Where is the Church?
Al
Published by The Greek Star, November 27, 2003
WHERE IS THE CHURCH?
By Fr. John E. Artemas
The purpose of this short article is simply to make a few practical
observations, which will help to put into proper perspective the
existing jurisdictional conflicts within the Orthodox Church.
The first church was in Jerusalem. We are referring to the local
congregation of Christian believers, Jews and Gentiles, under the
leadership of the Apostles. It was once congregation in one local
city. The believers "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42).
In spiritual terms, the Church is everywhere. It is the "mystical body
of Christ." He alone is the Head. But, in practical terms, the Church
followed and continues to follow the geographic and national
boundaries, as they exist in every age. "The church of God that is in
Corinth?", "the churches in Galatia?" etc. It was natural to have a
church/congregation within the boundaries of whatever city or town
there were enough believers. Each church/congregation was headed by a
group of elected presbyters. One of the presbyters would preside.
In large cities, where there were thousands of believers, it became
necessary to have more churches/congregations. Each parish was
complete and self-sufficient, with a body of presbyters and a
presiding presbyter. Soon it became useful to elect one of the senior
presbyters to oversee and coordinate the ministries of all the
parishes in the one city, always in cooperation with all the other
presbyters. Eventually that senior presbyter retained the exclusive
use of the title "episkopos," or "bishop." But he continued to be
"first among equals" among his fellow-presbyters.
As Christianity spread, it was a natural "human" development of a
bishop of a large city to enjoy more prestige than others of smaller
cities or towns. Later, often with the approval and support of
imperial authority, those bishops extended their jurisdiction over
large regions, usually defined by the boundaries of the provinces of
the Roman/Byzantine Empire. The special prestige of several important
churches became officially recognized: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch,
Jerusalem, and later, Constantinople (New Rome). These churches, and
many others, were each complete and self-sufficient, but all were in
communion with each other.
After Rome fell and the Empire was divided, eventually in the West,
Rome became the exclusive symbol and center of unity in the Western
Church. In the East, no one church became the center of unity of the
entire Eastern Church. Constantinople continued to be "first in honor"
among the other churches, but with no authority over them. In addition
to the Patriarchates mentioned above (Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem), with the passage of time, many other
patriarchates and autocephalous churches were founded: Russia, Serbia,
Finland, Estonia, Romania, Poland, Albania, Greece, etc. All these
churches were and are self-sufficient and self-governing, but continue
in full communion with each other. The existence in the Orthodox world
of many self-governing national churches is in harmony with the early
church practice, but on a larger scale.
With the above background in mind, let us now make a few observations
about certain current situations. In 1996, the Patriarchate of
Istanbul broke off Canada and South America from the Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese of North and South America. That action was in harmony
with the early church practice, although it could have and should have
bee approved by a Clergy-Laity Congress. In the future, when there are
enough Orthodox faithful in specific countries of South America or
elsewhere, those countries, too, should have their own ecclesiastical
administration, with their own metropolitans and archbishop. However,
those churches too, should become self-governing.
In 1928, the Patriarchate of Constantinople gave to the Church of
Greece the administration of several bishoprics in Northern Greece and
the Aegean. Those geographical areas, known as the "new territories,"
were previously part of Turkey, but became a part of the Greek State
in 1912-13. Since those "New Territories" were now a part of Greece,
the Patriarchate acted with unselfish Motherly understanding and
wisdom in turning over the administration of those bishoprics to the
Church of Greece. Recently, however, after so many years, the Church
of Istanbul is attempting to reclaim jurisdiction and control over
those bishoprics. This has caused much conflict between the two
churches. The issue has not yet been resolved. Since those territories
and islands are still a part of Greece, they should remain under the
administration of the Church of Greece.
According to Orthodox tradition, it is an ecclesiastical anomaly for a
bishop, or a group of bishops, to exercise control over other bishops
and churches in distant areas and lands. Each bishop has jurisdiction
only over his own "episkopi" (diocese), in a given city or region. In
a country/nation or large island (like Cyprus), there may be many
dioceses. Each has its own bishop/metropolitan, and no bishop has
authority in the other's diocese. Together they form a Synod of
Bishops with an archbishop, to coordinate their work and promote the
ministries of the Church.
Previously, it was also an anomaly in the United States, when we had
an archbishop with eight auxiliary bishops serving under his
authority. Our current practice is correct. Each of our metropolitans
has jurisdiction over his own metropolis. Together they form a Synod
of Bishops, with a presiding archbishop, and they consult and
cooperate with each other for the good of the Church. But no one,
including the archbishop, exercises authority over the other.
As we look to the future, we must strive to properly understand and
implement the correct and traditional polity of our Church. For the
first time in history, we are free to do this, without the
interference of imperial decrees or other limiting circumstances.
But let us return and conclude with our question: Where is the Church?
The Church is everywhere. It is Catholic and Universal under the
Lordship of Jesus Christ. But in its fundamental and historical
constitution, the Church is in the local parish, where the faithful
continue to work out their personal salvation, and gather together to
celebrate the Holy Eucharist under the leadership of their bishop or
presbyter. Editor's note:
***Fr. John Artemas is protopresbyter of St. Constantine Church in
Rockford, IL.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
brachypodium
news:df4e6c04.04012...@posting.google.com...
> One of the presbyters would preside.<
There is no evidence for that in Scripture, either as command or example.
What follows in the rest of the post is therefore heretical.
Peter
richard.barrett
news:tbePb.192$9b5...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
The second half of your statement is incorrect. Paul is very clear, in 2
Thessalonians 2:15 that Christians are to "hold to the traditions which [we]
were taught, either by word of mouth or by letter" and in 3:6 that we are to
be "in accord with the tradition that you received from us", which paints it
in letters that are as black and white that you can get that not all of the
Apostolic faith was written down, and that some of it was passed down
orally. Given that the canon for Scripture was not determined for another
handful of centuries, we have to turn to the writings of early Christians
like St. Ignatius (roughly contemporary with Paul, maybe a touch later) for
documentation of what that was. This question falls under that heading, and
Ignatius pretty much tells it how it is.
The overall problem with your statement is that the conclusion one can draw
from it is that all of Christianity was in heresy until the canon for the
Bible was determined, and that just ain't so. To ask the oft-repeated
question--where in the text of the Bible is a) the list of books that are in
the Bible and b) the interdiction that doctrine is only to be gleaned from
that which is written in the Bible? 2 Thessalonians would appear to
contradict b) pretty strongly.
Richard
brachypodium
news:7JePb.107762$xy6.267781@attbi_s02...
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:tbePb.192$9b5...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > "Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:df4e6c04.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > > One of the presbyters would preside.<
> > There is no evidence for that in Scripture, either as command or
example.
> > What follows in the rest of the post is therefore heretical.
>
> The second half of your statement is incorrect. Paul is very clear, in 2
> Thessalonians 2:15 that Christians are to "hold to the traditions which
[we]
> were taught, either by word of mouth or by letter" and in 3:6 that we are
to
> be "in accord with the tradition that you received from us", which paints
it
> in letters that are as black and white that you can get that not all of
the
> Apostolic faith was written down, and that some of it was passed down
> orally. Given that the canon for Scripture was not determined for another
> handful of centuries<
That gave plenty of time for the idea of a president to get into Scripture,
but it did not.
>, we have to turn to the writings of early Christians
> like St. Ignatius (roughly contemporary with Paul, maybe a touch later)
for
> documentation of what that was.<
Paul, Peter, Jude and John all warned of false teachers in the church, often
already present. Ignatius could have been one of them.
'But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be
false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies,
even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction
on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way
of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with
stories they have made up.' (2 Peter 2:1-3)
'Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation
we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that
was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation
was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are
godless men, who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality
and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Though you already know
all this,' (Jude 3-5)
'Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into
the world.' (1 John 4:1)
'For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as
apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel
of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants
of righteousness.' (2 Cor 11:13-15)
'[This matter arose] because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks
to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did
not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might
remain with you.' (Gal 2:4-5)
'"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will
not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort
the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning
each of you night and day with tears."' (Acts 20:29-31)
As for dates, Paul's death is reckoned at c. 68. Ignatius' letters are dated
to c.105.
(All quotes NIV)
Peter
learner
> According to Orthodox tradition, it is an ecclesiastical anomaly for a
> bishop, or a group of bishops, to exercise control over other bishops
> and churches in distant areas and lands. Each bishop has jurisdiction
> only over his own "episkopi" (diocese), in a given city or region.
Well Aflred, here in New York city we have Greek Orthodox Bishops (3),
an OCA Bishop, a Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop, an Antiochian Orthodox
Bishop, a Serbian Orthodox Bishop, ROCOR Bishops (2), and Greek Old
Calendarist Bishops (2).
How is in charge of New York?
Learner [of East Village]
brachypodium
news:c53bb03c.04012...@posting.google.com...
Not God, anyway.
Peter
alight
THE CHURCH is not just in a parish, as Jesus says..
Matthew 18: 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there
among them."
Acts 8:3 But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house;
dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison.
Romans 16:5 Greet also the church in their house.
The church is the gathering of believers.
A parish is just a synagogue.
But the church of God are the followers of Christ whereever the believers
are, there is
the church, amen
Not-easily-duped
Well said.
richard.barrett
> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:7JePb.107762$xy6.267781@attbi_s02...
> > handful of centuries<
> That gave plenty of time for the idea of a president to get into
Scripture,
> but it did not.
Were the writings that became the canon of Scripture intended to be a how-to
manual for every step of the way? Or were the epistles and Gospels,
particularly the epistles, written to address specific problems in the
Church, in the context of an active and alive Body? If the latter, then
there's going to plenty that, say, Paul would assume the readers of his
letters would already know that he would not outline. For example, if I'm
writing my former ECUSA diocesan bishop to take him to task over how he's
handled the Robinson situation, I'm not going to bother much with describing
the liturgy or the role of the parish priest, am I? If Scripture is the
former case, then again I ask the question, where in the text of the Bible
is the list of books that make up the Bible?
> >, we have to turn to the writings of early Christians
> > like St. Ignatius (roughly contemporary with Paul, maybe a touch later)
> for
> > documentation of what that was.<
> Paul, Peter, Jude and John all warned of false teachers in the church,
often
> already present. Ignatius could have been one of them.
Is that really what you think? What evidence do you have that leads you to
that conclusion?
> As for dates, Paul's death is reckoned at c. 68. Ignatius' letters are
dated
> to c.105.
Ignatius was also probably born c. 50, was a student of John the Evangelist,
and was appointed bishop of Antioch by both Peter and Paul (per Eusebius).
I stand by my characterization of Ignatius being "roughly contemporary with
Paul".
What is your stance, then? That "real" Christians were a persecuted minority
within their own faith after the Apostles died until the Reformation came
along and fixed everything? I, for one, would be interested to hear what it
is you *believe* for a change, and why it is you've come to those
conclusions, rather than you rattling off lists of what you think are
heresies. And I mean that sincerely.
john j
churchs.Reject the idea that Christ requires organisational unity in his
church.That a loose federation of national churchs with generaly the
same beliefs is sufficient. what you describe is the Anglican Communion.
brachypodium
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ajgPb.229$9b5...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:7JePb.107762$xy6.267781@attbi_s02...
> Given that the canon for Scripture was not determined for another
> > > handful of centuries<
> > That gave plenty of time for the idea of a president to get into
> Scripture,
> > but it did not.
>
> Were the writings that became the canon of Scripture intended to be a
how-to
> manual for every step of the way? Or were the epistles and Gospels,
> particularly the epistles, written to address specific problems in the
> Church, in the context of an active and alive Body?<
Whatever the Scripture is conceived of as being, it does not contain any
mention of presidency in the church. God inspired the Scriptures, and gave
ample opportunity for the apostles, charged with teaching His whole will, to
mention it.
> If the latter, then
> there's going to plenty that, say, Paul would assume the readers of his
> letters would already know that he would not outline. For example, if I'm
> writing my former ECUSA diocesan bishop to take him to task over how he's
> handled the Robinson situation, I'm not going to bother much with
describing
> the liturgy or the role of the parish priest, am I? If Scripture is the
> former case, then again I ask the question, where in the text of the Bible
> is the list of books that make up the Bible?
>
> > >, we have to turn to the writings of early Christians
> > > like St. Ignatius (roughly contemporary with Paul, maybe a touch
later)
> > for
> > > documentation of what that was.<
> > Paul, Peter, Jude and John all warned of false teachers in the church,
> often
> > already present. Ignatius could have been one of them.
>
> Is that really what you think? What evidence do you have that leads you to
> that conclusion?<
Ignatius wrote after those warnings; well after, in fact.
> > As for dates, Paul's death is reckoned at c. 68. Ignatius' letters are
> dated
> > to c.105.
>
> Ignatius was also probably born c. 50, was a student of John the
Evangelist,
> and was appointed bishop of Antioch by both Peter and Paul (per
Eusebius).<
Though not per Peter or Paul, or John.
> I stand by my characterization of Ignatius being "roughly contemporary
with
> Paul".<
I did not disagree with that. However, if a week is a long time in politics,
what is
half a century in religion?
Peter
Ron B.
> I did not disagree with that. However, if a week is a long time in politics,
> what is
> half a century in religion?
>
> Peter
More then enough time for the Southern Baptists to go from segregationist
to pro-civil rights.
++
********************************************************
PLEASE NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative has a searchable archive of
the ChemBio listserv on its website at http://www.nti.org/db/cbw/index.htm
(1) CW - THREAT
A)
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004/1/16/8cb28d10-fcc8-4c35-a0a3-de9127293c19.html
(2) CW - PREP/DEFENSE
A) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/21/content_1285933.htm
(3) WMD - THREAT
A) http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-iran21.html
B) http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=39571
C)
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004/1/16/4d8d3ce4-e28e-419d-acc5-f7eedc8e6cf1.html
D) http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040119081550.958up3th.html
(4) WMD - PREP/DEFENSE
A) http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/16307.htm
B)
C) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30091-2004Jan19.html
********************************************************
--------------------
CW - THREAT
--------------------
1) "Anniston Incinerator Set to Restart Operations Today After Shutdown"
Global Security Newswire
January 16, 2004
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004/1/16/8cb28d10-fcc8-4c35-a0a3-de9127293c19.html
"The chemical weapons incinerator at the U.S. Army's Anniston chemical
weapons depot in Alabama is expected to resume operations today after
being shut down for 10 days, according to the Birmingham News. Army
officials are investigating whether crystallized sarin agent found in M-55
rockets caused the 10-day shutdown of the incinerator. 'So far what we're
seeing is this crystal that looks like rock salt you can buy when you make
ice cream,' said Army project manager Tim Garrett."
-----------------------------
CW - PREP/DEFENSE
-----------------------------
2A) "US to Increase WMD Civil Support Teams"
www.chinaview.cn
January 21, 2004
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/21/content_1285933.htm
"The US Defense Department said Tuesday it plans to create more National
Guard-staffed civil support teams to help local authorities in the event
of a weapons of mass destruction attack on the country. There are
currently 32 WMD civil support teams in the country capable of detecting
chemical, biological, nuclear and explosive agents in support of emergency
first responders in event of an attack, the Defense Department said in a
press release. The Congress recently approved 88 million US dollars to
field 11 more teams, as part of ongoing evaluations of the role of the
Guard in homeland defense, Paul McHale, assistant secretary of defense for
homeland defense, was quoted as saying last Friday. The Defense
Department will field a total of 55 WMD civil support teams, each of which
comprises 22 Army and Air National Guard members, he said. McHale said US
officials believe terrorist groups such as al Qaeda could very well
attempt to use WMDs to attack Americans, key infrastructure or defense
industries."
----------------------
WMD - THREAT
----------------------
3A) "West Suspects Iran Is Breaking No-Nuke Promise"
Associated Press/Chicago Sun-Times
January 21, 2004
George Jahn
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-iran21.html
"VIENNA, Austria -- Western diplomats and nuclear experts voiced growing
fear Tuesday that Iran has reneged on its promise to fully suspend uranium
enrichment -- a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons. Worries
over Tehran's nuclear intentions coincided with decreased concern among
nuclear watchdogs about Libya's nuclear ambitions. Tripoli volunteered
last month to give up chemical, biological and nuclear weapons or weapons
programs. Disarmament teams are in Libya to start dismantling the
country's weapons of mass destruction, and diplomats say the North African
country apparently was sincere in its vow to disarm. The most recent
developments threaten, therefore, to put Iran at center stage at the next
top-level meeting of the International Atomic Energy agency in March."
3B) "Dutch Admit to Nuke-Tech Transfer"
Indian Express
January 20, 2004
Douglas Frantz
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=39571
"Two government ministers in the Netherlands acknowledged on Monday that
sensitive nuclear technology developed by a Dutch company may have been
transferred to Libya and N Korea along with Iran and Pakistan. The
disclosure in Amsterdam marked the first public confirmation of assertions
that centrifuge technology for enriching uranium apparently found its way
to Libya and N Korea. It was already known that Pakistan and Iran had the
technology. The Dutch officials, Foreign Minister Bernard Bot and
Economic Affairs Minister Laurens-Jan Brinkhorst, said it was not clear
how the potentially arms-related technology was transferred. But diplomats
said the comments were likely to raise pressure on Pakistan, which has
already been linked to Iran's capability and is suspected of providing the
technology to North Korea and Libya."
3C) "Embattled Al-Qaeda Still Threatens, Officials Say"
Global Security Newswire
January 16, 2004
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004/1/16/4d8d3ce4-e28e-419d-acc5-f7eedc8e6cf1.html
"U.S. intelligence officials and security specialists have said that while
al-Qaeda's ability to conduct large-scale attacks has 'eroded
significantly,' the group remains dangerous, the Washington Times reported
today. According to security specialists, the U.S. war on terrorism has
disrupted al-Qaeda's centralized command structure, which allowed the
group to plan large-scale attacks. 'Osama bin Laden and the group's
dwindling top leadership are increasingly isolated from the organization's
wider network,' said a U.S. official with access to intelligence reports."
3D) "Syrian Dissident Reiterates Accusations of Hidden Iraqi Weapons"
www.spacewar.com
Jan 19, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040119081550.958up3th.html
"An exiled Syrian dissident has reiterated claims that Iraqi biological
and chemical weapons were smuggled into Syria just before the outset of
the US-led attack on Iraq in March last year. 'The Iraqi chemical and
biological weapons were at first put in (Syrian) Presidential Guard
depots, at its headquarters in Damascus,' Nizzar Nayyouf told the
French-based Internet news site Proche-Orient.info, which specializes in
news from the Middle East. He said the operation took place 'between
February and March 2003, when Saddam Hussein realized that the Americans
had decided to act' against Iraq."
--------------------------------
WMD - PREP/DEFENSE
--------------------------------
4A) "U.N. Team Razing Libyan WMD'S"
New York Post
January 21, 2004
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/16307.htm
"Inspectors from the U.N. nuclear watchdog joined U.S. and British weapons
experts in Libya yesterday as they began dismantling Tripoli's nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons capabilities. Western diplomats said
staffers from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency arrived
yesterday in the Libyan capital, where about a dozen U.S. and British
experts arrived Monday. 'Agency inspectors are already at work in Libya
verifying the dismantling of its nuclear programs,' IAEA spokesman Mark
Gwozdecky said. The announcement that the destruction of Libya's
weapons-of-mass-destruction program was under way comes after Tripoli
volunteered on Dec. 19 to abandon its WMD ambitions in a bid to shed its
status as a pariah state. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has agreed on the
agency's role in Libya with John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for
arms control and international security, and British counterpart William
Ehrman."
4B) "Pakistani Nuclear Scientists Jailed"
Associated Press
January 20, 2004
"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan's detention of scientists in an
investigation into possible proliferation from its nuclear program drew
fire at home today from family members and lawyers who claimed the
researchers' rights were being trampled.
Lawyers for one detainee, Islam-ul Haq, a director of Khan Research
Laboratories - the country's top nuclear weapons facility, filed a
petition to prevent him from being handed over to American or any other
foreign interrogators. Pakistanis revere their nuclear scientists as
heroes. Shafiq-ur Rahman complained bitterly about the detention of his
66-year-old father, Sajawal Khan Malik, a former army general who retired
from the lab in 2001 as director of maintenance and general services."
4C) "U.S. Will Work With U.N. Agency in Libya"
Washington Post
January 20, 2004;
Peter Slevin and Joby Warrick
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30091-2004Jan19.html
"The Bush administration agreed yesterday to work with the International
Atomic Energy Agency to dismantle Libya's nuclear weapons program,
dividing the labor to strengthen the project and avoid a turf battle. At
a three-hour meeting in Vienna, the IAEA's director general, Mohamed
ElBaradei, and emissaries from the United States and Britain concluded
that the Americans and the British will remove and destroy the components
of the fledgling nuclear development program while the IAEA, a U.N.
agency, will verify Libya's compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty."
**********************************************************
CNS ChemBio-WMD Terrorism News is prepared by the Washington, DC office of the
Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the
Monterey Institute of International Studies in order to bring timely and focused
information to researchers and
policymakers interested in the fields of chemical and biological weapons
nonproliferation and WMD terrorism.
CNS presents these keywords and links for the convenience of the recipients of
ChemBio-WMD Terrorism News, but CNS does not
endorse these sites or the veracity of their information and cannot be
responsible for the maintenance of the links listed
here. For a searchable archive of the ChemBio-WMD Terrorism News listserv,
please visit the Nuclear Threat Initiative's
website, at http://www.nti.org/db/cbw/index.htm
We hope you find this material of use, and welcome your suggestions. To
subscribe or unsubscribe to ChemBio-Terror News,
please visit http://cnslists.miis.edu/mailman/listinfo/chembio-terror or email
chembio...@miis.edu for assistance.
For more information and resources on CBW and WMD terrorism, visit the web page
of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,
at http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/index.htm
richard.barrett
God inspired the Scriptures, and gave
> ample opportunity for the apostles, charged with teaching His whole will,
to
> mention it.
Yep, they were charged with teaching His whole will. They were not charged
with making sure it was written down.
> > Is that really what you think? What evidence do you have that leads you
to
> > that conclusion?<
> Ignatius wrote after those warnings; well after, in fact.
And that has to do with what, exactly? You're writing well after JFK
announced we had ten years to make a moon landing; does that make you an
astronaut?
> > Ignatius was also probably born c. 50, was a student of John the
> Evangelist,
> > and was appointed bishop of Antioch by both Peter and Paul (per
> Eusebius).<
> Though not per Peter or Paul, or John.
Is there a heretofore unknown account of church history to which you're
privy that disputes Eusebius' account? (And if you say it's not mentioned in
any of the Epistles or Gospels, well, it's not mentioned that Peter, Paul,
or John ever broke wind, either. It doesn't necessarily follow that they
didn't.)
That you don't like the history of the Church doesn't make it any less the
history of the Church.
brachypodium
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:YSwPb.209$fA1.1...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> God inspired the Scriptures, and gave
> > ample opportunity for the apostles, charged with teaching His whole
will,
> to
> > mention it.
>
> Yep, they were charged with teaching His whole will. They were not charged
> with making sure it was written down.<
If we suppose that they did not, then we must also suppose that God has
failed. Either the repeated, very strong warnings of the very uncertain
status of post-apostolic teachings were not of God, or they were, and the
whole will of God was made known by the apostles in the Scriptures.
Peter
richard.barrett
So you interpret those warnings of false teachers, prophets, etc. as
applying generally to any post-apostolic teaching? <shrug> Sorry, that
squares with neither the Bible *or* Church history. 2 Thessalonians makes it
clear that not everything *was* written down, nor was it meant to be. The
apostolic teaching was passed on via written and spoken word. Orthodox and
Catholic tradition sees this as nothing less than the life of the Holy
Spirit (given to the Church at Pentecost) in the Church. If you want to
argue that the Apostles didn't acknowledge unwritten tradition, shall I
quote for you the Epistle where St. Paul makes a very explicit reference to
Jewish oral tradition that is to be found nowhere in the Old Testament?
If you really believe that the whole will of God is written in the
Scriptures, and we are not to believe anything that is not, then where in
Scripture is that written? I'm willing to bet you consider it to be
self-evident, which is part of the issue I have with the Protestant paradigm
(speaking as a former Protestant)--it's very difficult to get them to
acknowledge their own tradition as such. "Sola scriptura" is demonstrably
nothing more than Protestant tradition, particularly since the canon of
Scripture was determined by the Church, at least in part by judging the
various books by the standard of Tradition, capital T.
So, what standpoint are you coming from? Baptist? Non-denominational?
Neo-Evangelical? Presbyterian? You communicate extraordinarily little about
your own views, except to point out where you deem the views of others as
heretical. In the spirit of "give and take", as it were, I'm more than happy
to tell you where I'm coming from--born to a fundamentalist mother and an
atheist father, Mom had me baptized Lutheran when I was 4, and started
taking me to Overlake Christian Church (www.occ.org), a large,
non-denominational "mega-church" when I was 8 that required both us be
baptized a second time. The fundamentalist viewpoint stopped holding water
for me around the age of 14 or so; I still considered myself a Christian,
but so far as Overlake had taught me, my options were ultra right-wing
fundamentalism, Roman Catholicism, and fringe groups like JWs, LDS, etc. As
none of those seemed to have anything to do with my own relationship with
Christ, I basically stopped going to church altogether. When I was 20 I was
confirmed an Episcopalian, for the simple reason that that's where the Holy
Spirit put me at that time. That was when I was first introduced to the
notion that Christian history did not go directly from the Resurrection to
the incident with Martin Luther's hammer. I was married there, my wife
(raised RC but came to know God in evangelical circles) was confirmed there
two months before our wedding--but as we both realized we were becoming more
Anglo-Catholic in our respective walks, it became clear to us that we were
very much out of place in what was fast becoming a social justice political
action committee that happened to use liturgy. Shortly thereafter, the Holy
Spirit gave yet another of its inimitable yanks, pushing us Eastward. (Note
that this was *before* the Robinson mess--that just underlined everything
that was already there.) We're still *moving* Eastward, as it were--we've
not yet gone through with the conversion (at this point due to an
unanticipated geographic separation; we planned a move, then she had to stay
behind for a couple of weeks while I headed out as planned, and the couple
of weeks turned into six, which then for professional reasons became
indefinite--now it looks like it's finally coming to an end), but neither
have we darkened the door of an Episcopal parish since sometime in August.
I've been attending the Orthodox parish where I'm at; she's been going to RC
masses with her parents, since at present she's living with them. Once she's
where I am, we intend to become catechumens. I could give you an itemized
list of the reasons why if you want it; the bottom line is, this is where
God has put us.
brachypodium
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:mGFPb.41$tu...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:vrDPb.119697$na.113601@attbi_s04...
> > > "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:YSwPb.209$fA1.1...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > God inspired the Scriptures, and gave
> > > > ample opportunity for the apostles, charged with teaching His whole
> > will,
> > > to
> > > > mention it.
> > >
> > > Yep, they were charged with teaching His whole will. They were not
> charged
> > > with making sure it was written down.<
> >
> > If we suppose that they did not, then we must also suppose that God has
> > failed. Either the repeated, very strong warnings of the very uncertain
> > status of post-apostolic teachings were not of God, or they were, and
the
> > whole will of God was made known by the apostles in the Scriptures.
>
> So you interpret those warnings of false teachers, prophets, etc. as
> applying generally to any post-apostolic teaching?<
That has been the position of many since the Renaissance, e.g. Wyclif and
the Lollards.
since there were pr <shrug> Sorry, that
> squares with neither the Bible *or* Church history. 2 Thessalonians makes
it
> clear that not everything *was* written down<
That is not true. That letter says only what it says, to the Thessalonians.
Peter
Joseph
> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:WsHPb.118699$8H.294457@attbi_s03...
[snip]
>>
>>So you interpret those warnings of false teachers, prophets, etc. as
>>applying generally to any post-apostolic teaching?<
>
>
> That has been the position of many since the Renaissance, e.g. Wyclif and
> the Lollards.
Oops! Well, there goes the Rapture, Premillennial Dispensationalism in
general, Sola Scriptura, the very term Trinity, the actual Canon of
Scripture, and every teacher or preacher that has ever lived --
especially the starters of large movements (Luther, Calvin, Scoffield,
Darby, McPherson, Falwell, etc).
What a silly idea.
[snip]
- Joseph
--
"The commonest fallacy is to suppose that since the
state of doubt is accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty,
knowledge arises when this feeling gives way to one of
assurance." - John Dewey
brachypodium
news:nZOdnSd9r8l...@speakeasy.net...
> brachypodium wrote:
> > "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:WsHPb.118699$8H.294457@attbi_s03...
>
> [snip]
>
> >>
> >>So you interpret those warnings of false teachers, prophets, etc. as
> >>applying generally to any post-apostolic teaching?<
> >
> >
> > That has been the position of many since the Renaissance, e.g. Wyclif
and
> > the Lollards.
>
> Oops! Well, there goes the Rapture, Premillennial Dispensationalism in
> general, Sola Scriptura, the very term Trinity, the actual Canon of
> Scripture, and every teacher or preacher that has ever lived --
> especially the starters of large movements (Luther, Calvin, Scoffield,
> Darby, McPherson, Falwell, etc).
>
> What a silly idea.<
First they wrapped the truth in Latin, now they pretend it it is not there.
Peter
richard.barrett
> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:WsHPb.118699$8H.294457@attbi_s03...
> > applying generally to any post-apostolic teaching?<
>
> That has been the position of many since the Renaissance, e.g. Wyclif and
> the Lollards.
I see. Do they apply it to themselves? Or is that simply a convenient method
of ignoring Church history?
> since there were pr <shrug> Sorry, that
> > squares with neither the Bible *or* Church history. 2 Thessalonians
makes
> it
> > clear that not everything *was* written down<
>
> That is not true. That letter says only what it says, to the
Thessalonians.
I'd ask you what you mean by that, but I'm guessing you wouldn't answer.
I think just about everything useful that can be said has been said, and
you're refusing to respond to most of what I'm putting forth. When you're
actually willing to have a conversation, lemme know.
brachypodium
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:XpOPb.210$cD....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:WsHPb.118699$8H.294457@attbi_s03...
> > > So you interpret those warnings of false teachers, prophets, etc. as
> > > applying generally to any post-apostolic teaching?<
> >
> > That has been the position of many since the Renaissance, e.g. Wyclif
and
> > the Lollards.
>
> I see. Do they apply it to themselves?<
Yes. Their persistent habit is a perennial complaint of those who call
themselves traditionalists.
> Or is that simply a convenient method
> of ignoring Church history?<
What they think of as the church is not at all what some think of it as.
> > since there were pr <shrug> Sorry, that
> > > squares with neither the Bible *or* Church history. 2 Thessalonians
> makes
> > it
> > > clear that not everything *was* written down<
> >
> > That is not true. That letter says only what it says, to the
> Thessalonians.
>
> I'd ask you what you mean by that, but I'm guessing you wouldn't answer.<
You may be guessing wrongly. But you can always try to work it out for
yourself, even if you guess correctly.
Peter
learner
> 2 Thessalonians makes it clear that not everything *was* written down, nor
> was it meant to be.
True.
> The apostolic teaching was passed on via written and spoken word. Orthodox and
> Catholic tradition sees this as nothing less than the life of the Holy
> Spirit (given to the Church at Pentecost) in the Church.
Well, in order to make this claim, you need to prove that all of these
"traditions" date back to Apostolic times - something that history
cannot support. Many of the Church's beliefs date from long after the
time of Christ and the Apostles. For example, many of the
Mariological beliefs [such as the "Dormition"] first appeared in the
6th century A.D. - a fact confirmed by the most devout Mariologists -
Eamon Duffy and Juniper Carol [the founder of the American
Mariological Society].
So, my problem with Orthodoxy, and the main reason that I left it, is:
how can I distinguish the historical core beliefs of the Church from
the non-factual/un-true encrustations? In other words, if one claims
that an Church Tradition contains both truth and fiction, then we
assume that one "knows" what the truth and untruth are.
So, when the Church claims that some event occured, it is really
saying what it "thought" happened, not necessarily what happened -
which can be verified by history in some cases.
> "Sola scriptura" is demonstrably nothing more than Protestant tradition,
Whether it is Prostestant [which automatically makes it bad], or not
is not the issue. The Orthodox have a similar dilemma. Where the
Protestants claim that the Bible is sufficient [citing 2 Tim 3:16],
the Orthodox would claim that the Bible + Tradition is the rule of
faith. Both argue in a circle, although the Orthodox increase the
diameter of the circle by adding Tradition - however anyone wishes to
define or delineate it.
Tradition is a most important part of the Orthodox faith and is easily
the least defined. Protestants know what the Bible is, but what is
Tradition? We have evidence that the Scriptures are the same from the
beginning [at least doctrinally]. We have no evidence for many common
Orthodox beliefs. For example, tales of Mary's "Dormition", or
"presentation" in the Temple are absent from the first century Church.
Also, how does the Church define Tradition? Why has the Church never
produced an "Encyclopedia" of Traditions for the faithful? Why has
the Church never produced an official list of Church Fathers?
Another problem with Tradition is that several Churches claim that
their beliefs are based on Tradition. But if tradition is all that we
need, then there would be no differences between the Churches who
follow Tradition - right?
But this is not the case. Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox claim
tradition, yet they disagree on the issue of so-called purgatory.
> particularly since the canon of Scripture was determined by the Church, at
> least in part by judging the various books by the standard of Tradition,
> capital T.
No, the Church created A CANON of Scripture, not THE CANON. The Canon
given to us by the Church is one of many that exists today/existed
centuries ago. There are also different Canons of Scripture today.
For example, various groups including the Armenians, Syrians, Russian
Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox all have different Canons
[different from the Greek Orthodox Canon] which include a variety of
Apocrypha and Pseudographia. 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.
An additional issue (considering that you believe the Church is the
judge over the Bible)is - why has the Orthodox Church never written a
complete commentary on the entire Bible, telling us which passages are
literal and which are allegorical?
Shouldn't the Church who gave us the Canon [really a Canon] of
Scripture be able to do this?
Learner
brachypodium
news:<WsHPb.118699$8H.294457@attbi_s03>...
>
> > 2 Thessalonians makes it clear that not everything *was* written down,
nor
> > was it meant to be.
>
> True.<
So God failed?
Peter
Al
O, we get it. The stuff written in the Epistles ONLY applies to the
people to whom it was written. So, nothing in the Epistles applies to
us today, right? Cool! And we thought you were one of these literal
Bible thumpers! Silly us!
However, it it does apply to us today, the letter to Thessalonians
makes it perfectly clear that traditions written and oral are to be
obeyed:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 -- "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the
traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
Al
brachypodium
No.
> So, nothing in the Epistles applies to
> us today, right?<
No.
> However, it it does apply to us today, the letter to Thessalonians
> makes it perfectly clear that traditions written and oral are to be
> obeyed<
No. The letter to the Thessalonians makes clear that the teachings that the
Thessalonians had previously been given by Paul and his companions were to
be held to.
Peter
Rico Yungblud
<snip>
> The overall problem with your statement is that the conclusion one can draw
> from it is that all of Christianity was in heresy until the canon for the
> Bible was determined, and that just ain't so. >
Not only that, they would have to conclude that the Church who
delivered and preserved that canon was in heresy.
> To ask the oft-repeated
> question--where in the text of the Bible is a) the list of books that are in
> the Bible and b) the interdiction that doctrine is only to be gleaned from
> that which is written in the Bible? 2 Thessalonians would appear to
> contradict b) pretty strongly.
<snip>
I notice your points have completely been side-stepped. No one can
demonstrate that early Church Bishops like Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.
were part of some heretical cult. No one can demonstrate the
existance of some other "evangelical/whatever" group wandering around
at the same time. No one can demonstrate any "roman/pagan/heretical"
Church at that time having the power or resources to persecute anyone
else, while it can be shown that the Church of Irenaeus, Ignatius etc.
were persecuted by both the Jews and the Romans.
Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
It is a presupposition full of rationalist-philisophical assumptions
not supported by scripture *ALONE*. Sola Scripture cannot be
demonstrated via Sola Scriptura, that is why every group that espouses
SC has to have a creed, statement of belief, etc. explaining what
*they* mean by SC.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Who are "they"?
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
richard.barrett
news:<WsHPb.118699$8H.294457@attbi_s03>...
> time of Christ and the Apostles. For example, many of the
> Mariological beliefs [such as the "Dormition"] first appeared in the
> 6th century A.D. - a fact confirmed by the most devout Mariologists -
> Eamon Duffy and Juniper Carol [the founder of the American
> Mariological Society].
There are those who definitely know much more about this than I do. It's
been less than a year since my first exposure to Orthodoxy. I don't have
answers to all of your questions, and will leave most of them to those who
are better equipped to answer them from an Orthodox standpoint.
What I can say is that I'm not sure the above is accurate. Hieromartyr
Dionysios the Areopagite, writing in the first century, appears to have
known of the Dormition.
> Another problem with Tradition is that several Churches claim that
> their beliefs are based on Tradition. But if tradition is all that we
> need, then there would be no differences between the Churches who
> follow Tradition - right? But this is not the case. Both Roman Catholics
and Orthodox claim
> tradition, yet they disagree on the issue of so-called purgatory.
There are several things on which they disagree. Hence, they are not in
Communion.
> An additional issue (considering that you believe the Church is the
> judge over the Bible)is - why has the Orthodox Church never written a
> complete commentary on the entire Bible, telling us which passages are
> literal and which are allegorical?
>
> Shouldn't the Church who gave us the Canon [really a Canon] of
> Scripture be able to do this?
There is the Orthodox Study Bible (NT & Psalms). However, the impression I
get, based on the mindset I run into with a lot of Orthodox, is--why would
such a thing be necessary? That's what Tradition is for. Not only that, but
I think for a lot of Orthodox the texts of the liturgies provide all the
commentary required for much of Scripture. I'm not saying that definitively,
but that's the impression I get. One thing I find with a lot of Orthodox is
a real fear that Orthodoxy is going to wind up being treated by the West as
just another "denomination", and I think that might have something to do
with why a lot of this stuff hasn't been done--that is, if they did some of
these things, they'd be *acting* like just another denomination.
But I could be horribly off-base here. Anybody who knows more about the
answers to these questions than I do, please pipe in.
Richard
richard.barrett
news:d760611e.04012...@posting.google.com...
> I notice your points have completely been side-stepped.
Peter is not the most responsive of posters, no. He's ignored a lot of
point-blank questions. I get the impression it has to do with him not
wanting to "cast his pearls before swine".
No one can
> demonstrate that early Church Bishops like Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.
> were part of some heretical cult. No one can demonstrate the
> existance of some other "evangelical/whatever" group wandering around
> at the same time. No one can demonstrate any "roman/pagan/heretical"
> Church at that time having the power or resources to persecute anyone
> else, while it can be shown that the Church of Irenaeus, Ignatius etc.
> were persecuted by both the Jews and the Romans.
Yep.
> Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
> It is a presupposition full of rationalist-philisophical assumptions
> not supported by scripture *ALONE*. Sola Scripture cannot be
> demonstrated via Sola Scriptura, that is why every group that espouses
> SC has to have a creed, statement of belief, etc. explaining what
> *they* mean by SC.
Exactly.
Al
> "Rico Yungblud" <audio...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:d760611e.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > I notice your points have completely been side-stepped.
>
> Peter is not the most responsive of posters, no. He's ignored a lot of
> point-blank questions. I get the impression it has to do with him not
> wanting to "cast his pearls before swine".
***This doesn't say much for Peter's family jewels, does it? :-) If
what you say is true, that Peter considers the Orthodox, the original
Church, nothing more than swine, makes one wonder why he doesn't just
climb out of the sty and go home. He certainly isn't creating any
brownie points for Orthodoxy.
>
> No one can
> > demonstrate that early Church Bishops like Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.
> > were part of some heretical cult. No one can demonstrate the
> > existance of some other "evangelical/whatever" group wandering around
> > at the same time. No one can demonstrate any "roman/pagan/heretical"
> > Church at that time having the power or resources to persecute anyone
> > else, while it can be shown that the Church of Irenaeus, Ignatius etc.
> > were persecuted by both the Jews and the Romans.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
> > It is a presupposition full of rationalist-philisophical assumptions
> > not supported by scripture *ALONE*. Sola Scripture cannot be
> > demonstrated via Sola Scriptura, that is why every group that espouses
> > SC has to have a creed, statement of belief, etc. explaining what
> > *they* mean by SC.
***S.S. also presupposes that no Church has existed between the
Apostles and the protestant reformations.
Al
learner
> There are those who definitely know much more about this than I do.
Don't be so sure Richard, you appear to have a good grasp of the
issues.
> What I can say is that I'm not sure the above is accurate. Hieromartyr
> Dionysios the Areopagite, writing in the first century, appears to have
> known of the Dormition.
We have two issues here.
First, the "idea" of the Dormition is older than the 6th century.
However, it was not a belief held by orthodox [with a small "o"]
Christians, but by the Gnostics and the Collyridians - who were
considered heretics by the Church. These groups believed in a text
entitled the "Transitus Mariae" [which dates from the 5th century].
This text teaches the dormition and assumption of Mary, along with
many other Mariological myths which are accepted by the modern Church.
It is important to note that Pope Gelasius condemned this work as
heretical in A.D. 494.
We also know that during the 6th century, the theology of the church
in reference to Mary changed as a result of the Nestorian
controversies. The Church fought one heresy by replacing it with
another, by down playing Christ's human nature in favor of His Divine
nature. So, "feasts" such as the "Dormition" were created. But, the
Church had a problem - where is a source for this "teaching"? The
Bible says nothing about Mary's fate, nor does the history of the
early Church. So, the old heretical "Transitus Mariae" was dusted off
and brought out. It was claimed that this work was "really" written by
either Melito [who was a 2nd century Orthodox bishop of Sardis], or
St. John the Apostle.
The second issue is Dionysios the Areopagite. The source of this
story, the Pseudo-Dionysius, dates from the 5th century, not the
first. According to "A History of Philosophy, Vol 1" by Windelbrand,
these writings are first documented to 532 A.D..
However, even at that this relatively late date, the authenticity of
the writings is still in question. These writings became popular when
they were translated by John Scotus Erigena in the 9th century -
possibly during his time at the Court School in Paris.
Also, the entire historicity of the life of Dionysios the Areopagite
is also a bit shaky. The Greek Church cannot decided if he was the
first or second Bishop of Athens.
> > Another problem with Tradition is that several Churches claim that
> > their beliefs are based on Tradition. But if tradition is all that we
> > need, then there would be no differences between the Churches who
> > follow Tradition - right? But this is not the case. Both Roman Catholics
> > and Orthodox claim tradition, yet they disagree on the issue of so-called
> > purgatory.
> There are several things on which they disagree. Hence, they are not in
> Communion.
Yes, but that is not the point. If tradition is the ultimate and
final control on the interpretation of Scripture and the teaching of
doctrine, then all Churches which claim to follow tradition would be
in harmony concerning their beliefs. Yet this is not the case. For
example, in 190-192 A.D., Pope Victor demanded that the Eastern
Churches accept the Roman practice of celebrating Easter. Pope Victor
based his demand on the authority of the apostles Peter and Paul. He
was answered by one of the senior bishops of the East [Polycrates of
Ephesus], who referred in turn to a tradition that had reached him
directly from the Apostles.
> There is the Orthodox Study Bible (NT & Psalms).
Yes, and it provides very poor commentary.
> However, the impression I get, based on the mindset I run into with a lot of > Orthodox, is--why would such a thing be necessary? That's what Tradition is
> for.
Many may think that it is not necessary because, to many, Orthodoxy is
more of a ritual than it is a thought process.
Also, tradition does not tell me much about the Bible in terms of what
is literal and what is allegorical. In fact, there are no
authoritative sources for tradition, it is whatever the Church wants
it to be at a given point in time. Tradition has been used not
justify and refute many false teachings in the Eastern Church, from
Arianism to Nestorianism.
> Not only that, but I think for a lot of Orthodox the texts of the liturgies
> provide all the commentary required for much of Scripture.
Well, the liturgy does not tell me which parts of the Bible are
literal and which are allegorical.
> I'm not saying that definitively, but that's the impression I get. One thing
> I find with a lot of Orthodox is a real fear that Orthodoxy is going to wind
> up being treated by the West as just another "denomination", and I think that
> might have something to do with why a lot of this stuff hasn't been done--
> that is, if they did some of these things, they'd be *acting* like just
> another denomination.
The problem with Tradition is that it has no substantial boundaries -
the Church has never really given us a catalogue of tradition.
Therefore, no Orthodox believer can tell where the truth begins and
where it ends, aside from the declarations of some Church Fathers [and
note that the Church has never produced a list of who are in this
group] and the Councils - which most just take "as is." Tradition is
a mirage that fades away as one begins to examine it - the closer
approaches tradition, the more it is not there.
Also, the Orthodox Church, whether they want to admit it or not, is a
denomination. Just as there are Protestant denominations which claim
to correctly interpret the Scriptures, there are also denominations
which claim to use tradition to interpret Scripture. The Orthodox,
Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Armenians, and a variety of Eastern
Churches all claim to follow tradition, yet each has beliefs that
conflict with the others.
Learner
learner
> No one can demonstrate that early Church Bishops like Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.
> were part of some heretical cult.
True. But then again, no one can demonstrate that Origen or
Tertullian were heretics at this point in history - these decisions
were made later.
> Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
Except for 2 Timothy 3:16.
> It is a presupposition full of rationalist-philisophical assumptions
> not supported by scripture *ALONE*. Sola Scripture cannot be
> demonstrated via Sola Scriptura, that is why every group that espouses
> SC has to have a creed, statement of belief, etc. explaining what
> *they* mean by SC.
The Orthodox fall into the very same trap with their reliance on
tradition. The argument is also circular, however adding tradition to
Scripture simply enlarges the size of the circle!
Here's the problem: if we believe that the Church is the most
"reliable" interpreter of the Bible, we first have to accept that the
Bible is, in fact, inspired - otherwise the whole issue is pointless.
The Orthodox believe in the Bible based on the authority of the
Orthodox Church. The Church then attempts to prove her authority from
the Bible by pointing out that it is given authority by the writings
of certain individuals who tried to prove the authority of the Church
from the Bible, or from the
writings of certain men who, who wrote about other men who tried to
prove the authority of Church from the Bible......and so forth.
Like it or not, the final authority to which the Orthodox and the
Protestants both refer is the Bible. Also, both Orthodox and
Protestants leave the burden of the ultimate proof to God -
Protestants claiming authority for the Bible from God directly and
Orthodox claiming authority to the Bible through the channel of
tradition.
Another problem is that Tradition is insufficient in the matters of
faith, as is clear from the idea of the so-called Purgatory - where
the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, each boasting the same apostolic
origin and traditions, don't see eye to eye in an important doctrinal
matter.
Learner
Steve Hayes
<richard...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c53bb03c.04012...@posting.google.com...
>> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>news:<WsHPb.118699$8H.294457@attbi_s03>...
>Many of the Church's beliefs date from long after the
>> time of Christ and the Apostles. For example, many of the
>> Mariological beliefs [such as the "Dormition"] first appeared in the
>> 6th century A.D. - a fact confirmed by the most devout Mariologists -
>> Eamon Duffy and Juniper Carol [the founder of the American
>> Mariological Society].
>
>There are those who definitely know much more about this than I do. It's
>been less than a year since my first exposure to Orthodoxy. I don't have
>answers to all of your questions, and will leave most of them to those who
>are better equipped to answer them from an Orthodox standpoint.
>
>What I can say is that I'm not sure the above is accurate. Hieromartyr
>Dionysios the Areopagite, writing in the first century, appears to have
>known of the Dormition.
Orthodoxy has no "Mariology".
The teaching about the Theotokos is part of Christology.
richard.barrett
attempt a couple...
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:<eX1Qb.130084$na.197548@attbi_s04>...
> > > Another problem with Tradition is that several Churches claim that
> > > their beliefs are based on Tradition. But if tradition is all that we
> > > need, then there would be no differences between the Churches who
> > > follow Tradition - right? But this is not the case. Both Roman
Catholics
> > > and Orthodox claim tradition, yet they disagree on the issue of
so-called
> > > purgatory.
>
> > There are several things on which they disagree. Hence, they are not in
> > Communion.
>
> Yes, but that is not the point. If tradition is the ultimate and
> final control on the interpretation of Scripture and the teaching of
> doctrine, then all Churches which claim to follow tradition would be
> in harmony concerning their beliefs. Yet this is not the case.
However, it's a relatively simple matter to trace where the divergence
begins, and to see the historical context for the disagreements. That's
extremely important (just to use a really obvious example) when talking
about the split between East and West. It's really easy for people on either
side to just say, "*You* broke off from *us*" (and people on both sides do),
but context is everything. I'm not entirely sure I see your point.
>
> > There is the Orthodox Study Bible (NT & Psalms).
> Yes, and it provides very poor commentary.
It is, by the admission of its own editors and contributors, sort of
"Orthodoxy for beginners".
> > However, the impression I get, based on the mindset I run into with a
lot of > Orthodox, is--why would such a thing be necessary? That's what
Tradition is
> > for.
> Many may think that it is not necessary because, to many, Orthodoxy is
> more of a ritual than it is a thought process.
Forgive me, I don't intend to be abrasive here, but I need to call a spade
a spade. That comment really comes across as a cheap shot from somebody
who's bitter about something.
I will agree that, strictly speaking, for most of the Orthodox I know, it is
not a thought process. Rather, what I've seen are people going through a
*spiritual* process. Ritual is involved, yes. For that matter, thought is
involved. But neither tell the whole story.
Maybe I've just seen a really unrepresentative sample of Orthodoxy thus far.
> Well, the liturgy does not tell me which parts of the Bible are
> literal and which are allegorical.
A guess--maybe because that's a distinction that has as its source Western
philosophy, which is largely the bane of the Eastern Church? In general, I
get the impression that Orthodoxy doesn't feel a need to spell everything
out in huge black and white letters about it being one or the other.
Tradition is
> a mirage that fades away as one begins to examine it - the closer
> approaches tradition, the more it is not there.
I can't speak for your experience, but mine thus far has been exactly the
opposite.
> Also, the Orthodox Church, whether they want to admit it or not, is a
> denomination.
I cannot agree.
Richard
Rico Yungblud
> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<eX1Qb.130084$na.197548@attbi_s04>...
> Also, the entire historicity of the life of Dionysios the Areopagite
> is also a bit shaky. The Greek Church cannot decided if he was the
> first or second Bishop of Athens.
And just how significant is this? If he was the second and opposed to
the first, just how important is that in regards to the subject?
> > > Another problem with Tradition is that several Churches claim that
> > > their beliefs are based on Tradition. But if tradition is all that we
> > > need,
Strawman, Orthodoxy does not claim that "tradition is all that we
need".
> > > then there would be no differences between the Churches who
> > > follow Tradition - right?
No, a false conclusion. The interpretation/applicatioin of Tradition
is different, just like interpretations/application of scripture among
prot denominations.
Let's see how this fits:
" Another problem with Scripture is that several Churches claim that
their beliefs are based on Scripture. But if Scripture is all that we
need, then there would be no differences between the Churches who
follow Scripture - right?"
At this point I am assuming you are part of or associate with a
group/church espousing Sola Scriptura. I ask that you please confirm
this, or at least clarify what your position or "where you are coming
from" is. I have not read every "learner" post, so forgive me if you
have already done this.
<snip>
> If tradition is the ultimate and
> final control
Strawman, that is your language and focus, not that of Orthodoxy.
> on the interpretation of Scripture and the teaching of
> doctrine, then all Churches which claim to follow tradition would be
> in harmony concerning their beliefs. Yet this is not the case. For
> example, in 190-192 A.D., Pope Victor demanded that the Eastern
> Churches accept the Roman practice of celebrating Easter. Pope Victor
> based his demand on the authority of the apostles Peter and Paul. He
> was answered by one of the senior bishops of the East [Polycrates of
> Ephesus], who referred in turn to a tradition that had reached him
> directly from the Apostles.
Who do you consider to be correct in the above dispute, and why? What
criteria do *you* use?
>
> > There is the Orthodox Study Bible (NT & Psalms).
>
> Yes, and it provides very poor commentary.
This type of commentary is a recent, western innovation, and I'm not
surprised an Orthodox version judged to be "poor" by a western
mindset.
> > However, the impression I get, based on the mindset I run into with a lot of > Orthodox, is--why would such a thing be necessary? That's what Tradition is
> > for.
>
> Many may think that it is not necessary because, to many, Orthodoxy is
> more of a ritual than it is a thought process.
What you call "ritual" is a present, living demonstration of Orthodox
Tradition. The "thought process" of Orthodoxy is totally different
from the western mindset and prejudice you use to judge it.
> Also, tradition does not tell me much about the Bible in terms of what
> is literal and what is allegorical.
That is not the purpose of Tradition. The western mindset is
concerned about separating literal and allegorical into nice, neat
little boxes, which do not exist in Christianity until later western,
rationalistic-philosophy dominate the Roman and Protestant theology.
> In fact, there are no
> authoritative sources for tradition, it is whatever the Church wants
> it to be at a given point in time.
The Church is *the* authority, you just don't accept it.
> Tradition has been used not
> justify and refute many false teachings in the Eastern Church, from
> Arianism to Nestorianism.
Scripture has been used to justify and refute many teachings.
Yawn....
<snip>
>
> Well, the liturgy does not tell me which parts of the Bible are
> literal and which are allegorical.
That is not the purpose of Liturgy. Again, it is a present, living
demonstration of Tradition, and much of Scripture for that matter.
Are you aware of how much Scripture is presented throughout the
Orthodox Liturgical Calendar? I'm beginning to understand why others
question your claim to having ever been intimately part of the
Orthodox Christian Church.
<snip>
>
> The problem with Tradition is that it has no substantial boundaries -
> the Church has never really given us a catalogue of tradition.
Nor does the Church claim to have done this, and you can demand this
catalogue all you want, they ain't gonna do that dance.
> Therefore, no Orthodox believer can tell where the truth begins and
> where it ends,
No *individual* Orthodox believer is supposed to take this task solely
upon themselves. To do so is not Orthodox. I know how this sounds to
western christians, but again, it is due to fundamentally different
mindsets and assumptions.
> aside from the declarations of some Church Fathers [and
> note that the Church has never produced a list of who are in this
> group] and the Councils - which most just take "as is." Tradition is
> a mirage that fades away as one begins to examine it - the closer
> approaches tradition, the more it is not there.
And this is a *very* Orthodox state of affairs. I'm surprised someone
who claims to have spent many years in the Orthodox Church does not
understand this better.
<snip>
Rico Yungblud
> > Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
>
> Except for 2 Timothy 3:16.
Read it again. That passage does not claim that Scripture *alone*, or
*sola* is the only authority for the purposes mentioned.
<snip>
Steve Hayes
>audio...@my-deja.com (Rico Yungblud) wrote in message news:<d760611e.04012...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> No one can demonstrate that early Church Bishops like Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.
>> were part of some heretical cult.
>
>True. But then again, no one can demonstrate that Origen or
>Tertullian were heretics at this point in history - these decisions
>were made later.
>
>> Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
>
>Except for 2 Timothy 3:16.
It says nothing about the tradition of "sola scriptura".
digimortal
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote
Yes, but that is not the point. If tradition is the ultimate and
> final control on the interpretation of Scripture and the teaching of
> doctrine, then all Churches which claim to follow tradition would be
> in harmony concerning their beliefs. Yet this is not the case. For
> example, in 190-192 A.D., Pope Victor demanded that the Eastern
> Churches accept the Roman practice of celebrating Easter. Pope Victor
> based his demand on the authority of the apostles Peter and Paul. He
> was answered by one of the senior bishops of the East [Polycrates of
> Ephesus], who referred in turn to a tradition that had reached him
> directly from the Apostles.
> Learner
Joseph
> audio...@my-deja.com (Rico Yungblud) wrote in message news:<d760611e.04012...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>No one can demonstrate that early Church Bishops like Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.
>>were part of some heretical cult.
>
>
> True. But then again, no one can demonstrate that Origen or
> Tertullian were heretics at this point in history - these decisions
> were made later.
I think you missed his actual point... but I won't die on that hill.
>
>
>>Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
>
>
> Except for 2 Timothy 3:16.
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man
of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
It says nothing even remotely like Sola Scriptura. It says that all
scripture is inspired (etc), NOT that scripture is the only source for
teaching, tradition, inspiration, what have you.
It is like asserting from the premise, "all bats are mammals, being
warm-blooded, hairy, and giving birth to live young," that *only* bats
are mammals -- and what's more, that bats are the only creatures that
have warm blood, hair, or give birth to live young. you seem to be a
smart guy "learner," I bet you already know the fallacy involved there
(in both cases).
Every time I see this verse trotted out in support of Sola Scriptura, I
am amazed again at how flimsy a pretense it is. Fact is, Sola Scriptura
is not taught in the Bible anywhere.
>
>>It is a presupposition full of rationalist-philisophical assumptions
>>not supported by scripture *ALONE*. Sola Scripture cannot be
>>demonstrated via Sola Scriptura, that is why every group that espouses
>>SC has to have a creed, statement of belief, etc. explaining what
>>*they* mean by SC.
>
>
> The Orthodox fall into the very same trap with their reliance on
> tradition. The argument is also circular, however adding tradition to
> Scripture simply enlarges the size of the circle!
No: Scripture *is* Tradition. They are not two separate things. One is
not added to the other. All Scripture is Tradition, but not all
Tradition is Scripture. Going back to our previous categorical example:
to say that Tradition is added to Scripture is akin to saying that
"mammals are added to bats" in biological taxonomies.
You have the categories all mixed up.
> Here's the problem: if we believe that the Church is the most
> "reliable" interpreter of the Bible, we first have to accept that the
> Bible is, in fact, inspired - otherwise the whole issue is pointless.
The Church, meaning the Body of Christ -- not some special group of
experts. The whole Body is called to preserve the Faith; clergy, laity,
everyone alike (but in different capacities) plays a part in this.
> The Orthodox believe in the Bible based on the authority of the
> Orthodox Church.
No, we believe that the canon of Scripture was decided under the leading
of the Holy Spirit by the whole Church -- and that the completeness and
theological infallibility of those scriptures is evidenced by our
affirmation of them. The Church pre-existed the Scriptures, and it was
the Church (the Body of Christ) that decided what was and wasn't
Scripture. One has two choices then; believe that the Holy Spirit so
informed the Church as to create a true canon, or believe that God
failed in His promises to "lead us into all truth."
> The Church then attempts to prove her authority from
No, we do not attempt to "prove" anything. Proof is for math and
alcohol. Verification of tentatively-held theory is for science.
Prayer and apophasis are the way of theology. Proof doesn't enter the
picture. But you seem obsessed with it.
I'll let you in on something. *No* religion has a shred of "proof" for
a single theological/metaphysical claim -- even for the very existence
of their deity. We Orthodox seem to be naturally comfortable with this
fact. the West, under that ox Aquinas fooled itself into thinking its
beliefs logically defensible on a material level. Aquinas was right
about one thing, he called his life's work "worthless straw." Too bad
the Catholic Church didn't believe this single most profound truth of
their "Doctor of Doctors".
> the Bible by pointing out that it is given authority by the writings
> of certain individuals who tried to prove the authority of the Church
> from the Bible, or from the
> writings of certain men who, who wrote about other men who tried to
> prove the authority of Church from the Bible......and so forth.
Oh look, when you insert the idea of proof into the equation, you get a
paradox! Well, when that happens in anthropological research, we say
that we are on the way to detecting the error in our formulation of the
social theory -- we don't simply cop out and say that some culture is an
unexplainable paradox.
>
> Like it or not, the final authority to which the Orthodox and the
> Protestants both refer is the Bible.
Not really. We are quite frank about the fact that the "Bible" on its
own, outside of its proper context in Apostolic Tradition, can be made
to say anything. So, Vincent of Lerins' formula ends up being
especially significant. Dispensationalism would never have made it in
the Orthodox Church because it flies in the face of the whole expression
of the faith for the previous 18-and-a-half centuries. So, private
interpretation is *not* the rule with us.
The thing is, it isn't *really* the rule with Protestants, either. They
have all sorts of confessions and creeds, and statements of faith, and
books of systematic theology, and Bible study aids, and peculiar oral
traditions to every one of the thousands of denominations. Not one
single group of them relies solely on Scripture. They all have
intervening traditions, and schools of thought. The bad part is that
none of them admit it. So, the hidden, unrecognized tradition becomes
tyrant in interpretation -- and no one can question it because "it
doesn't exist."
> Also, both Orthodox and
> Protestants leave the burden of the ultimate proof to God -
What proof? Proof of what?
> Protestants claiming authority for the Bible from God directly
Which is silly. The Bible did not simply *poof* appear complete in a
leather binding, words of Christ in red, to a stunned group at
Pentecost. Everything we do is mediated by human action, human culture,
human understanding. If we pay attention to this, we can limit its
effect, as well as appreciate it. If we ignore this fact like the
Protestants do, those mediating actions, cultures, understandings rule
unchecked -- and the whims of every me-and-my-Bible Joe Christian become
the "direct authority of God."
> and
> Orthodox claiming authority to the Bible through the channel of
> tradition.
No, no "channel." The Bible is the written, and only *perfect* portion
of Tradition. In the writings of the Fathers, valuable as they are,
there are occasionally things that we must deny. One could argue for
the perfect purity of Tradition by saying that misstatements on the part
of Church Fathers are simply not part of Tradition. This is true, from
a position of faith. But, it remains that Scripture is the written
source that does not need editing to be counted as perfect.
There are also oral parts of Tradition. And also so much that might not
even be articulated that is continuous in the life of the Church the
same way that mtDNA is continuous in the life of an organism.
>
> Another problem is that Tradition is insufficient in the matters of
> faith, as is clear from the idea of the so-called Purgatory - where
> the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, each boasting the same apostolic
> origin and traditions, don't see eye to eye in an important doctrinal
> matter.
The answer to that is historically apparent. The Latins built that up,
logic upon logic, over centuries. They abandoned apophasis early on,
and their "innovations" accumulated quickly. It is not a matter of
Tradition versus Tradition. It is a matter of Tradition versus tradition.
This is not a failure of Tradition -- it is a failure of the Latins to
adhere to Tradition. They changed, we didn't.
Their positivistic nonsense pseudo-logic "theology" is what led to the
mess that precipitated the Reformation. Then the Reformers broke down
this edifice, and began to rebuild with the same flawed tools -- only
now tihout any restraint or constraint. Endless faction has reigned
among them ever since.
I'd say that Tradition has a much better track record than Sola
Scriptura in preserving unity and doctrinal continuity, *by far*. The
Orthodox Church has seen less division in the last 1500 years than the
Protestants (who could even call them *a* church?) have seen in the last 50.
brachypodium
> The
> Orthodox Church has seen less division in the last 1500 years than the
> Protestants (who could even call them *a* church?) have seen in the last
50.<
True, but 'Protestants' is not 'Christians'. Christians repudiate all
denominations, traditional, Protestant, whatever. The true church is
invisible, according to Scripture, and denominations are incidental.
Peter
learner
> > Also, the entire historicity of the life of Dionysios the Areopagite
> > is also a bit shaky. The Greek Church cannot decided if he was the
> > first or second Bishop of Athens.
>
> And just how significant is this? If he was the second and opposed to
> the first, just how important is that in regards to the subject?
If you go back to the original discussion, and read it in context, you
will see that an historical claim was made - that Dionysios the
Areopagite was a witness to the "Dormition". Since the claim was
based on what the Church believes to be historical facts - both
manuscript and historical evidence were used to disprove this claim -
both perfectly acceptable methodologies when examining historical
claims.
Additionally, if the Greek Church is not sure of its own history in
respect to an important issue, such as who was the first Bishop of
Athens, then how can it be sure of anything else from that time
period? This is the problem when you have a faith where it's "all or
nothing" - if there is one weak point, or if only one claim is
refuted, then the Orthodox Church's claims simply collapse.
> > > > Another problem with Tradition is that several Churches claim that
> > > > their beliefs are based on Tradition. But if tradition is all that we
> > > > need,
> Strawman, Orthodoxy does not claim that "tradition is all that we
> need".
It claims that Tradition give the Church the true faith, doctrine, and
practice.
> > > > then there would be no differences between the Churches who
> > > > follow Tradition - right?
>
> No, a false conclusion. The interpretation/applicatioin of Tradition
> is different, just like interpretations/application of scripture among
> prot denominations.
Well, you have just made my point. Just as Protestant groups claim to
interpret the Scriptures correctly [and hold different beliefs] there
are a number of groups which claim to interpret "Tradition" correctly
[and hold different beliefs - such as Purgatory]. Of course, each
claims the other misinterprets and misapplies "Tradition", so this
argument really goes nowhere.
Also, the Protestants know what the Bible "is". What is "Tradition"?
Orthodox scholars do not always refer to the same items when they talk
about the content of Church tradition. Modern Orthodox thinkers
(Konstantinidis, Clapsis, Archbishop Michael, Meyendorff, and Ware) do
not even agree on exactly what constitutes Church tradition!
In addition, the relationship between Scripture and Tradition is not
very clear in the Orthodox Church. Some scholars believe that
Scripture and Tradition form a single "one source" of authority (Ware,
Clapsis, and Meyendorff) while others argue that they are "two
sources", distinguished from one another(Konstantinidis and Archbishop
Michael).
> Let's see how this fits:
>
> " Another problem with Scripture is that several Churches claim that
> their beliefs are based on Scripture. But if Scripture is all that we
> need, then there would be no differences between the Churches who
> follow Scripture - right?"
>
> At this point I am assuming you are part of or associate with a
> group/church espousing Sola Scriptura. I ask that you please confirm
> this, or at least clarify what your position or "where you are coming
> from" is. I have not read every "learner" post, so forgive me if you
> have already done this.
I attend a Church with my girlfriend which preaches Sola Scripture,
however, I am not fully behind the idea. An "uninterpreted" Bible,
for example, cannot exist. The Bible itself comes into existence
through interpretation and through it, acquires meaning.
> > > There is the Orthodox Study Bible (NT & Psalms).
> > >
> > Yes, and it provides very poor commentary.
>
> This type of commentary is a recent, western innovation, and I'm not
> surprised an Orthodox version judged to be "poor" by a western
> mindset.
Well, in some Orthodox lands, the Bible itself is fairly recent.
Historically, the Orthodox Church has not taken the Bible very
seriously. The Bible was often a necessary nuisance, so it was best
kept out of the hands of the faithful. For example the NT and all OT
passages, which are used in the Divine Liturgy, were translated into
Slavonic around the 10th century. However, a complete translation of
the OT appeared in Russia around the late 15th or early 16th century
and Bibles were not widely available in Russia until the Protestants
made them so.
> What you call "ritual" is a present, living demonstration of Orthodox
> Tradition. The "thought process" of Orthodoxy is totally different
> from the western mindset and prejudice you use to judge it.
So, I know that the Orthodox Church is the true Church because it
follows "Tradition", and I know that this "Tradition" is true because
the Orthodox Church follows it? That is a circular argument.
> > Also, tradition does not tell me much about the Bible in terms of what
> > is literal and what is allegorical.
>
> That is not the purpose of Tradition. The western mindset is
> concerned about separating literal and allegorical into nice, neat
> little boxes, which do not exist in Christianity until later western,
> rationalistic-philosophy dominate the Roman and Protestant theology.
So, if explaining God's revelation is not a purpose of "Tradition",
then what is it good for?
> > In fact, there are no
> > authoritative sources for tradition, it is whatever the Church wants
> > it to be at a given point in time.
>
> The Church is *the* authority, you just don't accept it.
That is a fallacy by argument of assertion! All Churches [and
religions for that matter] claim to be true. Why is your Church's
case any better than the others who make the same claims?
> > Tradition has been used to
> > justify and refute many false teachings in the Eastern Church, from
> > Arianism to Nestorianism.
>
> Scripture has been used to justify and refute many teachings.
> Yawn....
So has "Tradition"...yawn....
> > Well, the liturgy does not tell me which parts of the Bible are
> > literal and which are allegorical.
>
> That is not the purpose of Liturgy. Again, it is a present, living
> demonstration of Tradition, and much of Scripture for that matter.
Then why does it not explain Scripture?
> Are you aware of how much Scripture is presented throughout the
> Orthodox Liturgical Calendar? I'm beginning to understand why others
> question your claim to having ever been intimately part of the
> Orthodox Christian Church.
Believe what you wish.
> > The problem with Tradition is that it has no substantial boundaries -
> > the Church has never really given us a catalogue of tradition.
>
> Nor does the Church claim to have done this, and you can demand this
> catalogue all you want, they ain't gonna do that dance.
But the Church claims:
"Orthodoxy believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in
Jesus Christ is preserved in its full integrity in the living
tradition of the Church, under the guidance and inspiration of the
Holy Spirit."
and
"The pendant is the whole of Holy Tradition, which is the expression
of the revelation of Christ in the Church."
Why can't the Church write it down, providing us with clear boundaries
of what is and what is not "Tradition"? The Church will not, in your
words, "do that dance", because it cannot. Your Church is very quick
to make bold claims - and then back down when too many questions are
asked, or as they say in Texas: "big hat, no cattle".
Also, perhaps, an unwritten and amorphous tradition allows the leaders
of the Church to claim tradition to support their needs at any given
moment - and that is why the Eastern Churches have had some many
problems with heresy?
> > Therefore, no Orthodox believer can tell where the truth begins and
> > where it ends,
>
> No *individual* Orthodox believer is supposed to take this task solely
> upon themselves. To do so is not Orthodox. I know how this sounds to
> western christians, but again, it is due to fundamentally different
> mindsets and assumptions.
So I guess that we are not responsible for what we believe - we should
simply be bobbing heads in the Orthodox Church? Remember, this is the
same Church that brought us Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism,
Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, and Monothelitism!
> > aside from the declarations of some Church Fathers [and
> > note that the Church has never produced a list of who are in this
> > group] and the Councils - which most just take "as is." Tradition is
> > a mirage that fades away as one begins to examine it - the closer
> > approaches tradition, the more it is not there.
>
> And this is a *very* Orthodox state of affairs. I'm surprised someone
> who claims to have spent many years in the Orthodox Church does not
> understand this better.
This question of Orthodox Tradition interests me greatly. It is
easily the most important and least supported article of the Orthodox
faith. I never encountered, from person to person contact or from
reading the works of Church scholars, a clear delineation of the
bounds of Tradition in regards to what is true and what is false.
If we use the "accepted by the whole Church" standard,then the entire
Orthodox Church should have a common teachings - which they do not
[infant Communion is one example]. I have concluded that Tradition,
in the minds of the Orthodox, is a bit like the weather - everybody
talks about Tradition but nobody seems to know exactly what it is, or
how it applies in realterms. Once again, Orthodox Tradition is similar
to a mirage - the closer you approach it, the more it is not there.
Learner
learner
> >>Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
> >
> >
> > Except for 2 Timothy 3:16.
>
> "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
> reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man
> of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
>
> It says nothing even remotely like Sola Scriptura. It says that all
> scripture is inspired (etc), NOT that scripture is the only source for
> teaching, tradition, inspiration, what have you.
I agree that it doesn't claim to be the "only" source, however, this
passage says nothing about following traditions based on creeds and
doctrine that will be developed centuries in the future.
> Every time I see this verse trotted out in support of Sola Scriptura, I
> am amazed again at how flimsy a pretense it is. Fact is, Sola Scriptura
> is not taught in the Bible anywhere.
Nor is the concept of "Tradition". I know that Paul discussed
tradition in 2 Thess., yet there is no manuscript evidence or a "chain
of transmission" which would equate first century tradition with what
we have today.
> > The Orthodox fall into the very same trap with their reliance on
> > tradition. The argument is also circular, however adding tradition to
> > Scripture simply enlarges the size of the circle!
>
> No: Scripture *is* Tradition. They are not two separate things. One is
> not added to the other. All Scripture is Tradition, but not all
> Tradition is Scripture. Going back to our previous categorical example:
> to say that Tradition is added to Scripture is akin to saying that
> "mammals are added to bats" in biological taxonomies.
Well, that has not really been decided in the Orthodox Church. The
relationship between Scripture and Tradition is not very clear. Some
scholars believe that Scripture and Tradition form a single "one
source" of authority (Ware, Clapsis, and Meyendorff)- you appear to be
in their camp. Others argue that they are "two sources", distinguished
from one another(Konstantinidis and Archbishop Michael).
> You have the categories all mixed up.
>
> > Here's the problem: if we believe that the Church is the most
> > "reliable" interpreter of the Bible, we first have to accept that the
> > Bible is, in fact, inspired - otherwise the whole issue is pointless.
>
> The Church, meaning the Body of Christ -- not some special group of
> experts. The whole Body is called to preserve the Faith; clergy, laity,
> everyone alike (but in different capacities) plays a part in this.
>
> > The Orthodox believe in the Bible based on the authority of the
> > Orthodox Church.
>
> No, we believe that the canon of Scripture was decided under the leading
> of the Holy Spirit by the whole Church -- and that the completeness and
> theological infallibility of those scriptures is evidenced by our
> affirmation of them. The Church pre-existed the Scriptures, and it was
> the Church (the Body of Christ) that decided what was and wasn't
> Scripture. One has two choices then; believe that the Holy Spirit so
> informed the Church as to create a true canon, or believe that God
> failed in His promises to "lead us into all truth."
So, to make a long story short, the Bible is true based on the
authority of the Church.
> > The Church then attempts to prove her authority from
>
> No, we do not attempt to "prove" anything. Proof is for math and
> alcohol. Verification of tentatively-held theory is for science.
> Prayer and apophasis are the way of theology. Proof doesn't enter the
> picture. But you seem obsessed with it.
I am obsessed with proof. Without proof, all claims are equal.
> I'll let you in on something. *No* religion has a shred of "proof" for
> a single theological/metaphysical claim -- even for the very existence
> of their deity.
I agree. However, we can use both internal and external evidence to
get close to the truth.
> Not really. We are quite frank about the fact that the "Bible" on its
> own, outside of its proper context in Apostolic Tradition, can be made
> to say anything.
It has been made to "say anything" even with "Apostolic Tradition".
Look at the history of heresy within the eastern Churches.
> So, private interpretation is *not* the rule with us.
All interpretation is private - whether done by me, or by a man called
a "Church Father". Each reads meaning into the text.
> The thing is, it isn't *really* the rule with Protestants, either. They
> have all sorts of confessions and creeds, and statements of faith, and
> books of systematic theology, and Bible study aids, and peculiar oral
> traditions to every one of the thousands of denominations. Not one
> single group of them relies solely on Scripture. They all have
> intervening traditions, and schools of thought. The bad part is that
> none of them admit it. So, the hidden, unrecognized tradition becomes
> tyrant in interpretation -- and no one can question it because "it
> doesn't exist."
I agree. I have said all along that there is no such thing as an
uniterpreted fact. My girlfriend's father rejects the works of the
Church Fathers, yet he has loads of books by LeHaye, Dobson, Price,
and Craig!
> What proof? Proof of what?
Proof for the authority and veracity of Scripture.
> > Protestants claiming authority for the Bible from God directly
>
> Which is silly. The Bible did not simply *poof* appear complete in a
> leather binding, words of Christ in red, to a stunned group at
> Pentecost. Everything we do is mediated by human action, human culture,
> human understanding. If we pay attention to this, we can limit its
> effect, as well as appreciate it. If we ignore this fact like the
> Protestants do, those mediating actions, cultures, understandings rule
> unchecked -- and the whims of every me-and-my-Bible Joe Christian become
> the "direct authority of God."
Once again, I agree. One either believes that the Bible is true
because it says so, or believes that the Bible is true because the
Church says so. Like it or not, both place the burden on God to give
us the truth - either through direct inspiration, or through
tradition.
> No, no "channel." The Bible is the written, and only *perfect* portion
> of Tradition. In the writings of the Fathers, valuable as they are,
> there are occasionally things that we must deny. One could argue for
> the perfect purity of Tradition by saying that misstatements on the part
> of Church Fathers are simply not part of Tradition. This is true, from
> a position of faith. But, it remains that Scripture is the written
> source that does not need editing to be counted as perfect.
Then why not put all of this tradition into a written form? The
Church should tell us what is true and what is not, as well as tell us
what the ultimate "control" over Tradition is. Can tradition be used
to judge tradition without creating a circular argument?
> There are also oral parts of Tradition. And also so much that might not
> even be articulated that is continuous in the life of the Church the
> same way that mtDNA is continuous in the life of an organism.
> The answer to that is historically apparent. The Latins built that up,
> logic upon logic, over centuries. They abandoned apophasis early on,
> and their "innovations" accumulated quickly. It is not a matter of
> Tradition versus Tradition. It is a matter of Tradition versus tradition.
Yes, that is the Orthodox view, however, the Roman Catholics would
disagree - citing tradition. Also, are you saying that tradition did
not develop over a period of time in the Orthodox Church? The truth
is, the Orthodox froze their theology at a point in time while the
West [Rome and the Anglicans] allowed tradition to develop and grow -
whether we agree with them or not.
> This is not a failure of Tradition -- it is a failure of the Latins to
> adhere to Tradition. They changed, we didn't.
Once again, didn't tradition develop over time? Why did it need to be
frozen at a given point in history?
> I'd say that Tradition has a much better track record than Sola
> Scriptura in preserving unity and doctrinal continuity, *by far*. The
> Orthodox Church has seen less division in the last 1500 years than the
> Protestants (who could even call them *a* church?) have seen in the last 50.
Well, I think that we need to look at the historical context. It is
easy to have unity when the state [Byzantium or Imperial Russia] is
willing to use violence and persecution to support it.
In the West in general, and America in particular, the State does not
care what anyone believes - at least concerning God. This freedom is
what produces religious diversity not Sola Scriptura.
Learner
TKelly
> > audio...@my-deja.com (Rico Yungblud) wrote in message news:<d760611e.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> >>No one can demonstrate that early Church Bishops like Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.
> >>were part of some heretical cult.
> > True. But then again, no one can demonstrate that Origen or
> > Tertullian were heretics at this point in history - these decisions
> > were made later.
> I think you missed his actual point... but I won't die on that hill.
> >>Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
> > Except for 2 Timothy 3:16.
> "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
> reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man
> of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
>
> It says nothing even remotely like Sola Scriptura. It says that all
> scripture is inspired (etc), NOT that scripture is the only source for
> teaching, tradition, inspiration, what have you.
Which scripture does it refer to? If this verse is used to support
Sola Scriptura then much of what is used today to support various
"bible based" beliefs would have to be discounted and all of the Old
Testament used.
TKelly
Your thoughts are unclear to me so I apologize if I misunderstand your
meaning here.
As English is the language we are using here I believe we have to
stick with commonly held use of words. Christians are any follower of
Jesus Christ. This of course is a very broad group as many make many
claims. This group is therefore broken down into sub groups each with
a particulair set of beliefs these become denominations. If you belong
to or are a one person Church that is "transdenominatial" or
interdenominatial" then you have defined yourself and become a
denomination. If you don't and are broadly Christian with no
denomination then you are not set apart from other groups who claim to
follow Jesus Christ e.g. LDS, Unification Chruch, Orthodox, Roman
Catholic...
Protestants are a broad collection of denominations who share a common
ancestry.
learner
> > > There are several things on which they disagree. Hence, they are not in
> > > Communion.
> >
> > Yes, but that is not the point. If tradition is the ultimate and
> > final control on the interpretation of Scripture and the teaching of
> > doctrine, then all Churches which claim to follow tradition would be
> > in harmony concerning their beliefs. Yet this is not the case.
>
> However, it's a relatively simple matter to trace where the divergence
> begins, and to see the historical context for the disagreements. That's
> extremely important (just to use a really obvious example) when talking
> about the split between East and West. It's really easy for people on either
> side to just say, "*You* broke off from *us*" (and people on both sides do),
> but context is everything. I'm not entirely sure I see your point.
It may, or may not, be simple to trace any given divergence in
doctrine and teaching, but that is not the point. The point is - if
"Tradition" is the best interpreter of Scripture and provides true
doctrines and teachings, then why did a wide variety of groups which
claim to follow "Tradition" develop contradictory doctrines?
Also, exactly when did the split between the East and Rome really take
place? In 1054, or earlier - when the Eastern Churches taught
Arianism and Nestorianism?
> It is, by the admission of its own editors and contributors, sort of
> "Orthodoxy for beginners".
Well, I would expect that the Church which claims to have given us the
Bible would do better!
> Forgive me, I don't intend to be abrasive here, but I need to call a spade
> a spade. That comment really comes across as a cheap shot from somebody
> who's bitter about something.
Rather than attempting to discern motives - and thereby dismiss an
argument by dismissing the person making it - it would be better to
stick to the discussion at hand. One can find many people in all
Churches and religions who "go through the motions". But that is not
the point. You continue to make my point by saying:
> I will agree that, strictly speaking, for most of the Orthodox I know, it is
> not a thought process. Rather, what I've seen are people going through a
> *spiritual* process. Ritual is involved, yes. For that matter, thought is
> involved. But neither tell the whole story.
Then what "tells the whole story"?
> A guess--maybe because that's a distinction that has as its source Western
> philosophy, which is largely the bane of the Eastern Church? In general, I
> get the impression that Orthodoxy doesn't feel a need to spell everything
> out in huge black and white letters about it being one or the other.
The Orthodox Church claims:
Orthodoxy believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in Jesus
Christ is preserved in its full integrity in the living tradition of
the Church, under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, if one makes such a bold claim, one needs some very good
evidence to back it up. One cannot make a claim, especially one that
can be verified from history, and then run away from history when it
is refuted - claiming that it is OK for the Church to be vague. One
cannot claim to hold the "eternal truth" and then run away at the
first difficult question.
The problem with the entire Orthodox argument is that when you have a
faith where it's all or nothing, then if there is one weak point or if
only one claim is refuted, then the Orthodox Church's claims simply
collapse.
> Tradition is
> > a mirage that fades away as one begins to examine it - the closer
> > approaches tradition, the more it is not there.
>
> I can't speak for your experience, but mine thus far has been exactly the
> opposite.
I am not talking about experience. Where is the Church's "Tradition"?
If it is so important, why haven't they written it down?
Once again, since the Orthodox believe that Tradition is such an
important part of the Church, why have they never defined exactly what
it is and published it along with the Orthodox Study Bible?
Perhaps, an unwritten and amorphous tradition allows the leaders of
the Church to claim tradition to support their needs at any given
moment? Perhaps this is also why the Eastern Church has had such a
battle with heresies.
> > Also, the Orthodox Church, whether they want to admit it or not, is a
> > denomination.
>
> I cannot agree.
Now who can argue with such stunning logic! Why do you not agree, or
is it that we really do not need to spell out our arguments -
especially if they are in favor of Orthodoxy?
Orthodoxy is one denomination among a group of Churches which claim
"Apostolic Tradition", and uses it to reach conclusions that are
different from the other denominations.
To assert, a priori, that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church,
and then "prove" this by pointing out the differences in other groups
[which are relegated to the status of "denominations"] is based on a
number of logical fallacies. This polemic is nothing new, the Mormons
use/used it and so did/do the Muslims - so the Orthodox who use this
argument are in good company!
Learner
brachypodium
news:c99be5ff.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:<l_6Rb.319$H76...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > "Joseph" <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message
> >
> > > The
> > > Orthodox Church has seen less division in the last 1500 years than the
> > > Protestants (who could even call them *a* church?) have seen in the
last
> > 50.<
> >
> > True, but 'Protestants' is not 'Christians'. Christians repudiate all
> > denominations, traditional, Protestant, whatever. The true church is
> > invisible, according to Scripture, and denominations are incidental.
>
> Your thoughts are unclear to me so I apologize if I misunderstand your
> meaning here.
> As English is the language we are using here I believe we have to
> stick with commonly held use of words. Christians are any follower of
> Jesus Christ.<
True.
> This of course is a very broad group as many make many
> claims.<
Untrue. Those who make claims are not all followers.
> Protestants are a broad collection of denominations who share a common
> ancestry.
Untrue. Protestants are people who have certain views. They are not
necessarily Christians. If those of them who are Christians are also
denominational members, that is only as a matter of convenience for them
individually, and their membership has no significance to them otherwise.
Peter
richard.barrett
news:<5hfQb.132582$xy6.543457@attbi_s02>...
> "Tradition" is the best interpreter of Scripture and provides true
> doctrines and teachings, then why did a wide variety of groups which
> claim to follow "Tradition" develop contradictory doctrines?
Why does it appear to be a difficult concept for you to grasp that, from the
Orthodox standpoint, the Roman church abandoned elements of Tradition?
> > It is, by the admission of its own editors and contributors, sort of
> > "Orthodoxy for beginners".
> Well, I would expect that the Church which claims to have given us the
> Bible would do better!
Well, let's see. OSB was spearheaded by Fr. Peter Gillquist, an evangelical
convert whose primary job is to run outreach for the Antiochian Archdiocese
in the US. Given that, I find it more useful to take it for what it is,
rather than take it to task for not being something to which it makes no
claim.
> > Forgive me, I don't intend to be abrasive here, but I need to call a
spade
> > a spade. That comment really comes across as a cheap shot from somebody
> > who's bitter about something.
>
> Rather than attempting to discern motives - and thereby dismiss an
> argument by dismissing the person making it - it would be better to
> stick to the discussion at hand.
It has nothing to do with dismissing the argument by dismissing the person.
You made a blanket statement that was rather uncalled for.
One can find many people in all
> Churches and religions who "go through the motions". But that is not
> the point. You continue to make my point by saying:
>
> > I will agree that, strictly speaking, for most of the Orthodox I know,
it is
> > not a thought process. Rather, what I've seen are people going through a
> > *spiritual* process. Ritual is involved, yes. For that matter, thought
is
> > involved. But neither tell the whole story.
>
> Then what "tells the whole story"?
And this makes your point how?
I'm having a really hard time understanding what it is you're trying to get
at.
> The Orthodox Church claims:
>
> Orthodoxy believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in Jesus
> Christ is preserved in its full integrity in the living tradition of
> the Church, under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Citation, please?
> Therefore, if one makes such a bold claim, one needs some very good
> evidence to back it up. One cannot make a claim, especially one that
> can be verified from history, and then run away from history when it
> is refuted - claiming that it is OK for the Church to be vague. One
> cannot claim to hold the "eternal truth" and then run away at the
> first difficult question.
And how, in your view, has Orthodoxy done this?
> I am not talking about experience. Where is the Church's "Tradition"?
> If it is so important, why haven't they written it down?
Why is it so important to you that it *be* written down?
> Once again, since the Orthodox believe that Tradition is such an
> important part of the Church, why have they never defined exactly what
> it is and published it along with the Orthodox Study Bible?
You've got the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Divine Liturgies of St. John
Chrysostom and St. Basil, several volumes of service books--just what are
you looking for?
> Perhaps, an unwritten and amorphous tradition allows the leaders of
> the Church to claim tradition to support their needs at any given
> moment? Perhaps this is also why the Eastern Church has had such a
> battle with heresies.
I think you're making a vastly different set of assumptions from what's
applicable.
>
> > > Also, the Orthodox Church, whether they want to admit it or not, is a
> > > denomination.
> >
> > I cannot agree.
>
> Now who can argue with such stunning logic! Why do you not agree, or
> is it that we really do not need to spell out our arguments -
> especially if they are in favor of Orthodoxy?
Wow, you've got an axe to grind. I consider "denominations" to be a
Protestant phenomenon. Therefore, the Methodists are a denomination; the RCs
and Orthodox are not. Anglicans are their own strange beast, as far as I'm
concerned. They're not really Protestant, and they're not really Catholic,
either.
> To assert, a priori, that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church,
> and then "prove" this by pointing out the differences in other groups
> [which are relegated to the status of "denominations"] is based on a
> number of logical fallacies.
That's a straw man, since that isn't what the OC does. It points out the
beliefs, structure, etc. of the early Church (as defined, at least in part,
by the 7 Ecumenical Councils) and says, "That's us, that's always been us,
that's still us, and that will always be us." The RCs do the same thing,
yes. However, using the 7 ECs as the standard, there are demonstrable
departures on the part of the RCs from the standard.
Joseph
> "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]
>
>
> Well, let's see. OSB was spearheaded by Fr. Peter Gillquist, an evangelical
> convert whose primary job is to run outreach for the Antiochian Archdiocese
> in the US. Given that, I find it more useful to take it for what it is,
> rather than take it to task for not being something to which it makes no
> claim.
Ha ha! That's actually my beef with it. I haven't seen anything by the
Gillquist camp that meets the intellectual standards of your average
Orthodox writing. It all sounds exactly like the kind of writing that I
was fed growing up in an Evangelical nondenomination. Perhaps this is
his intention -- it is not my intention here to say that his crowd is
incapable of doing better.
But the funny thing is, "learner" is indicting the OSB for writing in a
style pretty much exactly like his new church buddies (that came as a
package deal with his girlfriend). No offense, learner, but it *is*
kind of funny. Actually... have you read the OSB? Because, I think the
reason that so many Orthodox find it unsatisfactory is that it gives a
very Evangelical/Protestant style of commentary.
[snip]
Joseph
> Joseph <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<wb6dnaRZKaQ...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>
>>>>Sola Scriptura is a tradition in itself, and is not taught in the NT.
>>>
>>>
>>>Except for 2 Timothy 3:16.
>>
>>"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
>>reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man
>>of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
>>
>>It says nothing even remotely like Sola Scriptura. It says that all
>>scripture is inspired (etc), NOT that scripture is the only source for
>>teaching, tradition, inspiration, what have you.
>
>
> I agree that it doesn't claim to be the "only" source,
(!) Then why did you say that it supports Sola Scriptura?
> however, this
> passage says nothing about following traditions based on creeds and
> doctrine that will be developed centuries in the future.
And why should it? This verse was about Scripture. It wasn't about
anything else.
>>Every time I see this verse trotted out in support of Sola Scriptura, I
>>am amazed again at how flimsy a pretense it is. Fact is, Sola Scriptura
>>is not taught in the Bible anywhere.
>
>
> Nor is the concept of "Tradition". I know that Paul discussed
> tradition in 2 Thess., yet there is no manuscript evidence or a "chain
> of transmission" which would equate first century tradition with what
> we have today.
Yes, that is a matter of faith. We believe that the Holy Spirit has not
let the Church be orphaned. We, at least, have some kind of "chain" as
you call it. The Protestants have nothing but their whimsy.
>>>The Orthodox fall into the very same trap with their reliance on
>>>tradition. The argument is also circular, however adding tradition to
>>>Scripture simply enlarges the size of the circle!
>>
>>No: Scripture *is* Tradition. They are not two separate things. One is
>>not added to the other. All Scripture is Tradition, but not all
>>Tradition is Scripture. Going back to our previous categorical example:
>>to say that Tradition is added to Scripture is akin to saying that
>>"mammals are added to bats" in biological taxonomies.
>
>
> Well, that has not really been decided in the Orthodox Church. The
> relationship between Scripture and Tradition is not very clear. Some
> scholars believe that Scripture and Tradition form a single "one
> source" of authority (Ware, Clapsis, and Meyendorff)- you appear to be
> in their camp. Others argue that they are "two sources", distinguished
> from one another(Konstantinidis and Archbishop Michael).
I am not familiar with Konstantinidis' or Archbishop Michael's writings.
However, I imagine that you are exaggerating the difference. It
probably comes down to an issue of translation, and of slightly
different terminology. I bet that if you got all of them in a room
together, they would come out with something rather consistent.
And it is a lot more than just Ware, Claspis, and Meyendorff who hold
that view (they argue it from the Fathers and from Scripture, anyway).
I have not, in fact, read any author that contradicts them in this --
and I have read a lot more than those guys.
>>You have the categories all mixed up.
>>
>>
>>>Here's the problem: if we believe that the Church is the most
>>>"reliable" interpreter of the Bible, we first have to accept that the
>>>Bible is, in fact, inspired - otherwise the whole issue is pointless.
>>
>>The Church, meaning the Body of Christ -- not some special group of
>>experts. The whole Body is called to preserve the Faith; clergy, laity,
>>everyone alike (but in different capacities) plays a part in this.
>>
>>
>>>The Orthodox believe in the Bible based on the authority of the
>>>Orthodox Church.
>>
>>No, we believe that the canon of Scripture was decided under the leading
>>of the Holy Spirit by the whole Church -- and that the completeness and
>>theological infallibility of those scriptures is evidenced by our
>>affirmation of them. The Church pre-existed the Scriptures, and it was
>>the Church (the Body of Christ) that decided what was and wasn't
>>Scripture. One has two choices then; believe that the Holy Spirit so
>>informed the Church as to create a true canon, or believe that God
>>failed in His promises to "lead us into all truth."
>
>
> So, to make a long story short, the Bible is true based on the
> authority of the Church.
Does it make you happy to repeat yourself? You don't get any more right.
The Scriptures are true because they are true. And yet, the Church
pre-existed the Bible. And the Church produced the Bible -- the Bible
did not produce the Church. The Church has affirmed those writings
which are True, based on the leading of the Holy Spirit. And the Church
has denied some writings as being True, based on the leading of the Holy
Spirit. They aren't true because we say so, but we say so because they
are true.
However, the Body of Christ decided a long time ago what was Scripture
and what wasn't, and the authority for the canon is from the Church. We
do not have the burden, nor the right, to determine privately what books
are Scripture and which aren't.
>
>
>>>The Church then attempts to prove her authority from
>>
>>No, we do not attempt to "prove" anything. Proof is for math and
>>alcohol. Verification of tentatively-held theory is for science.
>>Prayer and apophasis are the way of theology. Proof doesn't enter the
>>picture. But you seem obsessed with it.
>
>
> I am obsessed with proof. Without proof, all claims are equal.
That is not true. Without evidence, all claims are equal. Proof is
something which is not possible except for the abstract world of formal
logic and math (and alcohol, goes the old joke).
There is no proof for the existence of God. Therefore, in your scheme,
a claim for the existence of God is equal with a claim for the existence
of invisible pink unicorns.
>>I'll let you in on something. *No* religion has a shred of "proof" for
>>a single theological/metaphysical claim -- even for the very existence
>>of their deity.
>
>
> I agree. However, we can use both internal and external evidence to
> get close to the truth.
But where did your precious proof go?
Let me ask you, what is the proof of Christ's divinity? What is the
evidence? What is the proof or evidence for the existence of the Holy
Spirit?
>>Not really. We are quite frank about the fact that the "Bible" on its
>>own, outside of its proper context in Apostolic Tradition, can be made
>>to say anything.
>
>
> It has been made to "say anything" even with "Apostolic Tradition".
> Look at the history of heresy within the eastern Churches.
Well, the fact that we called it heresy, and culled it from the flock,
only points out that we are more watchful than the Protestants. It
wasn't more common (probably less); it just caused more of a stir.
To contrast, I regularly see all manner of ancient heresies casually
expressed in evangelical churches. They are quite comfortable with
modalism, especially.
Within Apostolic Tradition, heresy is recognized and opposed.
Therefore, we have a record of it. If we were like the evangelicals,
the record would look pristine, because no heresy, no matter how
insidious, would have caused much of a stir.
>>So, private interpretation is *not* the rule with us.
>
>
> All interpretation is private - whether done by me, or by a man called
> a "Church Father". Each reads meaning into the text.
When the particular writing of a Church Father is absorbed into the
concensus, it ceases to be private interpretation. If it is upheld as a
good expression of the concensus across time and geographical
boundaries, among the adherents to Tradition, it is remembered. We
consider them worthy because they are good -- they are not good because
we consider them worthy.
Contrasting: every time a person in the Protestant circles has an
opinion that varies significantly from the party line of their
denomination's creed, they can just go start a new denomination
(assuming they are charismatic enough).
>>The thing is, it isn't *really* the rule with Protestants, either. They
>>have all sorts of confessions and creeds, and statements of faith, and
>>books of systematic theology, and Bible study aids, and peculiar oral
>>traditions to every one of the thousands of denominations. Not one
>>single group of them relies solely on Scripture. They all have
>>intervening traditions, and schools of thought. The bad part is that
>>none of them admit it. So, the hidden, unrecognized tradition becomes
>>tyrant in interpretation -- and no one can question it because "it
>>doesn't exist."
>
>
> I agree. I have said all along that there is no such thing as an
> uniterpreted fact. My girlfriend's father rejects the works of the
> Church Fathers, yet he has loads of books by LeHaye, Dobson, Price,
> and Craig!
Ha! Exactly...
>>What proof? Proof of what?
>
>
> Proof for the authority and veracity of Scripture.
Ah. Authority comes from an affirmation of veracity, coupled with an
affirmation as to Apostolic authorship or patronage. The veracity comes
from God, and is a matter of faith.
The proof, I guess, is in the pudding. Where do you end up when the
race is over?
>>>Protestants claiming authority for the Bible from God directly
>>
>>Which is silly. The Bible did not simply *poof* appear complete in a
>>leather binding, words of Christ in red, to a stunned group at
>>Pentecost. Everything we do is mediated by human action, human culture,
>>human understanding. If we pay attention to this, we can limit its
>>effect, as well as appreciate it. If we ignore this fact like the
>>Protestants do, those mediating actions, cultures, understandings rule
>>unchecked -- and the whims of every me-and-my-Bible Joe Christian become
>>the "direct authority of God."
>
>
> Once again, I agree. One either believes that the Bible is true
> because it says so, or believes that the Bible is true because the
> Church says so.
The Bible doesn't make claims about itself *as* the Bible. There are a
few statements in there about "scripture," but what qualifies as
scripture is never laid out. In fact 2 Timothy 3:16 could be seen as
prescriptive, rather than descriptive if you want to see it that way.
(Not that I am asserting such, but it is possible.)
> Like it or not, both place the burden on God to give
> us the truth - either through direct inspiration, or through
> tradition.
Errrgh! Explain to me what "direct inspiration" the Protestants have
that the Orthodox do not.
If Scripture is seen as one part of Tradition, and Tradition is seen as
the living inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Church, then the Bible
and all of Tradition *are* direct inspiration. If you want to claim
that Tradition mediates inspiration so as to make it secondary
inspiration... then the same applies to the Bible. Even for
Protestants, it is the same. The Bible would be mediating the direct
inspiration of God to the authors to us.
>>No, no "channel." The Bible is the written, and only *perfect* portion
>>of Tradition. In the writings of the Fathers, valuable as they are,
>>there are occasionally things that we must deny. One could argue for
>>the perfect purity of Tradition by saying that misstatements on the part
>>of Church Fathers are simply not part of Tradition. This is true, from
>>a position of faith. But, it remains that Scripture is the written
>>source that does not need editing to be counted as perfect.
>
>
> Then why not put all of this tradition into a written form?
Most of it is. We just don't call our written expressions of living
(oral and practiced) Tradition "scripture." Its value is not diminished
for the difference. As someone else said, we have Patristic writings,
the Liturgies, prayer books, and more. What more do you want?
> The
> Church should tell us what is true and what is not, as well as tell us
> what the ultimate "control" over Tradition is.
The ultimate control over Tradition is God. Specifically, the faith
that God's promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the
Church, was a good promise. And, that God's promise that the Holy
Spirit will lead us in all truth was a good promise. Individuals may
fall into error, but the whole Church never will.
> Can tradition be used
> to judge tradition without creating a circular argument?
Can science be used to judge science without creating a circular
argument? That's a philosophical question worth exploring. But it
raises the question: What, other than science, can judge something else
which purports to be scientific?
Tradition judges tradition to see if it is Tradition.
>>There are also oral parts of Tradition. And also so much that might not
>>even be articulated that is continuous in the life of the Church the
>>same way that mtDNA is continuous in the life of an organism.
>
>
>>The answer to that is historically apparent. The Latins built that up,
>>logic upon logic, over centuries. They abandoned apophasis early on,
>>and their "innovations" accumulated quickly. It is not a matter of
>>Tradition versus Tradition. It is a matter of Tradition versus tradition.
>
>
> Yes, that is the Orthodox view, however, the Roman Catholics would
> disagree - citing tradition. Also, are you saying that tradition did
> not develop over a period of time in the Orthodox Church?
Of course it did. And there was a divergence. A significant one. And
it is all visible in our written traditions. But the Latins adopted a
kind of "theology" that the Church Fathers (with the exception of
Augustine, if you count him as a Father) considered wrong-headed and
dangerous. They became logical and positivistic. Instead of testing
their prayers in the fire of prayer, and the winnowing of apophasis,
they merely let their "logical" statements accumulate one upon the
other. Until they had "Mariology" and Transubstantiation, and
Purgatory, and Limbo, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and
Original Sin, etc.
The development of Tradition in the Orthodox Church is not one of
changing Tradition, but one of changing and dynamic traditions (which
preserve the unchanging Tradition).
The Catholics have their arguments. I don't agree with them. My
prerogative.
> The truth
> is, the Orthodox froze their theology at a point in time while the
> West [Rome and the Anglicans] allowed tradition to develop and grow -
> whether we agree with them or not.
Our theology is not frozen. It is merely the unchanging Truth about the
Unchanging God. Our expression of that Tradition has changed over time,
and will continue to. In fact, it is changing a little too fast IMHO,
in the States.
Rome broke with the philosophical orientation of Traditional theology,
and the shift is easily observable in the historical record. But the
real damage was not done until Aquinas was revered above all teachers in
their Church. Augustine, the Orthodox appreciate -- but Aquinas, he was
a base and shallow thinker in (Orthodox) theological terms.
>>This is not a failure of Tradition -- it is a failure of the Latins to
>>adhere to Tradition. They changed, we didn't.
>
>
> Once again, didn't tradition develop over time? Why did it need to be
> frozen at a given point in history?
Nothing was frozen that was ever changeable in the first place. And
that which was changeable in the first place has continued to change.
>>I'd say that Tradition has a much better track record than Sola
>>Scriptura in preserving unity and doctrinal continuity, *by far*. The
>>Orthodox Church has seen less division in the last 1500 years than the
>>Protestants (who could even call them *a* church?) have seen in the last 50.
>
>
> Well, I think that we need to look at the historical context. It is
> easy to have unity when the state [Byzantium or Imperial Russia] is
> willing to use violence and persecution to support it.
Nothing on a level with the Inquisition. Nor with the witch burnings of
both Protestants and Catholics in the middle ages and beyond.
> In the West in general, and America in particular, the State does not
> care what anyone believes - at least concerning God. This freedom is
> what produces religious diversity not Sola Scriptura.
That just doesn't fly with history. Faction and schism was the
Protestant record from moment one. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists,
Shakers... Of course, the existence of Protestant state churches in
England and Europe slowed it down a little. And consequently, the total
lack of any artificial restraint on private interpretation in America
has led to a rapid acceleration of this.
------------------
Look, I have to ask you something. I can understand questioning the
rationality of Orthodox Christianity on the basis of you prefered logic.
But you skepticism is not consistent. If you consider Orthodoxy to be
lacking in "proof" for its claims, I really don't understand why you
would go to Protestantism.
On top of all of the things still required to be taken on faith, they
pile absurdity upon absurdity -- much of which you acknowledge when
pressed. Calvary Chapel people, for instance, are vehement Creationists
nearly to a man. Doesn't this fly in the face of your love for proof
and logic?
So, I just don't get it. What is it?
Grace and Peace,
Joseph
[snip]
> Instead of testing
> their prayers in the fire of prayer, and the winnowing of apophasis,
Correction: that should read "testing their *theology* in the fire of
prayer..."
Sorry.
[snip]
learner
> But the funny thing is, "learner" is indicting the OSB for writing in a
> style pretty much exactly like his new church buddies (that came as a
> package deal with his girlfriend).
My argument is not so much against the OSB, but with the issue of why
the Orthodox Church [which claims to have "given" us the Bible] has
not written an authoratative commentary on it, telling us, for
example, what is literal and what is allegorical.
> No offense, learner, but it *is* kind of funny.
None taken.
> Actually... have you read the OSB?
Yes, and I was underwhelmed by it.
Learner
Al
> > "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
> >
> >
> > Well, let's see. OSB was spearheaded by Fr. Peter Gillquist, an evangelical
> > convert whose primary job is to run outreach for the Antiochian Archdiocese
> > in the US. Given that, I find it more useful to take it for what it is,
> > rather than take it to task for not being something to which it makes no
> > claim.
>
> Ha ha! That's actually my beef with it. I haven't seen anything by the
> Gillquist camp that meets the intellectual standards of your average
> Orthodox writing. It all sounds exactly like the kind of writing that I
> was fed growing up in an Evangelical nondenomination. Perhaps this is
> his intention -- it is not my intention here to say that his crowd is
> incapable of doing better.
>
> But the funny thing is, "learner" is indicting the OSB for writing in a
> style pretty much exactly like his new church buddies (that came as a
> package deal with his girlfriend). No offense, learner, but it *is*
> kind of funny. Actually... have you read the OSB? Because, I think the
> reason that so many Orthodox find it unsatisfactory is that it gives a
> very Evangelical/Protestant style of commentary.
>
> [snip]
>
> - Joseph
Re: Your last sentence -- This isn't all bad, Joseph. The commentary,
in particular the footnotes, are brief, to the point and written in
"plain speak." This might not be satisfactory for those thirsting for
indepth commentary and analysis. But for a generation raised on 10
second sound bites, the commentary does seem to provide a starting
point.
Al
learner
> > I agree that it doesn't claim to be the "only" source,
>
> (!) Then why did you say that it supports Sola Scriptura?
I should have said that supporters of this tradition point to that
passage.
> > Nor is the concept of "Tradition". I know that Paul discussed
> > tradition in 2 Thess., yet there is no manuscript evidence or a "chain
> > of transmission" which would equate first century tradition with what
> > we have today.
>
> Yes, that is a matter of faith. We believe that the Holy Spirit has not
> let the Church be orphaned. We, at least, have some kind of "chain" as
> you call it. The Protestants have nothing but their whimsy.
Regardless of what Protestants believe, where is this "chain of
transmission"? For example, the Muslims [not that I agree with their
faith or their traditions] have written traditions called Hadith.
Each tradition has an "isnad" - or chain of transmission which can be
traced back to Muhammad and his earliest followers. I do not trust
this chain, however, at least they have attempted to organize their
traditions.
> Does it make you happy to repeat yourself? You don't get any more right.
I was merely summarizing what you said.
> The Scriptures are true because they are true.
A circular argument.
> And yet, the Church pre-existed the Bible.
Not the majority of the text - the Old Testament.
Also, is the Orthodox Church today the exactly the same as the first
century Church? Would an ancient Bishop [who was married and elected
by his congregation] recognize a modern Orthodox Bishop? I doubt it.
> And the Church produced the Bible -- the Bible
> did not produce the Church. The Church has affirmed those writings
> which are True, based on the leading of the Holy Spirit. And the Church
> has denied some writings as being True, based on the leading of the Holy
> Spirit. They aren't true because we say so, but we say so because they
> are true.
The Church "collected" A CANON of Scripture, not THE CANON of
Scripture. The Canon given to us by the Council of Carthage is one of
many that exists today/existed centuries ago.
> However, the Body of Christ decided a long time ago what was Scripture
> and what wasn't, and the authority for the canon is from the Church. We
> do not have the burden, nor the right, to determine privately what books
> are Scripture and which aren't.
A fuzzy decision, to say the least! The Bible of the Greek Orthodox
Church includes I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3
Maccabees. The Slavonic Canon adds 2 Esdras, but designates 1 and 2
Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras. The Ethiopic Canon adds II Enoch and
Jubilees.
> There is no proof for the existence of God. Therefore, in your scheme,
> a claim for the existence of God is equal with a claim for the existence
> of invisible pink unicorns.
>
> >>I'll let you in on something. *No* religion has a shred of "proof" for
> >>a single theological/metaphysical claim -- even for the very existence
> >>of their deity.
You miss the point. I am not discussing the esoteric issues such as
the existence of God or the "problem of evil". I am examining the
teachings of the Orthodox Church to see how they jive with recorded
history. When the Church makes an historical claim [ie that early
Christians believed in the "Dormition", for example], and I find,
through looking at historical documents, that this was not a belief
held by early Christians [but was held by some Gnostic groups] - I
question the Church's claims and therefore it authority.
> > I agree. However, we can use both internal and external evidence to
> > get close to the truth.
>
> But where did your precious proof go?
Internal and external evidences can be presented as proof.
> Let me ask you, what is the proof of Christ's divinity? What is the
> evidence? What is the proof or evidence for the existence of the Holy
> Spirit?
I could look at the internal evidence in the Bible - Old Testament
prophecy, for example.
> > It has been made to "say anything" even with "Apostolic Tradition".
> > Look at the history of heresy within the eastern Churches.
>
> Well, the fact that we called it heresy, and culled it from the flock,
> only points out that we are more watchful than the Protestants. It
> wasn't more common (probably less); it just caused more of a stir.
It was called heresy often long after the fact. The real question is
why didn't "Apostolic Tradition", the existence of Bishops [who
instead of fighting heresy, promoted it], and the Holy Spirit prevent
these problems from arising in the first place?
> > All interpretation is private - whether done by me, or by a man called
> > a "Church Father". Each reads meaning into the text.
>
> When the particular writing of a Church Father is absorbed into the
> concensus, it ceases to be private interpretation. If it is upheld as a
> good expression of the concensus across time and geographical
> boundaries, among the adherents to Tradition, it is remembered. We
> consider them worthy because they are good -- they are not good because
> we consider them worthy.
> When the particular writing of a Church Father is absorbed into the
> concensus, it ceases to be private interpretation.
No, it is still that person's private interpretation, albeit
recognized by a larger body. There is no such thing as an
uninterpreted fact. The reader always asserts himself on the text
[whether the Bible or the works of the Church Fathers] and no act of
exegesis is ever innocent.
The Protestants reject Catholicism's and Orthodoxy's interpretation
and the Karaite Jews reject the Talmud/Midrashim. But all go on to
replace the rejected interpretations of the orthodox with their own
new auxillary hermeneutics because facts do not interpret themselves.
> Contrasting: every time a person in the Protestant circles has an
> opinion that varies significantly from the party line of their
> denomination's creed, they can just go start a new denomination
> (assuming they are charismatic enough).
And, in a free society, that is their right.
> > I agree. I have said all along that there is no such thing as an
> > uniterpreted fact. My girlfriend's father rejects the works of the
> > Church Fathers, yet he has loads of books by LeHaye, Dobson, Price,
> > and Craig!
>
> Ha! Exactly...
Exactly what? The works of the Church Fathers are also uninterpreted
facts. They are no more self-revealing than the Bible.
> Ah. Authority comes from an affirmation of veracity, coupled with an
> affirmation as to Apostolic authorship or patronage. The veracity comes
> from God, and is a matter of faith.
But you need the Church to affirm this veracity, right? Or do you
accept the Scriptures as true because they say so?
> > Like it or not, both place the burden on God to give
> > us the truth - either through direct inspiration, or through
> > tradition.
>
> Errrgh! Explain to me what "direct inspiration" the Protestants have
> that the Orthodox do not.
I said that Protestants accept Scripture through its direct
inspiration while the Orthodox do so based on tradition.
> If Scripture is seen as one part of Tradition, and Tradition is seen as
> the living inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Church, then the Bible
> and all of Tradition *are* direct inspiration.
Then why do elements of tradition often contradict each other -
councils and the works of Church Fathers, for example?
> If you want to claim
> that Tradition mediates inspiration so as to make it secondary
> inspiration... then the same applies to the Bible. Even for
> Protestants, it is the same. The Bible would be mediating the direct
> inspiration of God to the authors to us.
Once again, both are uninterpreted facts.
> > Then why not put all of this tradition into a written form?
>
> Most of it is. We just don't call our written expressions of living
> (oral and practiced) Tradition "scripture." Its value is not diminished
> for the difference. As someone else said, we have Patristic writings,
> the Liturgies, prayer books, and more. What more do you want?
A written source for Orthodox Tradition. One can find a variety of
opinions in the Patristic writings - some verging on heretical.
> The ultimate control over Tradition is God. Specifically, the faith
> that God's promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the
> Church, was a good promise. And, that God's promise that the Holy
> Spirit will lead us in all truth was a good promise.
That is a fallacy of the argument by fiat.
> Individuals may fall into error, but the whole Church never will.
There were times in history when all of the Eastern Sees preached
heresy. The Arian heresy, for example.
> Can science be used to judge science without creating a circular
> argument? That's a philosophical question worth exploring. But it
> raises the question: What, other than science, can judge something else
> which purports to be scientific?
Science can answer scientific questions by using the scientific
method. What method does Tradition judge tradition? Is there a
methodology, or is Tradition a justification for what the Church
believes/believed at any point in time?
> Tradition judges tradition to see if it is Tradition.
By what methodology does it do this?
> > Yes, that is the Orthodox view, however, the Roman Catholics would
> > disagree - citing tradition. Also, are you saying that tradition did
> > not develop over a period of time in the Orthodox Church?
>
> Of course it did. And there was a divergence. A significant one. And
> it is all visible in our written traditions. But the Latins adopted a
> kind of "theology" that the Church Fathers (with the exception of
> Augustine, if you count him as a Father) considered wrong-headed and
> dangerous. They became logical and positivistic. Instead of testing
> their prayers in the fire of prayer, and the winnowing of apophasis,
> they merely let their "logical" statements accumulate one upon the
> other. Until they had "Mariology" and Transubstantiation, and
> Purgatory, and Limbo, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and
> Original Sin, etc.
But the Roman Catholics would call this the continuing work of the
Holy Spirit!
> The development of Tradition in the Orthodox Church is not one of
> changing Tradition, but one of changing and dynamic traditions (which
> preserve the unchanging Tradition).
Semantics. Doctrines developed over time, the Church was not set us
"as is".
> Our theology is not frozen. It is merely the unchanging Truth about the
> Unchanging God.
Once again, semantics. At one point in time, the East chose to freeze
its theology, the West did not.
> > Well, I think that we need to look at the historical context. It is
> > easy to have unity when the state [Byzantium or Imperial Russia] is
> > willing to use violence and persecution to support it.
>
> Nothing on a level with the Inquisition. Nor with the witch burnings of
> both Protestants and Catholics in the middle ages and beyond.
Which is not the point. The monopoly of Orthodoxy was protected by
the State.
> > In the West in general, and America in particular, the State does not
> > care what anyone believes - at least concerning God. This freedom is
> > what produces religious diversity not Sola Scriptura.
>
> That just doesn't fly with history. Faction and schism was the
> Protestant record from moment one. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists,
> Shakers... Of course, the existence of Protestant state churches in
> England and Europe slowed it down a little.
Sure it does, these movements arose in the comparatively liberal west
of Europe.
> And consequently, the total
> lack of any artificial restraint on private interpretation in America
> has led to a rapid acceleration of this.
Why should there be any artificial restraints? Even if the State told
us what to believe [Orthodoxy, of course], we would still need to
privately interpret these beliefs!
> ------------------
> Look, I have to ask you something. I can understand questioning the
> rationality of Orthodox Christianity on the basis of you prefered logic.
> But you skepticism is not consistent. If you consider Orthodoxy to be
> lacking in "proof" for its claims, I really don't understand why you
> would go to Protestantism.
I am not 100% into Protestantism. They are a bit less arrogant in
their claims, compared to the Orthodox Church, so it is not as easy to
use history to debunk them.
> On top of all of the things still required to be taken on faith, they
> pile absurdity upon absurdity -- much of which you acknowledge when
> pressed. Calvary Chapel people, for instance, are vehement Creationists
> nearly to a man. Doesn't this fly in the face of your love for proof
> and logic?
I can prove neither evolution [due to huge gaps in the fossil record]
any more than I can prove "Creationism" [due to the lack of a global
geological disconformity which should have been created by the "Great
Flood"].
Learner
Joseph
[snip]
> Re: Your last sentence -- This isn't all bad, Joseph. The commentary,
> in particular the footnotes, are brief, to the point and written in
> "plain speak." This might not be satisfactory for those thirsting for
> indepth commentary and analysis. But for a generation raised on 10
> second sound bites, the commentary does seem to provide a starting
> point.
Granted. My main point was to say that its weakness was its resemblence
to Evangelical writing, rather than its characteristic Orthodoxy. It
wasn't my intention to say it is wholly without merit. Perhaps I went
too far.
Thanks,
Joseph
> Joseph <zaph...@NOmiraiSPAM.cx> wrote in message news:<iN-dnSbauPS...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>
>>But the funny thing is, "learner" is indicting the OSB for writing in a
>>style pretty much exactly like his new church buddies (that came as a
>>package deal with his girlfriend).
>
>
> My argument is not so much against the OSB, but with the issue of why
> the Orthodox Church [which claims to have "given" us the Bible] has
> not written an authoratative commentary on it, telling us, for
> example, what is literal and what is allegorical.
That is due in part to the fact that we have historically treated most
passages as both, depending. And some as usually one or the other. But
the lines aren't clear. We're fine with that. We don't need to pretend
otherwise.
The Protestants are no more clear than we are. They just pretend they
are. They can't decide what is literal or figurative from one sentence
to the next! I grew up in it. And not passively, mind you. I was very
active, and soaked up everything they could throw at me.
>
>
>>No offense, learner, but it *is* kind of funny.
>
>
> None taken.
Good. :-)
>
>
>> Actually... have you read the OSB?
>
>
> Yes, and I was underwhelmed by it.
Well, that was my general impression, too. I was just curious.
Later,
richard.barrett
> My argument is not so much against the OSB, but with the issue of why
> the Orthodox Church [which claims to have "given" us the Bible] has
> not written an authoratative commentary on it, telling us, for
> example, what is literal and what is allegorical.
From the Orthodox standpoint, so far as I can tell (I do not say "from my
standpoint", because I am not yet Orthodox), the liturgical year is the best
possible commentary on Scripture. I'm sorry it doesn't separate everything
out into nice, neat boxes labeled "literal" and "allegorical", but so far as
I can tell, the Church considers those to be ideas that are beside the
point. If, say, a priest would like to correct my point of view here, I'd
actually very much appreciate it.
One point that perhaps you miss is that (so far as I can tell) the Orthodox
Church views itself as, first and foremost, a "worshipping" body. That is,
if you want to know what they believe, worship with them. It may or may not
be written down someplace, but even if it is, that's no substitute for
learning it in the context of the worship. To bring it down to a
"commentary" or a "catalogue" would simply be to diminish it.
learner
> > "Tradition" is the best interpreter of Scripture and provides true
> > doctrines and teachings, then why did a wide variety of groups which
> > claim to follow "Tradition" develop contradictory doctrines?
>
> Why does it appear to be a difficult concept for you to grasp that, from the
> Orthodox standpoint, the Roman church abandoned elements of Tradition?
I understand the Orthodox standpoint, as well as the Roman Catholic
view. Why is one more valid than the other? If both claim "Apostolic
Tradition", then this can be used to produce the same conclusions.
However, the problem is also found in the Orthodox Church. We had a
discussion some time ago on this forum concerning infant Communion
among various Orthodox jurisdictions. Some have first Holy Communion,
notably the Carpatho-Russians. Others give infants wine only until
they are a few months old [to reduce the choking hazard] and then give
bread as well. Still others [ie the Ukrainians] give only wine to the
age of seven and then gives the bread after the child's First
Confession. Each cites Tradition, so who is right and who is wrong -
assuming they are using the same Tradition?
Also, in another discussion, we noted that the Slavonic OT Canon has
additional books compared to the Greek Canon, and that the Ethiopians
add additional books. Each claims Tradition, but who is right? Is
the Book of Jubilees inspired or not?
> > > It is, by the admission of its own editors and contributors, sort of
> > > "Orthodoxy for beginners".
> > Well, I would expect that the Church which claims to have given us the
> > Bible would do better!
> Well, let's see. OSB was spearheaded by Fr. Peter Gillquist, an evangelical
> convert whose primary job is to run outreach for the Antiochian Archdiocese
> in the US. Given that, I find it more useful to take it for what it is,
> rather than take it to task for not being something to which it makes no
> claim.
The issue is not the OSB, but the general attitude of the Orthodox
Church in relation to the Bible. Historically, the Orthodox Church
has not taken the Bible very seriously. For example the NT and all OT
passages, which are used in the Divine Liturgy, were translated into
Slavonic around the 10th century. However, a complete translation of
the OT appeared in Russia around the late 15th or early 16th century.
> > Rather than attempting to discern motives - and thereby dismiss an
> > argument by dismissing the person making it - it would be better to
> > stick to the discussion at hand.
> It has nothing to do with dismissing the argument by dismissing the person.
> You made a blanket statement that was rather uncalled for.
And you agreed with me:
>>> I will agree that, strictly speaking, for most of the Orthodox
>>> I know, it is not a thought process. Rather, what I've
>>> seen are people going through a *spiritual* process.
And added:
>>> Ritual is involved, yes. For that matter, thought
>>> is involved. But neither tell the whole story.
And I asked:
>> Then what "tells the whole story"?
> And this makes your point how?
I am attempting to see your point.
> > The Orthodox Church claims:
> >
> > Orthodoxy believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in Jesus
> > Christ is preserved in its full integrity in the living tradition of
> > the Church, under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
> Citation, please?
http://www.acrod.org/orthodox1.html
> > Therefore, if one makes such a bold claim, one needs some very good
> > evidence to back it up. One cannot make a claim, especially one that
> > can be verified from history, and then run away from history when it
> > is refuted - claiming that it is OK for the Church to be vague. One
> > cannot claim to hold the "eternal truth" and then run away at the
> > first difficult question.
> And how, in your view, has Orthodoxy done this?
See the above quote from an Orthodox website.
> > I am not talking about experience. Where is the Church's "Tradition"?
> > If it is so important, why haven't they written it down?
>
> Why is it so important to you that it *be* written down?
So I can read it! An unwritten Tradition is like the unwritten
history of a totalitarian society - it can be changed to suit any
argument at any time.
> You've got the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Divine Liturgies of St. John
> Chrysostom and St. Basil, several volumes of service books--just what are
> you looking for?
A clear explanation of Church teachings. Take the Councils, for
example:
The councils of Nicaea and Sardica assumed there was only one
hypostasis of the Godhead while the First Council of Constantinople
and the Council of Chalcedon assumed there were three.
Chalcedon in 451 rejected the decisions of the Second Council of
Ephesus of 449.
Constantinople in 754 rejected the veneration of images, which the
Second Council of Nicaea in 787 approved.
Chalcedon in 451 specifically amended the decision of the First
Council of Ephesus in 431 [which had condemned Nestorianism]and
recognized the claims of Antioch theology [Nestorius' view] and
specifically rejected the central doctrine of Alexandrine christology
[Cyril's view] which had dominated the two councils of Ephesus.
Therefore, the Patriarch Nestorius, who was condemned in 431 and 449,
would have been able to subscribe completely to the formulation of
faith laid down at Chalcedon in 451, to which Cyril, the leading
spirit at Ephesus I, could have subscribed only with open or secret
reservations, and to which Dioscorus, the leading spirit at Ephesus II
could not have subscribed at all.
> > Perhaps, an unwritten and amorphous tradition allows the leaders of
> > the Church to claim tradition to support their needs at any given
> > moment? Perhaps this is also why the Eastern Church has had such a
> > battle with heresies.
>
> I think you're making a vastly different set of assumptions from what's
> applicable.
Then why didn't Tradition prevent these heresies?
> > > > Also, the Orthodox Church, whether they want to admit it or not, is a
> > > > denomination.
> > >
> > > I cannot agree.
> >
> > Now who can argue with such stunning logic! Why do you not agree, or
> > is it that we really do not need to spell out our arguments -
> > especially if they are in favor of Orthodoxy?
>
> Wow, you've got an axe to grind.
Not at all.
> I consider "denominations" to be a Protestant phenomenon.
Can you honestly say, based on the earlier discussion of infant
communion, that there are not denominations within Orthodoxy? Are
these groups smaller units of a larger whole - who vary in their
beliefs and practices?
> > To assert, a priori, that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church,
> > and then "prove" this by pointing out the differences in other groups
> > [which are relegated to the status of "denominations"] is based on a
> > number of logical fallacies.
>
> That's a straw man, since that isn't what the OC does. It points out the
> beliefs, structure, etc. of the early Church (as defined, at least in part,
> by the 7 Ecumenical Councils) and says, "That's us, that's always been us,
> that's still us, and that will always be us." The RCs do the same thing,
> yes. However, using the 7 ECs as the standard, there are demonstrable
> departures on the part of the RCs from the standard.
If you are interested in the early Church, read the Didache - which
describes an organization that is very different than the Orthodox
Church. In fact, some Church Fathers considered this work as inspired
Scripture including Clement of Alexandria.
In the Didache, there is no mention of the creation, yet alone the
veneration of icons. There was no baptism of infants, no veneration of
Mary or the saints, and Bishops were married men who were elected by
their congregations.
So, how has the Church "always been us"? You cannot support this
claim with historical evidence which, in fact, refutes it.
Learner
richard.barrett
> view. Why is one more valid than the other? If both claim "Apostolic
> Tradition", then this can be used to produce the same conclusions.
So the question becomes, who had the prior claim?
> However, the problem is also found in the Orthodox Church. We had a
> discussion some time ago on this forum concerning infant Communion
> among various Orthodox jurisdictions. Some have first Holy Communion,
> notably the Carpatho-Russians. Others give infants wine only until
> they are a few months old [to reduce the choking hazard] and then give
> bread as well. Still others [ie the Ukrainians] give only wine to the
> age of seven and then gives the bread after the child's First
> Confession. Each cites Tradition, so who is right and who is wrong -
> assuming they are using the same Tradition?
There's a distinction that the Orthodox make between Tradition and
tradition, small t. The latter basically amounts to local custom. As I
understand it, anyway, it's not an issue that creates a schism. So, who
cares?
> Also, in another discussion, we noted that the Slavonic OT Canon has
> additional books compared to the Greek Canon, and that the Ethiopians
> add additional books. Each claims Tradition, but who is right? Is
> the Book of Jubilees inspired or not?
I don't know the arguments or this particular issue at all, so I don't have
an answer for you. Somebody more knowledgeable than I (and that shouldn't be
hard to come by) will need to address this.
> The issue is not the OSB, but the general attitude of the Orthodox
> Church in relation to the Bible. Historically, the Orthodox Church
> has not taken the Bible very seriously. For example the NT and all OT
> passages, which are used in the Divine Liturgy, were translated into
> Slavonic around the 10th century. However, a complete translation of
> the OT appeared in Russia around the late 15th or early 16th century.
So?
> > It has nothing to do with dismissing the argument by dismissing the
person.
> > You made a blanket statement that was rather uncalled for.
>
> And you agreed with me:
No, I didn't. My statement asserted that characterizing the Orthodox life as
"ritual over thought process" misses the point. It's a spiritual process,
which is as it should be.
> > > Therefore, if one makes such a bold claim, one needs some very good
> > > evidence to back it up. One cannot make a claim, especially one that
> > > can be verified from history, and then run away from history when it
> > > is refuted - claiming that it is OK for the Church to be vague. One
> > > cannot claim to hold the "eternal truth" and then run away at the
> > > first difficult question.
>
> > And how, in your view, has Orthodoxy done this?
>
> See the above quote from an Orthodox website.
I'm still failing to see exactly on what grounds you're basing the view that
the Church "runs away at the first difficult question". My experience has
been that Church embraces the difficult questions.
> > > I am not talking about experience. Where is the Church's "Tradition"?
> > > If it is so important, why haven't they written it down?
> >
> > Why is it so important to you that it *be* written down?
>
> So I can read it! An unwritten Tradition is like the unwritten
> history of a totalitarian society - it can be changed to suit any
> argument at any time.
Given that the Church is the Body that gave us apophatic theology, I think
you're requiring something that would have bewildered most of the Church
Fathers.
> Then why didn't Tradition prevent these heresies?
That they were considered heresies suggests that the system worked as it was
supposed to. What Protestant can meaningfully discuss heresy these days?
> > I consider "denominations" to be a Protestant phenomenon.
>
> Can you honestly say, based on the earlier discussion of infant
> communion, that there are not denominations within Orthodoxy? Are
> these groups smaller units of a larger whole - who vary in their
> beliefs and practices?
"Denomination" implies a different communion, different hierarchy, different
organization.
> If you are interested in the early Church, read the Didache - which
> describes an organization that is very different than the Orthodox
> Church. In fact, some Church Fathers considered this work as inspired
> Scripture including Clement of Alexandria.
>
> In the Didache, there is no mention of the creation, yet alone the
> veneration of icons. There was no baptism of infants, no veneration of
> Mary or the saints, and Bishops were married men who were elected by
> their congregations.
>
> So, how has the Church "always been us"? You cannot support this
> claim with historical evidence which, in fact, refutes it.
Not everybody sees it quite that way:
http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/corner/Didache.pdf
learner
> > I understand the Orthodox standpoint, as well as the Roman Catholic
> > view. Why is one more valid than the other? If both claim "Apostolic
> > Tradition", then this can be used to produce the same conclusions.
>
> So the question becomes, who had the prior claim?
No, that is not the question at all. Both Churches were united for
nearly 11 centuries, so both can rightly cite the very same traditions
to support their beliefs - which often vary.
> > However, the problem is also found in the Orthodox Church. We had a
> > discussion some time ago on this forum concerning infant Communion
> > among various Orthodox jurisdictions. Some have first Holy Communion,
> > notably the Carpatho-Russians. Others give infants wine only until
> > they are a few months old [to reduce the choking hazard] and then give
> > bread as well. Still others [ie the Ukrainians] give only wine to the
> > age of seven and then gives the bread after the child's First
> > Confession. Each cites Tradition, so who is right and who is wrong -
> > assuming they are using the same Tradition?
> There's a distinction that the Orthodox make between Tradition and
> tradition, small t. The latter basically amounts to local custom. As I
> understand it, anyway, it's not an issue that creates a schism. So, who
> cares?
And who decides what is Tradition versus tradition. Your response is
nothing more than an ad hoc fallacy.
One could argue that issues such as having pews vs. no pews or the
Julian vs. Gregorian Christmas are debates which concern "tradition".
However, in the case on communing infants, we are discussing an issue
concerning a Sacrament. In fact, I would argue that it is a crucial
sacrament in the life of the Church because the Eucharist [along with
Baptism] was directly instituted by Christ.
If Sacramental grace is imparted by the Eucharist to an infant, are
the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox and the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches
guilty of depriving infants of Sacramental grace? Can they be a part
of the "true Church" if they do this?
Or, if we believe that one must have a basic understanding of the
Eucharist before one partakes of it - as the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox
and [to a lesser extent] the Ukrainian Orthodox apparently do, are
Churches who give infants Communion then profaning the Sacrament?
Would a Church which profanes a Sacrament be a part of the "true
Church"?
The problem with life is that many, if not most, things are not as
clear-cut as we would hope. Please go beyond the one-line polemics
and think for yourself.
> > Also, in another discussion, we noted that the Slavonic OT Canon has
> > additional books compared to the Greek Canon, and that the Ethiopians
> > add additional books. Each claims Tradition, but who is right? Is
> > the Book of Jubilees inspired or not?
>
> I don't know the arguments or this particular issue at all, so I don't have
> an answer for you. Somebody more knowledgeable than I (and that shouldn't be
> hard to come by) will need to address this.
Simply put: why do various Orthodox groups have different Canons of
Scripture? I thought that the Church "created" the Bible, but which
one? Sorry, there is no "one-line" answer to this problem!
> > The issue is not the OSB, but the general attitude of the Orthodox
> > Church in relation to the Bible. Historically, the Orthodox Church
> > has not taken the Bible very seriously. For example the NT and all OT
> > passages, which are used in the Divine Liturgy, were translated into
> > Slavonic around the 10th century. However, a complete translation of
> > the OT appeared in Russia around the late 15th or early 16th century.
> So?
So, it appears from history, that the Church does not take the Bible
very seriously.
> > > > I am not talking about experience. Where is the Church's "Tradition"?
> > > > If it is so important, why haven't they written it down?
> > >
> > > Why is it so important to you that it *be* written down?
> >
> > So I can read it! An unwritten Tradition is like the unwritten
> > history of a totalitarian society - it can be changed to suit any
> > argument at any time.
>
> Given that the Church is the Body that gave us apophatic theology, I think
> you're requiring something that would have bewildered most of the Church
> Fathers.
Well, as far as I can tell, Pseudo-Dionysius gave Christianity the
idea of an apophatic God, which is not the point. The Church does not
define its own doctrines as a series of negations!
If the Orthodox Church has the same faith as the Apostles and the
early Church, then history should support this - which it does not.
> > Then why didn't Tradition prevent these heresies?
>
> That they were considered heresies suggests that the system worked as it was
> supposed to. What Protestant can meaningfully discuss heresy these days?
But that ducks the question as to how these heresies arose in the
first place. To simply say that "everything turned out OK" is nothing
more than the fallacy of the argument by fiat.
What Protestants [or any other group]believe is not the issue, and is
in fact a fallacy of argument by distraction - it has nothing to do
with what is being discussed here.
> Not everybody sees it quite that way:
> http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/corner/Didache.pdf
Well, there is a typical trajectory of Orthodox polemics concerning
the Didache:
(1) Cite the Didache selectively [ignoring what does not make your
point].
(2) When confronted with the facts, try to rationalize your way out of
it
(3) When the Orthodox Church is buried beneath the contradictions
between it and the Didache, deny the Didache's historicity - ignoring
the fact that Clement of Alexandria considered it Scripture.
This article uses/abuses the Didache to support Orthodox Baptism, yet
the part about the fasting three days and public profession of faith
was side-stepped since it implies adult only Baptism. The same is
true in the discussion of the Eucharist where the author fails to
mention that the Didache does not say anything about the "real
presence" or that the Didache makes no mention of sacrifice.
Once again, in the Didache, there is no mention of the creation, yet
alone the veneration of icons. There was no baptism of infants, no
veneration of Mary or the saints, no "real presence", and Bishops were
married men who were elected by their congregations.
The author of this paper is simply reading his interpretations into a
text that provides no support. Sorry, but my jaw does not
automatically drop in awe at every Orthodox argument.
Learner
Didache
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy
vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus
Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for
the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through
Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and
after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be
gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for
thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
richard.barrett
> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:<kJiSb.140317$5V2.736505@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > I understand the Orthodox standpoint, as well as the Roman Catholic
> > > view. Why is one more valid than the other? If both claim "Apostolic
> > > Tradition", then this can be used to produce the same conclusions.
> >
> > So the question becomes, who had the prior claim?
>
> No, that is not the question at all. Both Churches were united for
> nearly 11 centuries, so both can rightly cite the very same traditions
> to support their beliefs - which often vary.
OK, we're going around in circles here. That's a waste of my time and yours.
> > There's a distinction that the Orthodox make between Tradition and
> > tradition, small t. The latter basically amounts to local custom. As I
> > understand it, anyway, it's not an issue that creates a schism. So, who
> > cares?
> And who decides what is Tradition versus tradition. Your response is
> nothing more than an ad hoc fallacy.
<shrugs> You're entitled to your opinion. As I understand it, if differences
don't cause churches to be in schism, then it's local custom.
> If Sacramental grace is imparted by the Eucharist to an infant, are
> the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox and the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches
> guilty of depriving infants of Sacramental grace? Can they be a part
> of the "true Church" if they do this?
>
> Or, if we believe that one must have a basic understanding of the
> Eucharist before one partakes of it - as the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox
> and [to a lesser extent] the Ukrainian Orthodox apparently do, are
> Churches who give infants Communion then profaning the Sacrament?
> Would a Church which profanes a Sacrament be a part of the "true
> Church"?
>
> The problem with life is that many, if not most, things are not as
> clear-cut as we would hope. Please go beyond the one-line polemics
> and think for yourself.
You actually said what I was going to say. I've only been around Orthodox
folks, reading the literature, experiencing the worship, etc., for less than
a year, so I don't know what all of the answers are here. But, to paraphrase
your own words, I think you're looking for clear-cut, black and white
answers where there aren't any, necessarily. Bottom line (at least as far as
my own understanding goes)--if it doesn't cause a schism, it's not a
terribly big deal.
By the way--is it just me, or is the tone of this exchange beginning to
escalate? It's been edging in that direction progressively the last few
posts. I don't particularly go in for arguments, and I've already said a
couple of things that I wish I hadn't. If that's where this is going, then
my preference would be to disengage. There's enough shrill bickering going
on in this group as it is; I don't want to add to it.
> > > The issue is not the OSB, but the general attitude of the Orthodox
> > > Church in relation to the Bible. Historically, the Orthodox Church
> > > has not taken the Bible very seriously. For example the NT and all OT
> > > passages, which are used in the Divine Liturgy, were translated into
> > > Slavonic around the 10th century. However, a complete translation of
> > > the OT appeared in Russia around the late 15th or early 16th century.
>
> > So?
>
> So, it appears from history, that the Church does not take the Bible
> very seriously.
I'm trying to understand how your last paragraph supports this statement.
I'm not sure I get it.
> > Given that the Church is the Body that gave us apophatic theology, I
think
> > you're requiring something that would have bewildered most of the Church
> > Fathers.
>
> Well, as far as I can tell, Pseudo-Dionysius gave Christianity the
> idea of an apophatic God, which is not the point. The Church does not
> define its own doctrines as a series of negations!
Your trains of thought are really starting to lose me. I'm sorry. I make no
claims to being terribly bright, so it may very well be my problem.
> If the Orthodox Church has the same faith as the Apostles and the
> early Church, then history should support this - which it does not.
So you keep insisting.
> > > Then why didn't Tradition prevent these heresies?
> >
> > That they were considered heresies suggests that the system worked as it
was
> > supposed to. What Protestant can meaningfully discuss heresy these days?
>
> But that ducks the question as to how these heresies arose in the
> first place. To simply say that "everything turned out OK" is nothing
> more than the fallacy of the argument by fiat.
I guess I would have a different take on it. If one believes in spiritual
warfare, one could view the attacks of heresy as attempts on the part of the
Enemy to discredit the Church. Again, that the heresies were identified as
such indicates that the system worked as intended.
As far as the Didache goes, I don't have much else to say. I haven't read it
yet, so somebody who knows more about it will have to deal with those
questions.
learner
> > No, that is not the question at all. Both Churches were united for
> > nearly 11 centuries, so both can rightly cite the very same traditions
> > to support their beliefs - which often vary.
> OK, we're going around in circles here. That's a waste of my time and yours.
No, this is not a circular argument.
Both the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox agree that, for nearly 11
centuries, there existed one Catholic [meaning universal] Church which
taught the Orthodox [meaning true] faith. In 1054 A.D., the Church
split into the Roman "Catholic" and Eastern "Orthodox" Churches.
In spite of this split, both Churches share/shared many of the same
traditions - Church Fathers, Sacraments, and Councils - for nearly
1100 years. Therefore, whether one agrees with Rome, or with the
Orthodox Church, or with neither, no one can deny that either group
has the right to appeal to the traditions that are/were rightfully
theirs.
> > And who decides what is Tradition versus tradition. Your response is
> > nothing more than an ad hoc fallacy.
> <shrugs> You're entitled to your opinion. As I understand it, if differences
> don't cause churches to be in schism, then it's local custom.
Well, in Queens, there were, at one time, two different Greek Orthodox
Cathedrals which were created over a schism concerning which calendar
should be used. I would consider this a relatively minor issue, yet
it caused a split which took some time to repair.
> > If Sacramental grace is imparted by the Eucharist to an infant, are
> > the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox and the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches
> > guilty of depriving infants of Sacramental grace? Can they be a part
> > of the "true Church" if they do this?
> >
> > Or, if we believe that one must have a basic understanding of the
> > Eucharist before one partakes of it - as the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox
> > and [to a lesser extent] the Ukrainian Orthodox apparently do, are
> > Churches who give infants Communion then profaning the Sacrament?
> > Would a Church which profanes a Sacrament be a part of the "true
> > Church"?
> >
> > The problem with life is that many, if not most, things are not as
> > clear-cut as we would hope. Please go beyond the one-line polemics
> > and think for yourself.
>
> You actually said what I was going to say. I've only been around Orthodox
> folks, reading the literature, experiencing the worship, etc., for less than
> a year, so I don't know what all of the answers are here. But, to paraphrase
> your own words, I think you're looking for clear-cut, black and white
> answers where there aren't any, necessarily. Bottom line (at least as far as
> my own understanding goes)--if it doesn't cause a schism, it's not a
> terribly big deal.
But that dodges the question. Which group is correct? They both
cannot be correct - either one deprives infants of Sacramental Grace
or the other profanes that Sacrament.
Which is it and how do we decide? The lack of a schism over the issue
is hardly the point, since these practices exist in essentially "self
contained units" of largely ethnic-based Churches [who are under their
own Bishops] which rarely interact with each other.
> > > > The issue is not the OSB, but the general attitude of the Orthodox
> > > > Church in relation to the Bible. Historically, the Orthodox Church
> > > > has not taken the Bible very seriously. For example the NT and all OT
> > > > passages, which are used in the Divine Liturgy, were translated into
> > > > Slavonic around the 10th century. However, a complete translation of
> > > > the OT appeared in Russia around the late 15th or early 16th century.
> > > So?
> > So, it appears from history, that the Church does not take the Bible
> > very seriously.
> I'm trying to understand how your last paragraph supports this statement.
> I'm not sure I get it.
Put simply, if the Orthodox Church took the Bible seriously, it would
most likely have translated it into the language of the people of
Russia prior to the 16th century.
> > If the Orthodox Church has the same faith as the Apostles and the
> > early Church, then history should support this - which it does not.
>
> So you keep insisting.
The problem is that many who are attracted to the Orthodox Church
often have little, or no, knowledge of Church history and are sucked
in by the Orthodox claim that it is "the faith delivered to the
Apostles." Unfortunately, this claim is often made by people who also
possess little/no knowledge of early Christianity.
When I ask for some proof of the "Apostolicity" of Orthodox beliefs,
the usual answer is to that the teachings of the Church are those of
the Church Fathers. One problem with this is that many of the
"Fathers" on which Orthodoxy rely, came 3 or more centuries after
Christ and the Apostles - so how would they know what Christ and the
Apostles taught - aside from what is recorded in the Scriptures?
I can almost hear the Orthodox in this group saying: "What about
Ignatius?" The problem here is that, by the time of Ignatius, the
first round of post-Jesus "primitive" Christianity was mostly gone and
the organizational structure of the Church was beginning to freeze -
transforming Christianity into something different than what was
believed and practiced by the earlier Christians.
Also, related to another discussion concerning icons, it is obvious to
anyone who has ever read the New Testament, the Didache, or the
writings of the early Christianity, that the veneration of icons held
no place in Christian worship. I have often wondered how the church
can depict the Prophets and Patriarchs of the Old Testament in icons
when no one had/has any idea of how these men looked.
Perhaps some would say that this is no big deal, however, St. John of
Damascus teaches us that the "effectiveness" of an icon depends on its
relation to the prototype [person depicted]. So, of what value are
these icons?
> > But that ducks the question as to how these heresies arose in the
> > first place. To simply say that "everything turned out OK" is nothing
> > more than the fallacy of the argument by fiat.
>
> I guess I would have a different take on it. If one believes in spiritual
> warfare, one could view the attacks of heresy as attempts on the part of the
> Enemy to discredit the Church. Again, that the heresies were identified as
> such indicates that the system worked as intended.
Heresy was not an attack from outside of the Church, it came from the
inside and was preached, in many cases, by the Bishops of the Church.
If we begin with the Orthodox claim:
"Orthodoxy believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in
Jesus Christ is preserved in its full integrity in the living
tradition of the Church, under the guidance and inspiration of the
Holy Spirit."
Then, here is the problem. The Church has, according to its own
claims, received this "living tradition" from God and that it is
protected by God [the Holy Spirit]. If this is the case, then this
claim has certain implications - or so the argument runs - for what
one should expect from this "living tradition".
We can begin with a set of assumptions that I am sure most Orthodox
would accept: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent.
Would you agree?
Accordingly, if God is omnipotent, He has the power to make sure that
His Church's "living tradition" is completely free of error and
deviation from the truth. If God is omniscient, then He cannot be
ignorant of the facts, in the past, present and future that heretical
leaders would arise. Finally, if God is omni-benevolent, then He does
not want to mislead His followers with factual errors in the Church's
"living tradition" which could deprive the Church's members from
salvation.
Consequently, the Church's "living tradition" must correspond
completely to the truth at all times and in places if, indeed, it is
from God. We can have no room for error.
So, to brush off the problem of heresy as something that was
"corrected" at a latter date begs the question of whether God is
really omnipotent, omniscient, or [most importantly]omni-benevolent,
or if the Orthodox Church is really the true Church.
I also consider such a response as another form of being a "Monday
morning quarterback"!
> As far as the Didache goes, I don't have much else to say. I haven't read it
> yet, so somebody who knows more about it will have to deal with those
> questions.
Then why don't you read it and compare the beliefs of the early
Christians to what the Orthodox believe and practice? What harm could
come from this? You can find the Didache on-line.
By the way, if you are one of those who are looking at the Orthodox
Church as the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", you might as
well be out searching for Atlantis - you are looking in the wrong
place. Study the Fathers back through time, trace the Church Councils
back through time - and you will see the development of doctrines and
practices that transformed Christianity into something quite different
from what it was in its earliest [Apostolic] days.
Learner
Unknown
news:<RWFTb.170605$nt4.760244@attbi_s51>...
1.> Put simply, if the Orthodox Church took the Bible seriously, it would
> most likely have translated it into the language of the people of
> Russia prior to the 16th century.
>
I suppose you get to define "seriously," right? For my part, that so much of
the Bible made its appearance in the liturgy, in the language of the people
(in this case, Slavonic), and in connection with the rule of faith (not
"Just me and Jesus and my Bible") demonstrates that the OC *did*, in fact,
"take the Bible seriously"--remembering that most folks then were
illiterate.
2. > When I ask for some proof of the "Apostolicity" of Orthodox beliefs,
> the usual answer is to that the teachings of the Church are those of
> the Church Fathers. One problem with this is that many of the
> "Fathers" on which Orthodoxy rely, came 3 or more centuries after
> Christ and the Apostles - so how would they know what Christ and the
> Apostles taught - aside from what is recorded in the Scriptures?
>
> I can almost hear the Orthodox in this group saying: "What about
> Ignatius?" The problem here is that, by the time of Ignatius, the
> first round of post-Jesus "primitive" Christianity was mostly gone and
> the organizational structure of the Church was beginning to freeze -
> transforming Christianity into something different than what was
> believed and practiced by the earlier Christians.
It is not merely proximity to Christ and the apostles that matters--else
Simon Magus would have more claim to authority than Athanasius--but also
that the ones teaching were received by the church. The Church, in other
words, heard the voice of the Good Shepherd (John 10) in Athanasius, but not
in Magus or Arius.
WRT Ignatius: John dies c. 100. Ignatius dies within 15 years of John's
death--well within the living memory of many folks. If Ignatius distorted or
changed something, many would have commented on it.
3. > Also, related to another discussion concerning icons, it is obvious to
> anyone who has ever read the New Testament, the Didache, or the
> writings of the early Christianity, that the veneration of icons held
> no place in Christian worship.
There is precious little discussion of *any* sort about Christian worship in
these sources. Furthermore, the church as persecuted would have had
difficulty both financially and in terms of leisure time to generate any
vast quantity of such work. Finally, the relation between person, nature and
image had to be spelled out, as it is already by the Cappadocians. The
question is, are the Cappadocians' (and later, John of Damascus' and
Theodore the Studite's) reflections on these topics consistent or
inconsistent with orthodox dogma as confessed in, e.g. Constantinople,
Ephesus and Chalcedon?
4. > If we begin with the Orthodox claim:
>
> "Orthodoxy believes that the eternal truth of God's revelation in
> Jesus Christ is preserved in its full integrity in the living
> tradition of the Church, under the guidance and inspiration of the
> Holy Spirit."
>
> Then, here is the problem. The Church has, according to its own
> claims, received this "living tradition" from God and that it is
> protected by God [the Holy Spirit]. If this is the case, then this
> claim has certain implications - or so the argument runs - for what
> one should expect from this "living tradition".
>
> We can begin with a set of assumptions that I am sure most Orthodox
> would accept: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent.
> Would you agree?
>
> Accordingly, if God is omnipotent, He has the power to make sure that
> His Church's "living tradition" is completely free of error and
> deviation from the truth. If God is omniscient, then He cannot be
> ignorant of the facts, in the past, present and future that heretical
> leaders would arise. Finally, if God is omni-benevolent, then He does
> not want to mislead His followers with factual errors in the Church's
> "living tradition" which could deprive the Church's members from
> salvation.
>
Or, as is the case, he could warn his church that errorists would arise from
within them (as he does through Paul, Acts 20), and by means of apostles he
could teach the church how to deal with such false teachers (as he does
through John, 1 John).
I might add, Learner, that you specialize in *criticizing* the OC. I don't
recall you ever saying what you *are now*--if so, please refresh my memory.
Playing the Lone Ranger is fun, but it's not conducive to open discussion.
(I myself am not Orthodox, but Lutheran.)
Robb
> Learner
Joseph
> So, it appears from history, that the Church does not take the Bible
> very seriously.
I am in a hurry to get to classes right now, but I must interject
something here. The later date of the translation of the rest of the
scriptures has nothing to do with whether or not Orthodox take the
Scriptures seriously. The fact is, literacy was not very common in that
time and place. And those who were educated enough to real (well), were
often as not educated enough to read in Greek -- since their education
was most likely from the Church.
So, translating the remaining portions would not really have made them
accessible to the masses -- who still would have had to receive the
Scriptures orally from the educated minority.
As literacy became more common, and precisely literacy in the local
tongue, the utility of translating the rest of the Scriptures became
prominent. And at that point they translated it.
Your argument on this score is dishonest. It tries to frame a
phenomenon caused by a certain social factor as though it were the
result of some other (spiritually irresponsible?) factor -- for the
purposes of denigrating the integrity of the Orthodox Church. This kind
of argument is rhetorically deplorable.
I'll address your response in the other thread soon. This just stuck
out to me.
Dmitri
>Ignatius?" The problem here is that, by the time of Ignatius, the
>first round of post-Jesus "primitive" Christianity was mostly gone and
>the organizational structure of the Church was beginning to freez
what, you think that organizational structure just popped into being one sunny
saturday afternoon between the death of the Beloved Disciple and the time of
Ignatius? Get a grip, man.
Dmitri Mosier
Iowa City, Iowa
digimortal
the 1000s of differing Protestant sects...
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote
The problem is that many who are attracted to the Orthodox Church
> often have little, or no, knowledge of Church history and are sucked
> in by the Orthodox claim that it is "the faith delivered to the
> Apostles." Unfortunately, this claim is often made by people who also
> possess little/no knowledge of early Christianity.
>
> I can almost hear the Orthodox in this group saying: "What about
> Ignatius?" The problem here is that, by the time of Ignatius, the
> first round of post-Jesus "primitive" Christianity was mostly gone and
> the organizational structure of the Church was beginning to freeze -
> transforming Christianity into something different than what was
> believed and practiced by the earlier Christians.
>
> Learner
digimortal
"Joseph" <zaph...@NOmiraiSPAM.cx> wrote
learner
Well, before you become "chronically offended", we must admit that a
large number of Russia's people could neither read not write prior to
the revolution. Yet, I find it amazing that the Russian Church and
society could not marshall the will and resources to translate and
make available God's Word for centuries, but it took only 4 years for
Russians to translate the grossly anti-Semitic "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion" into Russian [in 1872]and to make it available across
the country.
Learner
richard.barrett
> cannot be correct - either one deprives infants of Sacramental Grace
> or the other profanes that Sacrament.
I don't know that Orthodoxy would claim that there's a black and white
answer to this question, as I already said. This is getting repetitive, and
I don't think it's getting either of us anywhere.
> > > So, it appears from history, that the Church does not take the Bible
> > > very seriously.
>
> > I'm trying to understand how your last paragraph supports this
statement.
> > I'm not sure I get it.
>
> Put simply, if the Orthodox Church took the Bible seriously, it would
> most likely have translated it into the language of the people of
> Russia prior to the 16th century.
I actually don't agree, but I have rather controversial opinions about the
idea of the Bible being translated as it is. Put simply, I believe it should
be incumbent upon the faithful to learn how to read the Scriptures in their
original language (and lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I am at present
learning Greek). There's already an interpretation issue present, and
translations only add another layer of it.
> <lots of stuff snipped>
OK, now you're just cutting and pasting.
> > > But that ducks the question as to how these heresies arose in the
> > > first place. To simply say that "everything turned out OK" is nothing
> > > more than the fallacy of the argument by fiat.
> >
> > I guess I would have a different take on it. If one believes in
spiritual
> > warfare, one could view the attacks of heresy as attempts on the part of
the
> > Enemy to discredit the Church. Again, that the heresies were identified
as
> > such indicates that the system worked as intended.
>
> Heresy was not an attack from outside of the Church, it came from the
> inside and was preached, in many cases, by the Bishops of the Church.
I'm reading the paragraph I wrote, and reading the paragraph you wrote, and
it becomes clear to me that you either don't get what I mean or you're
sidestepping what I'm saying. Either way, I think we're on the downward
slope of this being a useful exchange for either of us.
> I also consider such a response as another form of being a "Monday
> morning quarterback"!
And it becomes even more clear to me that the benefit of this exchange to
either of us has reached the point of diminishing returns.
> > As far as the Didache goes, I don't have much else to say. I haven't
read it
> > yet, so somebody who knows more about it will have to deal with those
> > questions.
>
> Then why don't you read it and compare the beliefs of the early
> Christians to what the Orthodox believe and practice? What harm could
> come from this? You can find the Didache on-line.
I think I will do that.
> By the way, if you are one of those who are looking at the Orthodox
> Church as the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", you might as
> well be out searching for Atlantis - you are looking in the wrong
> place. Study the Fathers back through time, trace the Church Councils
> back through time - and you will see the development of doctrines and
> practices that transformed Christianity into something quite different
> from what it was in its earliest [Apostolic] days.
So you keep insisting.
Lee Malatesta
> When I ask for some proof of the "Apostolicity" of Orthodox beliefs,
> the usual answer is to that the teachings of the Church are those of
> the Church Fathers. One problem with this is that many of the
> "Fathers" on which Orthodoxy rely, came 3 or more centuries after
> Christ and the Apostles - so how would they know what Christ and the
> Apostles taught - aside from what is recorded in the Scriptures?
>
> I can almost hear the Orthodox in this group saying: "What about
> Ignatius?" The problem here is that, by the time of Ignatius, the
> first round of post-Jesus "primitive" Christianity was mostly gone and
> the organizational structure of the Church was beginning to freeze -
> transforming Christianity into something different than what was
> believed and practiced by the earlier Christians.
There isn't just Ignatius. There is Ignatius (early second century),
Clement (late first century), the pastoral epistles, etc. The
scholarly analysis you seem to hold to was pioneered by late
nineteenth and early twentieth century German historical criticism. An
excellent representative of this school is Hans Von Campenhausen. His
analysis can be found in his tome Ecclesiastical Authority and
Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries. This
analyis requires that the pastoral epistles and many of the catholic
epistles of the Holy Scriptures not be written until the second
century. Without this presupposition, the conclusion does not follow
of necessity and the theory is unproven.
Regards,
Lee
Lee Malatesta
> Also, related to another discussion concerning icons, it is obvious to
> anyone who has ever read the New Testament, the Didache, or the
> writings of the early Christianity, that the veneration of icons held
> no place in Christian worship.
Your first assertion is demonstrably incorrect from the historical
record. Christian icons are dated to the first and second centuries in
the catacombs of Rome. Jewish synagogues dating to the first and
second century contain icons of Old Testament scenes. The theology of
the icon can be derived entirely from the Old Testament. Even a
cursory examination of the Old Testament laws concerning ritual
worship and the construction of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant
reveals a theology steeped in the use of iconography.
Also, this is an excellent place to use the canon of Saint Vincent.
Christianity was a conservative movement. Whenever an innovation was
introduced, a controversy followed. There was no controversy
concerning icons until well after Christianity encountered Islam. As
far as I am aware there is no complaint against the practice of icon
veneration until the iconoclast controversy in the eight century.
Since the veneration of icons predates iconoclasm by many centuries,
iconoclasm is most likely the inovation, not the veneration of icons.
Regards,
Lee
Joseph
> Joseph <zaph...@NOmiraiSPAM.cx> wrote in message news:<Y4adndDqMLW...@speakeasy.net>...
>
> Well, before you become "chronically offended", we must admit that a
> large number of Russia's people could neither read not write prior to
> the revolution. Yet, I find it amazing that the Russian Church and
> society could not marshall the will and resources to translate and
> make available God's Word for centuries, but it took only 4 years for
> Russians to translate the grossly anti-Semitic "Protocols of the
> Elders of Zion" into Russian [in 1872]and to make it available across
> the country.
Oh. I see. ALL of the Russian people, including the Church, were
participants in the translation of The Protocols, huh? Sort of a
national works project?
How absurd.
You really seem to be grasping at straws here.
Now, how about actually responding to the issue at hand here. You made
a claim attributing the late (by your august standards) date of the
translation of remaining portions of scripture from Greek to
Slavonic/Russian to a lack of respect for said scriptures. I pointed
out that it had nothing to do with such a lack of respect. You then
responded with the above red herring. Are we going to move on here, or
will you just devise more fishy diversions?
>
> Learner
>
>
>>I am in a hurry to get to classes right now, but I must interject
>>something here. The later date of the translation of the rest of the
>>scriptures has nothing to do with whether or not Orthodox take the
>>Scriptures seriously. The fact is, literacy was not very common in that
>>time and place. And those who were educated enough to real (well), were
>>often as not educated enough to read in Greek -- since their education
>>was most likely from the Church.
>>
>>So, translating the remaining portions would not really have made them
>>accessible to the masses -- who still would have had to receive the
>>Scriptures orally from the educated minority.
>>
>>As literacy became more common, and precisely literacy in the local
>>tongue, the utility of translating the rest of the Scriptures became
>>prominent. And at that point they translated it.
>>
>>Your argument on this score is dishonest. It tries to frame a
>>phenomenon caused by a certain social factor as though it were the
>>result of some other (spiritually irresponsible?) factor -- for the
>>purposes of denigrating the integrity of the Orthodox Church. This kind
>>of argument is rhetorically deplorable.
>>
>>I'll address your response in the other thread soon. This just stuck
>>out to me.
learner
> > Well, before you become "chronically offended", we must admit that a
> > large number of Russia's people could neither read not write prior to
> > the revolution. Yet, I find it amazing that the Russian Church and
> > society could not marshall the will and resources to translate and
> > make available God's Word for centuries, but it took only 4 years for
> > Russians to translate the grossly anti-Semitic "Protocols of the
> > Elders of Zion" into Russian [in 1872]and to make it available across
> > the country.
>
> Oh. I see. ALL of the Russian people, including the Church, were
> participants in the translation of The Protocols, huh? Sort of a
> national works project?
No, that is a "strawman" argument and does not represent what I really
said. I made no reference to the Orthodox Church concerning the
translation of the "Protocols".
> How absurd.
Yes, the "strawman" argument usually is.
> You really seem to be grasping at straws here.
>
> Now, how about actually responding to the issue at hand here. You made
> a claim attributing the late (by your august standards) date of the
> translation of remaining portions of scripture from Greek to
> Slavonic/Russian to a lack of respect for said scriptures. I pointed
> out that it had nothing to do with such a lack of respect. You then
> responded with the above red herring. Are we going to move on here, or
> will you just devise more fishy diversions?
I find it difficult to believe that an institution which built huge
cathedrals with golden domes, enormous monasteries, and even cast the
world's largest bell [which, incidentally, cannot be rung] could not
marshal the resources to translate the Bible - what they believe to be
God's Word. You honestly cannot claim poverty for the Russian
Orthodox Church.
The sad fact of the matter is that, for many centuries, the Russian
Orthodox Church placed far greater importance on having huge ornate
buildings, elaborate icons, and gaudy vestments, than on making the
Bible available to the people - perhaps for good reason. As far as
the illiteracy of the Russian masses, what did the Orthodox Church
ever do to alleviate this problem?
Learner
learner
> Your first assertion is demonstrably incorrect from the historical
> record. Christian icons are dated to the first and second centuries in
> the catacombs of Rome.
We may be mixing terms here. There were Christian symbols in the
early Church [second century] but they were not icons. Icons are not
merely religious art, but are a vehicle to convey veneration to a
"prototype" in a rather Platonic way. The Quinisext Council largely
purged the Church of symbolic art and replaced it with "direct"
images. The Council concluded:
"Having welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the
truth passed on to the Church, today we prefer grace and truth..."
Icons, as objects of veneration through which veneration was conveyed
to the "prototype" were not a part of the early Church. Even Lossky
["The Meaning of Icons"] admits this when he says: "The council orders
that the symbols from the Old Testament, used in the first centuries
of Christianity, be replaced by direct representations...."
Also, one must be careful when looking at the catacombs because these
were used over long periods of time by many different groups.
> Jewish synagogues dating to the first and second century contain icons of Old
> Testament scenes.
There are two issues here. First of all, I have no objections to
icons [or statues for that matter] as religious art, however, icons
are more than mere religious art. In the case of the Jews, is there
any evidence that they venerated the paintings on the synagogue walls
in the hope that they were passing this veneration on to a
"prototype"? I doubt it.
The second issue is that some argue that because Jews sometimes made
images [and we find these in archaeological excavations], that it must
therefore be all right for us to do the same. It should be noted that
the Jews also at various times worshiped false gods such as Baal,
Ashtoreth, Moloch, so we need to see these things in historical
context.
> The theology of the icon can be derived entirely from the Old Testament. Even
> a cursory examination of the Old Testament laws concerning ritual
> worship and the construction of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant
> reveals a theology steeped in the use of iconography.
Once again, this a false analogy.
First, GOD told the Children of Israel to build the Ark and gave very
specific instructions as to how this was to be done and how the Ark
was to be handled. Nowhere in Scripture does GOD the Father, Jesus
Christ, or Paul tell us to create icons. A much close analogy for the
practice associated with iconography in the OT would be the Golden
Calf.
Second, - the images [cherubim] on the Ark were 3-dimensional images,
not 2-dimensional icons. If you extrapolate God's command to build
the Ark to Christianity, then why do Orthodox Churches not have, and
venerate, statues as the Roman Catholics do?
Third, how do you know that the icon is an accurate representation of
the person in question? This was a key requirement in St. John of
Damascus' defense of icons. Once again, God gave instructions
concerning the design and construction of the Ark. What about icons,
especially those of the Old Testament Patriarchs? We have no idea of
how these guys looked! What about St. George - did he kill a real
dragon? How has the Church understood this icon through time?
> Also, this is an excellent place to use the canon of Saint Vincent.
> Christianity was a conservative movement. Whenever an innovation was
> introduced, a controversy followed. There was no controversy
> concerning icons until well after Christianity encountered Islam. As
> far as I am aware there is no complaint against the practice of icon
> veneration until the iconoclast controversy in the eight century.
> Since the veneration of icons predates iconoclasm by many centuries,
> iconoclasm is most likely the inovation, not the veneration of icons.
Well, considering the politics of the Byzantine State, I am surprised
that any arguments against icons survived. The veneration of icons
was only established amid much controversy under the patronage of an
the Empress Irene. I cannot find in the New Testament or the writings
of the earliest Fathers any acceptance of icon veneration.
The fact that the dogma supporting icon veneration was not declared
"official" until more than seven centuries after the time of Christ
should speak volumes. Icons have no foundation in the New Testament,
in archeological evidence, or in the earliest Christian sources. They
are a later develepment in Orthodoxy, not something handed down from
the Apostles.
Learner
Lee Malatesta
> > Your first assertion is demonstrably incorrect from the historical
> > record. Christian icons are dated to the first and second centuries in
> > the catacombs of Rome.
>
> We may be mixing terms here. There were Christian symbols in the
> early Church [second century] but they were not icons. Icons are not
> merely religious art, but are a vehicle to convey veneration to a
> "prototype" in a rather Platonic way.
And what is your evidence that the icons from the first century are not
icons, but merely relgious art?
> The Quinisext Council largely purged the Church of symbolic art and replaced it with "direct"
> images. The Council concluded:
>
> "Having welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the
> truth passed on to the Church, today we prefer grace and truth..."
You are using a seventh century document to prove a point about the
practices of the first century? Isn't that what you claim the supporters
of the Orthodox Church are doing? Or do I entirely misunderstand your
point?
Also, your quotation is misleading. Cannon LXXXII concerns what types of
icons are the most profitable for the believer, not whether or not icons
should be used.
Where is there any controversy concerning the practice of venerating
icons prior to Christian contact with Islam?
Regards,
Lee
Lee Malatesta
> > The theology of the icon can be derived entirely from the Old Testament.
> > Even
> > a cursory examination of the Old Testament laws concerning ritual
> > worship and the construction of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant
> > reveals a theology steeped in the use of iconography.
>
> Once again, this a false analogy.
>
> First, GOD told the Children of Israel to build the Ark and gave very
> specific instructions as to how this was to be done and how the Ark
> was to be handled. Nowhere in Scripture does GOD the Father, Jesus
> Christ, or Paul tell us to create icons. A much close analogy for the
> practice associated with iconography in the OT would be the Golden
> Calf.
Your point is question begging. You presume that Holy Tradition does not
come from God. Therefore, practices in Holy Tradition did not come from
God. Therefore, the practices that are from Holy Tradition that are not
explicitly mentioned in the Bible are qualitatively different from
practices that are explicitly mentioned in the Bible. You cannot use
your conclusion (That Holy Tradition is invalid) as a premis to build
support for your conclusion.
Further, I reject your implication that Christians can only do that
which God explicitly commands within the pages of the Holy Scriptures.
Not only does it seem to me that a better general rule is that any
practice commended by God, when repeated in the same context, is
appropriate, but that Christians ought only to do that which is
explicitly commanded within the Bible is not a teaching that is found
within the Bible. Therefore, such a notion is self-contradictory.
Regards,
Lee
Lee Malatesta
> > The theology of the icon can be derived entirely from the Old Testament.
> > Even
> > a cursory examination of the Old Testament laws concerning ritual
> > worship and the construction of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant
> > reveals a theology steeped in the use of iconography.
>
> Once again, this a false analogy.
[snip]
> Second, - the images [cherubim] on the Ark were 3-dimensional images,
> not 2-dimensional icons. If you extrapolate God's command to build
> the Ark to Christianity, then why do Orthodox Churches not have, and
> venerate, statues as the Roman Catholics do?
The difference between two and three dimensional figures is
nonconsequential. Further, the Old Testament does speak of the
veneration of two dimensional figures. Even a cursory reading of the
description of the Ark of the Covenent and of the Temple in Jerusalem
reveal a tremendous number of two dimensional figures. Thus, your point
is irrelevent.
Regards,
Lee
Lee Malatesta
> > The theology of the icon can be derived entirely from the Old Testament.
> > Even
> > a cursory examination of the Old Testament laws concerning ritual
> > worship and the construction of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant
> > reveals a theology steeped in the use of iconography.
>
> Once again, this a false analogy.
[snip]
> Third, how do you know that the icon is an accurate representation of
> the person in question? This was a key requirement in St. John of
> Damascus' defense of icons. Once again, God gave instructions
> concerning the design and construction of the Ark. What about icons,
> especially those of the Old Testament Patriarchs? We have no idea of
> how these guys looked! What about St. George - did he kill a real
> dragon? How has the Church understood this icon through time?
Have you actually read the writings of Saint John Damascene regarding
the Holy Images? If so, point me to where he states that an icon has to
be an exact and accurate representation of the prototype?
Also, your point concerning Saint George is implies that you do not
understand the Orthodox position. You seem unable to understand how to
read an icon or at least unable to understand how the Church reads icons.
Regards,
Lee
Lee Malatesta
> > Also, this is an excellent place to use the canon of Saint Vincent.
> > Christianity was a conservative movement. Whenever an innovation was
> > introduced, a controversy followed. There was no controversy
> > concerning icons until well after Christianity encountered Islam. As
> > far as I am aware there is no complaint against the practice of icon
> > veneration until the iconoclast controversy in the eight century.
> > Since the veneration of icons predates iconoclasm by many centuries,
> > iconoclasm is most likely the inovation, not the veneration of icons.
>
> Well, considering the politics of the Byzantine State, I am surprised
> that any arguments against icons survived. The veneration of icons
> was only established amid much controversy under the patronage of an
> the Empress Irene. I cannot find in the New Testament or the writings
> of the earliest Fathers any acceptance of icon veneration.
You misread history, the veneration of icons was re-established, not
established, under Empress Irene.
> The fact that the dogma supporting icon veneration was not declared
> "official" until more than seven centuries after the time of Christ
> should speak volumes. Icons have no foundation in the New Testament,
> in archeological evidence, or in the earliest Christian sources. They
> are a later develepment in Orthodoxy, not something handed down from
> the Apostles.
Are you sure that you mean that? The Bible was not made "official" until
several centuries after the birth of Christ. If your reasoning is sound,
we have to throw out the Bible as a source of knowledge about Christ.
Regardless, that you think that Holy Tradition needs to be made
"official" speaks volumes to your lack of understanding of such. Not
only are the Councils not the only source of Holy Tradition, but they
only serve to recognize the current practices, not establish new ones.
Further, the archeological evidence is exactly opposite of what you
claim. Art scholars are fairly unified that the early Byzantine style of
painting icons started in the sixth century. Earlier icons exist in
other styles, as mentioned before in the Roman catacombs and also in the
Coptic Churches.
Regards,
Lee
learner
> You misread history, the veneration of icons was re-established, not
> established, under Empress Irene.
No, I read history correctly - there were no icons in the early
Church. If I am wrong, please point to any early Patristic which
supports the making and veneration of icons - the iconophiles could
not. I am not talking about "seeing the world around in an iconic
light" either. We will get to this issue in a moment.
> > The fact that the dogma supporting icon veneration was not declared
> > "official" until more than seven centuries after the time of Christ
> > should speak volumes. Icons have no foundation in the New Testament,
> > in archeological evidence, or in the earliest Christian sources. They
> > are a later develepment in Orthodoxy, not something handed down from
> > the Apostles.
>
> Are you sure that you mean that? The Bible was not made "official" until
> several centuries after the birth of Christ. If your reasoning is sound,
> we have to throw out the Bible as a source of knowledge about Christ.
But the Bible existed before the Council of Carthage. There were
Canons of Scripture before Carthage and there are a variety of
different Canons today - even among Orthodox groups. The Council of
Carthage did not create the Bible - unless you believe that Paul's
letters were not inspired until the 4th century.
It is interesting that the Church took so long to make a Canon. In
fact, the first Canon of Scripture was made by a Gnostic heretic named
Marcion. It appears that the early Christians pretty much agreed on
what were Scriputure [and there is manuscript evidence of this ]- give
or take a book or two - long before the Church made it "official",
assuming the Church could make God's Word "official".
I do not believe that the Canon was a huge issue until Marcion came
along with his "cut and paste" job. Remember that many of the
earliest Christians wrongly believed that Christ would return within
their lifetime, so a Canon of Scripture was most likely not a high
priority.
> Regardless, that you think that Holy Tradition needs to be made
> "official" speaks volumes to your lack of understanding of such. Not
> only are the Councils not the only source of Holy Tradition, but they
> only serve to recognize the current practices, not establish new ones.
I never said that the Councils were the only source. My problem is
that the Church has not made much sense out of many of these Councils,
or of the various works of the Church Fathers. In fact, the Church
cannot officially tell us who are, and are not, Church Fathers.
Icons are also a part of "Holy Tradition", yet when I asked you about
the icon of St. George slaying the dragon, you side-stepped the issue:
> Also, your point concerning Saint George is implies that you do not
> understand the Orthodox position. You seem unable to understand how to
> read an icon or at least unable to understand how the Church reads icons.
But then what is the "Orthodox position"? Did St. George [assuming
that he even existed] kill a real dragon? Many early Christians
believed that he really did kill a real dragon, yet today we are
modern, so we claim that the dragon "really" represents evil. Yet the
"reading" of this icon has varied throughout history, so how "true"
can it be?
The problem with the entire Orthodox argument is that when you have a
faith where it's all or nothing, then if there is one weak point or if
only one claim is refuted, then the Orthodox Church's claims simply
collapse.
> Further, the archeological evidence is exactly opposite of what you
> claim. Art scholars are fairly unified that the early Byzantine style of
> painting icons started in the sixth century.
I never said that icons did not exist in the 6th century, in fact, I
said as much in a conversation with Father John concerning the "Edessa
cloth", which was "discovered" in 525 A.D.
> Earlier icons exist in other styles, as mentioned before in the Roman
> catacombs and also in the Coptic Churches.
No. Religious symbols existed in these places [ie fish, crosses,
etc], not icons - are imply more than mere art. Icons are vehicles to
convey veneration to a "prototype" in a rather neo-Pagan neo-Platonic
way. The early Church did not venerate icons and this is clear from
the Bible, Didache, and early Father - since they make no mention of
it.
Also, as far as Coptic art, the oldest murals [not icons], that I am
aware of, are near Bagawat and they date from the 5th century - not
the first.
Learner
learner
> > Second, - the images [cherubim] on the Ark were 3-dimensional images,
> > not 2-dimensional icons. If you extrapolate God's command to build
> > the Ark to Christianity, then why do Orthodox Churches not have, and
> > venerate, statues as the Roman Catholics do?
>
> The difference between two and three dimensional figures is
> nonconsequential. Further, the Old Testament does speak of the
> veneration of two dimensional figures. Even a cursory reading of the
> description of the Ark of the Covenent and of the Temple in Jerusalem
> reveal a tremendous number of two dimensional figures. Thus, your point
> is irrelevent.
I agree that the difference between two and three dimensional figures
is nonconsequential. What is important is the fact GOD told the
Children of Israel to build the Ark and gave very specific
instructions as to how this was to be done and how the Ark was to be
handled. The order came from God, not from human traditions or
rationalizations.
NOWHERE in Scripture does GOD the Father, Jesus Christ, or Paul tell
us to create icons - nowhere. There are absolutely no instructions
in Scripture, or in the earliest documents of the Church [ie the
Didache] concerning the making, yet alone the veneration, of icons.
Icons are a human innovation to the Christian faith - just as the
Golden Calf was an innovation to the faith of the Israelites.
Learner
learner
> And what is your evidence that the icons from the first century are not
> icons, but merely relgious art?
Art history - which I discussed in the other thread.
> > The Quinisext Council largely purged the Church of symbolic art and
> > replaced it with "direct" images. The Council concluded:
> >
> > "Having welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the
> > truth passed on to the Church, today we prefer grace and truth..."
> You are using a seventh century document to prove a point about the
> practices of the first century? Isn't that what you claim the supporters
> of the Orthodox Church are doing? Or do I entirely misunderstand your
> point?
No, I am using a 7th century document which replaces the practices of
the early Church with a new innovation of icons. This document is not
reading 7th century practices back to the 1st. It is replacing
religious symbols, which it admits to be the practice of the early
Church, with icons.
Learner
learner
> > Third, how do you know that the icon is an accurate representation of
> > the person in question? This was a key requirement in St. John of
> > Damascus' defense of icons. Once again, God gave instructions
> > concerning the design and construction of the Ark. What about icons,
> > especially those of the Old Testament Patriarchs? We have no idea of
> > how these guys looked! What about St. George - did he kill a real
> > dragon? How has the Church understood this icon through time?
> Have you actually read the writings of Saint John Damascene regarding
> the Holy Images?
Yes.
> If so, point me to where he states that an icon has to be an exact and
> accurate representation of the prototype?
I did not say "exact", nor does St John.
"Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the
exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a
certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the
original."
St. John believed that a real image of Jesus existed, so icons of
Christ would show his "likeness". Sadly, no such thing ever existed
and any icon of Christ is more the imagination of the painter that a
true "likeness".
> Also, your point concerning Saint George is implies that you do not
> understand the Orthodox position. You seem unable to understand how to
> read an icon or at least unable to understand how the Church reads icons.
So, did St. George slay a real dragon? That is what the early Church
probably believed. Do you believe it, or is this the Orthodox
"two-step" around a tough question?
Learner
Alice Gless
> NOWHERE in Scripture does GOD the Father, Jesus Christ, or Paul tell
> us to create icons - nowhere. There are absolutely no instructions
> in Scripture, or in the earliest documents of the Church [ie the
> Didache] concerning the making, yet alone the veneration, of icons.
> Icons are a human innovation to the Christian faith - just as the
> Golden Calf was an innovation to the faith of the Israelites.
How does Moses' healing the people by having them look at a snake on a pole
fit into all this?
>
> Learner
Lee Malatesta
> Lee Malatesta <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<lee_malatesta-B51...@news.isoc.net>...
>
> > > Third, how do you know that the icon is an accurate representation of
> > > the person in question? This was a key requirement in St. John of
> > > Damascus' defense of icons. Once again, God gave instructions
> > > concerning the design and construction of the Ark. What about icons,
> > > especially those of the Old Testament Patriarchs? We have no idea of
> > > how these guys looked! What about St. George - did he kill a real
> > > dragon? How has the Church understood this icon through time?
>
> > Have you actually read the writings of Saint John Damascene regarding
> > the Holy Images?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, point me to where he states that an icon has to be an exact and
> > accurate representation of the prototype?
>
> I did not say "exact", nor does St John.
>
> "Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the
> exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a
> certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the
> original."
>
> St. John believed that a real image of Jesus existed, so icons of
> Christ would show his "likeness". Sadly, no such thing ever existed
> and any icon of Christ is more the imagination of the painter that a
> true "likeness".
I read what the quote you pulled from Saint John of Damascus and the I
read what you wrote and I have to admit that I'm entirely baffled by
your point. Saint John Damascene says point blank that the image does
not have to be an accurate depiction of the prototype. What is shared
between an image and its prototype is not its physical appearence as "A
son being the natural image of his father is somewhat different from
him, for he is a son, not a father." Rather, "Every image is a
revelation and representation of something hidden." Per Orthodox
theology, as long as an image can be recognized as its prototype, it
shares a certain likeness. This is true even if one needs the name of
the prototype written on the image in order to discern what the image is
of.
I'd also point out that there is good reason to believe that images of
Jesus exist from his time on earth. The only evidence we have that the
contrary is true is your say so. Icons of Christ existed as early as the
first and second centuries. There is no reason to assume that they were
inaccurate.
> > Also, your point concerning Saint George is implies that you do not
> > understand the Orthodox position. You seem unable to understand how to
> > read an icon or at least unable to understand how the Church reads icons.
>
> So, did St. George slay a real dragon? That is what the early Church
> probably believed. Do you believe it, or is this the Orthodox
> "two-step" around a tough question?
Here's a hint, the dragon in the icon of Saint George is the Roman
governor Dadianus.
Regards,
Lee
Lee Malatesta
> > You are using a seventh century document to prove a point about the
> > practices of the first century? Isn't that what you claim the supporters
> > of the Orthodox Church are doing? Or do I entirely misunderstand your
> > point?
>
> No, I am using a 7th century document which replaces the practices of
> the early Church with a new innovation of icons. This document is not
> reading 7th century practices back to the 1st. It is replacing
> religious symbols, which it admits to be the practice of the early
> Church, with icons.
The problem is that such writings from the fourth century and earlier
explicitly deal with the theology of venerating images of Christ. The
practice was universal well before the seventh century.
Regards,
Lee
Lee Malatesta
> NOWHERE in Scripture does GOD the Father, Jesus Christ, or Paul tell
> us to create icons - nowhere. There are absolutely no instructions
> in Scripture, or in the earliest documents of the Church [ie the
> Didache] concerning the making, yet alone the veneration, of icons.
> Icons are a human innovation to the Christian faith - just as the
> Golden Calf was an innovation to the faith of the Israelites.
God explicitly commanded Moses to create icons and explicitly commanded
Israel to venerate them. The veneration of images is hardly an
innovation.
Regards,
Lee
Alice Gless
I only know about the serpent on the pole and the instructions for the
cherubim. What other icons did Moses introduce?
As to veneration of images, I do not believe that it was done in the early
church. The serpent on the pole seems to have been a one-time thing, and
the ark along with the cherubim had been missing from the temple for several
centuries.
Frankly, the whole business is very confusing. Why would God command that
no images be made and/or worshipped and then later seemingly contradict
himself? I wouldn't go so far as to say that worship was involved in either
the serpent/pole episode or the cherubim/ark period, but I'm not real clear
either if worship was involved in the golden calf episode, just that it was
made and they partied around it and made somebody really angry.
I've never been real clear on how the commandments should be interpreted.
First we are told not to make images. Then we are told not to bow down and
worship them. If we interpret and live by not making any images, we could
hardly function in this world.
I no longer want to associate images with my spiritual life insofar as I am
able to get them out of my mind. Just about all branches of Christianity
make use of them to one degree or another, even protestants.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lee
Alice Gless
> Church as the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", you might as
> well be out searching for Atlantis - you are looking in the wrong
> place. Study the Fathers back through time, trace the Church Councils
> back through time - and you will see the development of doctrines and
> practices that transformed Christianity into something quite different
> from what it was in its earliest [Apostolic] days.
Do you happen to know when and how the sacraments (seven) developed? I find
no evidence in the scriptures that there were seven, although I don't intend
to quibble over the word "sacrament", like people quibble over the word
*trinity*, etc.
I know from reading scripture that they had baptism, communion, appointing
of ministers through laying on of hands, and the imparting of the Holy
Spirit, sometimes through the laying on of hands and sometimes not.
Scripture isn't real clear about marriage, last rites, and auricular
confession as sacraments as we would understand them. Marriage seemed to be
more of a contractual arrangement that became *sacramental* upon
consummation. It isn't crystal clear just what confession was to consist
of. There is no indication of anything like last rites in the scriptures,
but I'm working from memory and could have missed something there.
>
> Learner
brachypodium
> Learner wrote:
> > NOWHERE in Scripture does GOD the Father, Jesus Christ, or Paul tell
> > us to create icons - nowhere. There are absolutely no instructions
> > in Scripture, or in the earliest documents of the Church [ie the
> > Didache] concerning the making, yet alone the veneration, of icons.
> > Icons are a human innovation to the Christian faith - just as the
> > Golden Calf was an innovation to the faith of the Israelites.
>
> God explicitly commanded Moses to create icons and explicitly commanded
> Israel to venerate them.<
When did He do that?
Cunneen
>> Israel to venerate them.<
>
>When did He do that?
>
The serpent on the staff.
brachypodium
news:20040211005520...@mb-m13.aol.com...
So the Orthodox worship Satan.
richard.barrett
news:rGlWb.102$1t2....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Numbers 21:8-9: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent,
and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is
bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of
brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had
bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."
Would you terribly mind explaining how your statement fits in? I'm afraid
I'm not following how, given the reference to the above passage, you've come
up with that. It strikes me as being a non-sequitur, and I'm almost certain
you don't intend it as such, so please spell it out a bit more, if it's not
too much trouble.
brachypodium
news:ZUpWb.281973$na.445503@attbi_s04...
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:rGlWb.102$1t2....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > "Cunneen" <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040211005520...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> > > >> God explicitly commanded Moses to create icons and explicitly
> commanded
> > > >> Israel to venerate them.<
> > > >
> > > >When did He do that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The serpent on the staff.<
> >
> > So the Orthodox worship Satan.
>
> Numbers 21:8-9: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent,
> and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is
> bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of
> brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had
> bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."
>
> Would you terribly mind explaining how your statement fits in?<
Not at all. An icon is a representation, a likeness; a portait, as one
dictionary has it. Now the only serpent that the brass one could represent
was the one in Eden, generally reckoned as a figure of Satan; that is,
unless the brass one represented actual snakes, worship of which amounts to
much the same thing. So if the Israelites were venerating the brass snake
they were comitting idolatry, and if that is the precedent for Orthodox
practice it is reasonable to suppose that they practise idolatry as the
Israelites did.
In fact, as Numbers indicates, this occasion does not fulfil the criteria
specified, as the Israelites were required only to look at the serpent, not
to venerate it.
So the question remains: when did God instruct anyone to make icons and
venerate them?
brachypodium
news:ZUpWb.281973$na.445503@attbi_s04...
> news:rGlWb.102$1t2....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > "Cunneen" <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040211005520...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> > > >> God explicitly commanded Moses to create icons and explicitly
> commanded
> > > >> Israel to venerate them.<
> > > >
> > > >When did He do that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The serpent on the staff.<
> >
> > So the Orthodox worship Satan.
>
> Numbers 21:8-9: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent,
> and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is
> bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of
> brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had
> bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."
>
> Would you terribly mind explaining how your statement fits in?<
Not at all. An icon is a representation, a likeness; a portait, as one
Al
Get real and get a life. Jeesh! What a dumb statement.
richard.barrett
> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:ZUpWb.281973$na.445503@attbi_s04...
serpent,
> > and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that
is
> > bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of
> > brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent
had
> > bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."
> >
> > Would you terribly mind explaining how your statement fits in?<
>
> Not at all. An icon is a representation, a likeness; a portait, as one
> dictionary has it. Now the only serpent that the brass one could represent
> was the one in Eden, generally reckoned as a figure of Satan; that is,
> unless the brass one represented actual snakes, worship of which amounts
to
> much the same thing. So if the Israelites were venerating the brass snake
> they were comitting idolatry, and if that is the precedent for Orthodox
> practice it is reasonable to suppose that they practise idolatry as the
> Israelites did.
So God had the Israelites look upon an image of Satan to be healed? That
seems a bit odd to me. What strikes me as making more sense is this text
note from the Harper Study Bible, RSV: "The bronze serpent was a type of
Christ (Jn 3.14, 15). [...] As the bronze serpent was lifted up in the
wilderness, so Christ was lifted up to bear the sins of many (Jn 12.32). Men
who had been bitten needed only to look at the bronze serpent which Moses
had erected, and they were instantly healed. So, in type, sinners need only
look to Him who has been lifted up on the Cross and they will be saved from
the guilt, the penalty, and the power of sin (Jn 1.12; 3.16)."
Tell me, do you make a distinction between veneration and worship? I ask not
to be argumentative, but merely because I wish to know what you think.
Lee Malatesta
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Jesus specifically mentioned that the image of the serpent lifted up in
the wilderness pointed to the Son of Man being lifted up on the cross.
If you are equating the image serpent in the wilderness with Satan, you
are arguing that Satan is a type, a foreshadowing, of Christ which would
mean that you believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfilment and completion
of Satanism.
Surely you don't mean that.
Regards,
Lee
Steve Hayes
In one of Charles Wesley's hymns there is the implication that Satan was "the
first-born seraph".
Perhaps he's alluding to that.
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>So the question remains: when did God instruct anyone to make icons and
>venerate them?
At the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
richard.barrett
news:402a9ca3...@news.saix.net...
> In one of Charles Wesley's hymns there is the implication that Satan was
"the
> first-born seraph".
>
> Perhaps he's alluding to that.
What's interesting about that is that I believe the Hebrew word used for the
snake in the Numbers passage is "saraph", with an "a".