once again, Hegesippus mentions both James the brother of the Lord,
and Symeon the cousin of the Lord. Why would he not call james the
Righteous a cousin if this were the case?
Hegesippus does not help your argument, he destroys it!
Go back to the Roman Catholic discussion group and try to
cut-and-paste some more stuff!
Learner
learner
> > No, it's not answer, O' Logically-Challenged One, it's a diversion. It
> > doesn't follow that something that is untrue is therefore strange. If I
> > say that I had Grape-Nuts® for breakfast, it's certainly untrue but hardly
> > strange. You failed to make a case why a woman who bore God in her womb
> > and chooses to not share that space with another human being is behaving
> > strangely, yet the fact that she gave birth while a virgin or that she
> > gave birth to God isn't strange. It isn't inconceivable that people
> > remain virgins for their entire lives. Refer to Revelation 14:1-5 and you
> > can see that God values such people.<
> So sexual reproduction is defilement? Orthodoxy is for homosexuals, I
> suppose.
Not really for homosexuals, but for ascetics, although the line
between the two may be a bit blurry!
> > Frankly, I would find it strange that a woman who bore God could share
> > that space with any man afterwards.<
> Maybe that's the problem. Orthodox are so squeamish about sex that they have
> to re-invent history to suit them.
They do indeed reinvent/distort history. This whole business of
Mary's perpetual virginity appears in history sometime in the 200s and
only in Egypt. This is the same period of history and place which
gave birth to monasticism.
The perpetual virginity of Mary, was used by ascetics to glorify
asceticism. Some of the most notable proponents of Mary's semper
virgo were also leaders of the asceticist movement including Basil,
John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose.
They all used this unnatural and historically inaccurate view of Mary
to teach that virginity was "superior" to marriage.
> > Eze 44:2 - "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall
> > not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God
> > of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut."<
> Now read verse 3.
This verse has absolutely nothing to do with Mary. It is really funny
when they bring it out since, if it does refer to Mary's virginity,
how do you explain verse 7:
"In addition to all your other detestable practices, you brought
foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary,
desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and
you broke my covenant."
> > Orthodox over-do the Mary thing? Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and the
> > Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches all believe in the perpetual
> > virginity<
> They don't. Calvin, Luther and Zwingli are all dead. Calvin was arguably a
> murderer, Luther incited murder, and Zwingli died in battle. And a Pope
> struck a medal to celebrate the murder of thousands of Protestants.
> Believers in perpetual virginity are evidently not safe to be near.
This is the funny thing about the Orthodox. They will defend an
anti-Semite, like John Chrysostom, or a murderous Pagan, such as
Constantine [who was baptized as an Arian on his deathbed, when he was
too ill to object] as men of God. They then expect that Protestants
will do the same with their early leaders.
I have never met a Protestant who has done such a thing!
> > The Protoevangelium is respected because it is one document among others,
> > supported by the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Tradition. You go off
> > with this eyewitness baloney again whenever it suits the rant of the day,
> > yet it doesn't bother you the slightest that Paul never knew Christ,
> > didn't see the Crucifixion or Resurrection, or wasn't there at the
> > Pentecost.<
> But Peter called his letters 'Scripture'. And 'Peter's successors'
> condemned the Protevangelium.
True.
> > No, it's not natural. If you look at Luke 1:34, after being informed she
> > would bear a child, Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a
> > virgin?" But if you go back to Luke 1:27, you will notice that
> > she is already betrothed to Joseph. Under Jewish Law, a man betrothed to
> > a woman was considered legally married to her. By betrothal (as in Mt
> > 1:18; Lk 1:27), or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her
> > husband, forbidden to others. So when Mary answers Gabriel's announcement
> > that she would "conceive in your womb" by saying, "How can this be, since
> > I am a virgin?", she is questioning Gabriel from the context of her vowed
> > virginity.<
> What vowed virginity? Mary's virginity was presumed, not vowed.
There was no vow. This idea came from the spurious "Gospel of the
Infancy" which, by the way, has Jesus killing another boy when he was
young and that he spoke from his crib!
> Murderers and heretics, if not homosexuals, believe in perpetual virginity.
It appears that way.
Learner
learner
> >>***Read the pseudo-gospel (protoevangelium) of St. James as an historical
> >>document and you'll learn that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were the
> >>widower St. Joseph the Betrothed's children from his marriage.
> > It is called a pseudo-gospel for a reason. The fact is, the Church
> > does not, and never has considered it as Scripture.
> Oh, really? "Who" calls it a pseudo-Gospel, Learner? Please answer
> this question.
Al called it a pseudo-gospel, so take that issue up with him. The
Catholic Encyclopedia also calls it the same.
> I've asked you this before and you refuse to answer it.
> By what standard do you judge a work to be pseudo-Gospel?
I would judge it to be a pseudo-gospel based on the numerous
historical and geographical errors that it contains, as well as by its
late date of composition, relative to other gospels.
> You've betrayed yourself big time with these words. What "Church" are
> you referring to? What do you mean by "never?" Please explain
> yourself. I will continue asking this until you answer. I would like
> you to explain how you decided what constitutes Scripture, and what
> doesn't.
In this case, no Church ever considered the Protoevangelium of James
as a true Gospel.
> > "Hermas was consider as Scripture by Clement, Athanasius, and Rufinus.
> > It is also found in the Codex Sinaiticus in the Ethiopic Canon."
> So is the Shepherd of Hermas Scripture?
It was according to Clement, Athanasius, and Rufinus, and the Codex
Sinaiticus in the Ethiopic Canon.
> The Church never considered it Scripture.
Now we get to the real problem! If Church Tradition gave us the
Bible, then on which Tradition should we rely? The Church Fathers
didn't agree on what should be in the Bible, so do they now lack
credibility as a part of Tradition?
There were a wide variety of competing Canons of Scripture both before
and after the Council of Carthage in (397 A.D.), including (to name
but a few): The Muratorian Canon, The Canon Of Origen (A.D. 185-254),
The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 - 340), The Canon Of
Cyril Of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350), The Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D. 360).
The Church held a Synod of Laodicea (c. A.D. 363) but the Canon they
created, as well as all historical records of this Council, were lost!
Then came the Canon Of Athanasius (A.D. 367) , The Canon Approved By
The 'Apostolic Canons' (c. A.D. 380), The Canon Of Gregory Of
Nazianzus (A.D. 329 - 89), The Canon Of Amphilochius of Iconium (d.
394).
Finally, The Canon Approved By The Third Synod of Carthage (A.D. 397).
So, then Councils decide [vote] on what is Scripture. Now we have
another problem. There are different Canons of Scripture today. The
Armenians, Syrians, Russian Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox all
have different Canons [different from the Greek Orthodox Canon] which
include a variety of Apocryphal works. All of these groups claim to
follow Apostolic Tradition, yet the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible Canon
contains the Book of Jubilees as well as I Enoch which are not in any
other Orthodox Canon. The Russian Orthodox Bible has 2 Esdras, which
is not in the Greek Orthodox Bible.
> Is the Didache Scripture?
Clement thought that it was.
> The Church never considered it Scripture.
The Synod of Carthage did not vote it in.
> So now are you going to say, "But... but... Saint XYZ
> considered it inspired!" But then you can find Saint XYZ who believes
> the Protoevangelium of James to be inspired.
No Saint believed such a thing. St. Justin may, and a I stress may,
be making a reference to it in one of his works, but he never said
that it was inspired Scripture.
> In fact, I bet you can find more who such, than those who believe the Hermas
> to be inspired.
Then do it.
> You refuse to put forth a coherent statement on what constitutes
> Scripture, and how you arrived at that decision. This is important,
> Learner, because everything else you believe about Christianity flows
> from sola scriptura, but if you can't define it then the doctrine is
> worthless.
No, this problem is yours! Which book is the Bible? The Armenians,
Syrians, Russian Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox all have
different Canons [different from the Greek Orthodox] Bible.
At least Protestants agree on how many books are in the Bible, as well
as today's date.
> But you don't look at the history behind your Bapto-Nondenom doctrines.
> This again goes against your ability to explain a consistent position.
Sure I do.
> For example, you claimed here and elsewhere:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c53bb03c.0308250647.3cf796c2%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlearner%2Bhermas%2Bscripture%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dalt.religion.christian.east-orthodox%26selm%3Dc53bb03c.0308250647.3cf796c2%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2
> "Some of the early Church Fathers appear to be supporters of the
> pre-tribulational rapture. Specifically, Hermas taught that believers
> would escape the future great tribulation period (Hermas, Shepherd of
> Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2). Irenaeus wrote: "And
> therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up from
> this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been
> since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of
> the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with
> incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 29)."
> You never provided any quotes from any Church Father showing they
> supported pre-tribulational rapture. You invented this claim out of
> thin air, then didn't "look at the history" being taught by your church.
> In the _Shepherd of Hermas_ 4:2, which you claim shows this rapture,
> actually says:
Strawman. I gave references.
> "Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say
> to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is
> coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart,
> and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your
> heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your
> life in serving the Lord blamelessly."
>
> But then the next passage (4:3) clarifies further:
>
> "For as gold is tested by fire, and thus becomes useful, so are you
> tested who dwell in it. Those, therefore, who continue steadfast, and
> are put through the fire, will be purified by means of it. For as gold
> casts away its dross, so also will ye cast away all sadness and
> straitness, and will be made pure so as to fit into the building of the
> tower. But the white part is the age that is to come, in which the elect
> of God will dwell, since those elected by God to eternal life will be
> spotless and pure. Wherefore cease not speaking these things into the
> ears of the saints. This then is the type of the great tribulation that
> is to come. If ye wish it, it will be nothing."
> In other words, believers would have to endure the tribulation just like
> everyone else.
But believers would escape.
> What's further amazing is that you provide that quote repeatedly from
> Irenaeus which says nothing about being whisked away to heaven, and
> which also says believers will have to live through the tribulation.
Strawman.
> You also never investigated the history of this statement from the
> Calvary Chapel, your church:
Sure I did.
> http://www.calvarychapel.com/gospel/
> "Jesus is everywhere all the time. He can hear you now if you ask Him
> for forgiveness.
So, you disagree with this?
> Please turn your life over to Him NOW. Time slips by so
> quickly, don't miss this opportunity. If you want to pray and ask Jesus
> to be your Savior, you can say a prayer something like this:
This is what the thief on the cross did. In spite of the fact that you
implied that this man was a holy and pious Christian thief!
> If you have prayed this, YOU ARE SAVED! You are now completely forgiven,
> a new creation, innocent in the eyes of God. Welcome to the family of God!"
> This turns prayer into a talisman for salvation. It's a dangerous
> deception.
No, faith causes this prayer to have effacy. This in different than
the Orthodox talisman of the Epiklesis, which turns wine and bread
into Christ's body [although it remains wine and bread chemically]
whether or not the Priest believes.
Learner
learner
> This again goes against your ability to explain a consistent position.
> For example, you claimed here and elsewhere:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c53bb03c.0308250647.3cf796c2%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlearner%2Bhermas%2Bscripture%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dalt.religion.christian.east-orthodox%26selm%3Dc53bb03c.0308250647.3cf796c2%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2
> "Some of the early Church Fathers appear to be supporters of the
> pre-tribulational rapture. Specifically, Hermas taught that believers
> would escape the future great tribulation period (Hermas, Shepherd of
> Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2). Irenaeus wrote: "And
> therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up from
> this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been
> since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of
> the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with
> incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 29)."
> "Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say
> to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is
> coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart,
> and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your
> heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your
> life in serving the Lord blamelessly."
> But then the next passage (4:3) clarifies further:
> "For as gold is tested by fire, and thus becomes useful, so are you
> tested who dwell in it. Those, therefore, who continue steadfast, and
> are put through the fire, will be purified by means of it. For as gold
> casts away its dross, so also will ye cast away all sadness and
> straitness, and will be made pure so as to fit into the building of the
> tower. But the white part is the age that is to come, in which the elect
> of God will dwell, since those elected by God to eternal life will be
> spotless and pure. Wherefore cease not speaking these things into the
> ears of the saints. This then is the type of the great tribulation that
> is to come. If ye wish it, it will be nothing."
> In other words, believers would have to endure the tribulation just like
> everyone else.
Read the translation:
Hermas writes that he passed by a wild beast on the way, and that
thereafter a maiden met him and saluted him, saying,
"Hail, O Man!" He returned her salutation, and said, "Lady, hail!"
Then she asked him, "Has nothing crossed your path?" To this, Hermas
replied, "I was met by a beast of such a size that it could destroy
peoples, but through the power of the Lord and His great mercy I
escaped from it." Then the maiden said, "Well did you escape from it,
because that you can be saved by no other than His great and glorious
name ... You have escaped from great tribulation on account of your
faith, and because you did not doubt in the presence of such a beast.
Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and
say to them this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is
coming. ***If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your
heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape
it***, if your heart be free and spotless, and ye spend the rest of
your days in serving the Lord blamelessly"
(Hermas, Shepherd of Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2, ***emphasis
mine***).
This certainly shows that there was teaching that the Church would
escape the future great tribulation period. I guess that it will not
be the Orthodox Church!
> What's further amazing is that you provide that quote repeatedly from
> Irenaeus which says nothing about being whisked away to heaven, and
> which also says believers will have to live through the tribulation.
"And therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up
from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not
been since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last
contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are
crowned with incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V,
Chapter xxix).
You might want to wander into a library and read "The Rapture Position
of The Early Church Fathers", by Robert Gundry - which supports the
idea of a post-tribulation rapture.
Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, the Pastor of Hermas,
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Melito of Sardis, Methodius, Tertullian,
Cyprian, Commodianus, Victorinus, and Lactantius stated clearly in
their writings that the Church would undergo persecution by the
antichrist before the Rapture.
Learner
learner
> LOL! I'll pull the big guns out, real slow like. Do you feel lucky? :D
Sorry dude, I'm straight.
Learner
Joe Orthodox
learner wrote:
> Very Slow Orthodox <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message news:<szied.92$ye4...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>>>***Read the pseudo-gospel (protoevangelium) of St. James as an historical
>>>>document and you'll learn that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were the
>>>>widower St. Joseph the Betrothed's children from his marriage.
>
>
>>>It is called a pseudo-gospel for a reason. The fact is, the Church
>>>does not, and never has considered it as Scripture.
>
>
>
>>Oh, really? "Who" calls it a pseudo-Gospel, Learner? Please answer
>>this question.
>
>
> Al called it a pseudo-gospel, so take that issue up with him. The
> Catholic Encyclopedia also calls it the same.
It's called a pseudo-gospel because that's what the Orthodox Church told
you it is.
>>I've asked you this before and you refuse to answer it.
>>By what standard do you judge a work to be pseudo-Gospel?
>
>
> I would judge it to be a pseudo-gospel based on the numerous
> historical and geographical errors that it contains, as well as by its
> late date of composition, relative to other gospels.
You call it a pseudo-gospel because someone told you it was such.
>>You've betrayed yourself big time with these words. What "Church" are
>>you referring to? What do you mean by "never?" Please explain
>>yourself. I will continue asking this until you answer. I would like
>>you to explain how you decided what constitutes Scripture, and what
>>doesn't.
>
>
> In this case, no Church ever considered the Protoevangelium of James
> as a true Gospel.
You didn't answer my questions...
What "Church" are you referring to? What do you mean by "never?"
Please explain yourself. I will continue asking this until you answer.
I would like you to explain how you decided what constitutes
Scripture, and what doesn't.
You continue in your refusal to address the gaps in your hermeneutic for
truth.
> For example, you've written:
>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c53bb03c.0410120518.5c260e22%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlearner%2Bhermas%2Bscripture%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dalt.religion.christian.east-orthodox%26selm%3Dc53bb03c.0410120518.5c260e22%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1
>
>
>>>"Hermas was consider as Scripture by Clement, Athanasius, and Rufinus.
>>>It is also found in the Codex Sinaiticus in the Ethiopic Canon."
>
>
>
>>So is the Shepherd of Hermas Scripture?
>
>
> It was according to Clement, Athanasius, and Rufinus, and the Codex
> Sinaiticus in the Ethiopic Canon.
You didn't answer my question to YOU... Is the Shepherd of Hermas
Scripture?
>>The Church never considered it Scripture.
>
>
> Now we get to the real problem! If Church Tradition gave us the
> Bible, then on which Tradition should we rely? The Church Fathers
> didn't agree on what should be in the Bible, so do they now lack
> credibility as a part of Tradition?
The canon wasn't decided upon by any individual Church Father. You're
bleating a strawman.
> There were a wide variety of competing Canons of Scripture both before
> and after the Council of Carthage in (397 A.D.), including (to name
> but a few): The Muratorian Canon, The Canon Of Origen (A.D. 185-254),
> The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 - 340), The Canon Of
> Cyril Of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350), The Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D. 360).
>
>
> The Church held a Synod of Laodicea (c. A.D. 363) but the Canon they
> created, as well as all historical records of this Council, were lost!
>
> Then came the Canon Of Athanasius (A.D. 367) , The Canon Approved By
> The 'Apostolic Canons' (c. A.D. 380), The Canon Of Gregory Of
> Nazianzus (A.D. 329 - 89), The Canon Of Amphilochius of Iconium (d.
> 394).
>
> Finally, The Canon Approved By The Third Synod of Carthage (A.D. 397).
>
> So, then Councils decide [vote] on what is Scripture. Now we have
That's what we've been telling you all along.
> another problem. There are different Canons of Scripture today. The
> Armenians, Syrians, Russian Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox all
> have different Canons [different from the Greek Orthodox Canon] which
> include a variety of Apocryphal works. All of these groups claim to
> follow Apostolic Tradition, yet the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible Canon
> contains the Book of Jubilees as well as I Enoch which are not in any
> other Orthodox Canon. The Russian Orthodox Bible has 2 Esdras, which
> is not in the Greek Orthodox Bible.
You've been corrected on this before. Those canons only differ on the
OT Apocrypha. Furthermore, not all Protestant Bibles agree on the
Apocrypha! Some include it, some don't. This is a major problem for
Bible alone theology, when you can't even figure out what the Bible is.
In general, you default to the OT and NT canon given to you by the
Orthodox Church, which you try to avoid admitting.
>>Is the Didache Scripture?
>
>
> Clement thought that it was.
You again dodged the question... Is the Didache Scripture?
>>The Church never considered it Scripture.
>
>
> The Synod of Carthage did not vote it in.
So is it Scripture or not? Answer the question, and tell us how you
arrived at your answer. This is a critical flaw in your theology.
>>So now are you going to say, "But... but... Saint XYZ
>>considered it inspired!" But then you can find Saint XYZ who believes
>>the Protoevangelium of James to be inspired.
>
>
> No Saint believed such a thing. St. Justin may, and a I stress may,
> be making a reference to it in one of his works, but he never said
> that it was inspired Scripture.
>
>
>>In fact, I bet you can find more who such, than those who believe the Hermas
>>to be inspired.
>
>
> Then do it.
First enumerate the Fathers who believed the Hermas to be inspired.
>>You refuse to put forth a coherent statement on what constitutes
>>Scripture, and how you arrived at that decision. This is important,
>>Learner, because everything else you believe about Christianity flows
>>from sola scriptura, but if you can't define it then the doctrine is
>>worthless.
>
>
> No, this problem is yours! Which book is the Bible? The Armenians,
> Syrians, Russian Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox all have
> different Canons [different from the Greek Orthodox] Bible.
You've been corrected on this before. Those canons only differ on the
OT Apocrypha. Furthermore, not all Protestant Bibles agree on the
Apocrypha! Some include it, some don't. This is a major problem for
Bible alone theology, when you can't even figure out what the Bible is.
In general, you default to the OT and NT canon given to you by the
Orthodox Church, which you try to avoid admitting.
> At least Protestants agree on how many books are in the Bible, as well
> as today's date.
No they don't. Some Protestant Bibles include the Apocrypha, others don't.
This "joke" of yours is already lame.
>>But you don't look at the history behind your Bapto-Nondenom doctrines.
>> This again goes against your ability to explain a consistent position.
>
>
> Sure I do.
>
>
>> For example, you claimed here and elsewhere:
>
>
>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c53bb03c.0308250647.3cf796c2%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlearner%2Bhermas%2Bscripture%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dalt.religion.christian.east-orthodox%26selm%3Dc53bb03c.0308250647.3cf796c2%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2
>
>
>>"Some of the early Church Fathers appear to be supporters of the
>>pre-tribulational rapture. Specifically, Hermas taught that believers
>>would escape the future great tribulation period (Hermas, Shepherd of
>>Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2). Irenaeus wrote: "And
>>therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up from
>>this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been
>>since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of
>>the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with
>>incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 29)."
>
>
>
>>You never provided any quotes from any Church Father showing they
>>supported pre-tribulational rapture. You invented this claim out of
>>thin air, then didn't "look at the history" being taught by your church.
>> In the _Shepherd of Hermas_ 4:2, which you claim shows this rapture,
>>actually says:
>
>
> Strawman. I gave references.
Sheepman, no you didn't. If you did, the post them here ->>>>>>>>>
>>"Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say
>>to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is
>>coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart,
>>and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your
>>heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your
>>life in serving the Lord blamelessly."
>>
>>But then the next passage (4:3) clarifies further:
>>
>>"For as gold is tested by fire, and thus becomes useful, so are you
>>tested who dwell in it. Those, therefore, who continue steadfast, and
>>are put through the fire, will be purified by means of it. For as gold
>>casts away its dross, so also will ye cast away all sadness and
>>straitness, and will be made pure so as to fit into the building of the
>>tower. But the white part is the age that is to come, in which the elect
>>of God will dwell, since those elected by God to eternal life will be
>>spotless and pure. Wherefore cease not speaking these things into the
>>ears of the saints. This then is the type of the great tribulation that
>>is to come. If ye wish it, it will be nothing."
>
>
>
>>In other words, believers would have to endure the tribulation just like
>>everyone else.
>
>
> But believers would escape.
It doesn't say that, Lerner. It says they will be better prepared to
deal with it, but nevertheless they will have to endure it.
>>What's further amazing is that you provide that quote repeatedly from
>>Irenaeus which says nothing about being whisked away to heaven, and
>>which also says believers will have to live through the tribulation.
>
>
> Strawman.
Sheepman. You continuously bleat the Irenaeus rant that he supported
the rapture, and never provided the evidence. What you did paste says
nothing of the sort.
>>You also never investigated the history of this statement from the
>>Calvary Chapel, your church:
>
>
> Sure I did.
>
>
>>http://www.calvarychapel.com/gospel/
>
>
>
>>"Jesus is everywhere all the time. He can hear you now if you ask Him
>>for forgiveness.
>
>
> So, you disagree with this?
>
>
>>Please turn your life over to Him NOW. Time slips by so
>>quickly, don't miss this opportunity. If you want to pray and ask Jesus
>>to be your Savior, you can say a prayer something like this:
>
>
> This is what the thief on the cross did. In spite of the fact that you
> implied that this man was a holy and pious Christian thief!
>
>
>>If you have prayed this, YOU ARE SAVED! You are now completely forgiven,
>>a new creation, innocent in the eyes of God. Welcome to the family of God!"
>
>
>
>>This turns prayer into a talisman for salvation. It's a dangerous
>>deception.
>
>
> No, faith causes this prayer to have effacy. This in different than
> the Orthodox talisman of the Epiklesis, which turns wine and bread
> into Christ's body [although it remains wine and bread chemically]
> whether or not the Priest believes.
>
> Learner
Nice try to divert the discussion again to the Epiklesis. What your
church teaches is clear... "If you have prayed this, YOU ARE SAVED! You
are now completely forgiven, a new creation, innocent in the eyes of
God. Welcome to the family of God!"
It says nothing about belief or faith ANYWHERE on that page. It peasant
magik.
Joe Orthodox
Lerner, you contradict yourself again. Here you say the Church would
escape the future tribulation. But wait...
>>What's further amazing is that you provide that quote repeatedly from
>>Irenaeus which says nothing about being whisked away to heaven, and
>>which also says believers will have to live through the tribulation.
>
>
> "And therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up
> from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not
> been since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last
> contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are
> crowned with incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V,
> Chapter xxix).
>
> You might want to wander into a library and read "The Rapture Position
> of The Early Church Fathers", by Robert Gundry - which supports the
> idea of a post-tribulation rapture.
>
> Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, the Pastor of Hermas,
> Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Melito of Sardis, Methodius, Tertullian,
> Cyprian, Commodianus, Victorinus, and Lactantius stated clearly in
> their writings that the Church would undergo persecution by the
> antichrist before the Rapture.
>
> Learner
... now you say the Church would undergo persecution before the rapture.
Can you please make up your mind? Will the Church meet this wild
animal in the forest before or after the rapture? You can't explain the
full evidence because it contradicts itself. That's why you need a
Church that clarifies points of doctrine, through councils and creeds if
necessary.