Now... questions for Greek Orthodox people

[Jawa Man]

As I said on my thread asking Catholics questions, for a while now I've wondered about Catholic and Greek Orthodox beliefs. It became obvious that Protestantism, which is new, obviously doesn't know early Christianity as well as the oldest churches. I know much less about Greek Orthodox theology than I do about Catholic theology, but since I hear they are very similar, I'll try asking the same questions, with others if necessary.

1) What's with praying to the saints? And do you accept all the saints... made saints... by the Catholic Church?

2) Why is Mary venerated so much? Jesus seems to take away attention from His mother in Scripture.
And it happened, while He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb which bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
(Luk 11:27-28)
And while He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." But He answered and said to him that told Him, "Who is My mother? And who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold; My mother, and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."
(Mat 12:46-50)

3) Why can't priests be married after they become priests?

4) Do you guys believe in confession to a priest? If so, why?

5) When did the Catholic Church start branching from the Orthodox, and is there any proof that they are a newer church?

6) Why do you guys not follow the Pope? Do you support him at all?

7) Does the Orthodox Church believe in Creation or evolution?

8) Do religious icons have any power or spiritual significane behind them, or do they just represent something Higher?

9) Why do you think the Muslims took over the Byzantine Empire?

10) Are Protestants heretics to the Orthodox Church?

11) Do you support Protestants who evangelize?

12) What is the position on Purgatory?

13) Is Preterism allowed in the Orthodox Church?

14) According to Orthodox theology, how is one saved?

15) What would need to be done to reunify the Orthodox and Catholic Churches?

16) What needs to be done to reunify the Protestants with the other Churches?

17) Paper, or plastic?

Thanks for your time, Greek Orthodox...ers... no, ists... no... arrrgh!!! By the way, my favorite faction to play in my game Medieval: Total War is the Byzantine Empire, so you guys are number one in my book. :wink:

[George Blaisdell]

As I said on my thread asking Catholics questions, for a while now I've wondered about Catholic and Greek Orthodox beliefs. It became obvious that Protestantism, which is new, obviously doesn't know early Christianity as well as the oldest churches. I know much less about Greek Orthodox theology than I do about Catholic theology, but since I hear they are very similar, I'll try asking the same questions, with others if necessary.


We ARE the early Church... The Pope refers to us as the *primitive Church*... We keep to the first 7 Ecumenical concils - And are bound by them... And one of the tenets of the 7th is that if anyone changes so much as one word of the Symbol of the Faith, either by addition or by subtraction, let them be anathema [accursed]... This precludes the addition of the Filioque...


1) What's with praying to the saints?


LOL!!

Our priest, Fr. Joseph, is a recovering CCC Evangellical Protestant, and one of the hardest things for him to do, in the early years, was to stand before an Icon, "This dumb picture, where they don't even understand perspective, and look like they were colored with kid's crayons..., and say a prayer, and worse - To actually BOW before that silly pic!" [That is actually MY paraphrase, and not his actual words.]

We in the west do not understand reverence offered to another - To bow down to the earth, and kiss another's hand, to prostrate oneself upon the earth in reverence for another, and especially Christ... We just don't have the cultural wherewithall to do that... It is a cultural thing...

And yes, we ask [pray] for intercession from our brethren, face to face when they are walking the earth, and by prayer when they have passed from the earth and are in the heavens, interceding for us before the throne of God...


And do you accept all the saints... made saints... by the Catholic Church?


No. Nor is our recognition of saints as formal as is the western [Roman] Catholic's tradition - By their standards, we are pretty slack... eg gullible...


2) Why is Mary venerated so much?


How many people do you know that birthed God into flesh, that contained the uncontainable? No flesh is holier than Hers... Except Her Son's...


Jesus seems to take away attention from His mother in Scripture.
And it happened, while He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb which bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
(Luk 11:27-28)
And while He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." But He answered and said to him that told Him, "Who is My mother? And who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold; My mother, and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."
(Mat 12:46-50)


Yes... But if you soften your heart, you can see that He says these things not to disparage his Mother, but to elevate the others in their deeds...


3) Why can't priests be married after they become priests?


Canon Law of one of the councils, I should think...


4) Do you guys believe in confession to a priest? If so, why?


Because it is hard - We got no booths with privacy and intimacy - All we get is a cloth over our head, and sweating out our confession in front of everyone at the altar [sometimes - at least - in the Russian tradition], or at least face to face... And it is the priesthood that has the charism to bind and loose...


5) When did the Catholic Church start branching from the Orthodox, and is there any proof that they are a newer church?



They split from us 'officially' in 1054 over the addition to the creed of the Filioque, and we were never able to patch it up - It was the third crusade that sealed the deal, pretty much, for Christians were killed by the thousands, and for 80 years Constantinople was sacked and looted of all her treasures, and then left at the hands of the Moslims... We knew after that that only our death would be enough, yet we persevered in these tribulations, and the Church in each country lives on...


6) Why do you guys not follow the Pope? Do you support him at all?


The Roman See will not submit Herself to the Church of the whole, and wishes to rule the whole Church under Her Patriarch, and this is not the way of the early Church...


7) Does the Orthodox Church believe in Creation or evolution?


Some do, some don't - We believe in God...


8) Do religious icons have any power or spiritual significane behind them, or do they just represent something Higher?


Yes.


9) Why do you think the Muslims took over the Byzantine Empire?


See 5...


10) Are Protestants heretics to the Orthodox Church?


No - They were never part of the Church - They are the illegitimate children of their apostatic Mother, the schizmatic Roman Church - We see them as our lost grand-children...


11) Do you support Protestants who evangelize?


Only if they bring tractors... And breeding stock... And medicines...


12) What is the position on Purgatory?


Heretical opinion


13) Is Preterism allowed in the Orthodox Church?


I dunno - It is not a hot item - I have never heard of it outside this forum... I kind of agree with DeeDee... But I really do not know what preterism is....


14) According to Orthodox theology, how is one saved?


By discipling, baptism, and faith...


15) What would need to be done to reunify the Orthodox and Catholic Churches?


The Roman Church would have to submit Herself to the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, and to the Whole of the Church, and give up her whole "developmental theology" scholasticism - And give up her vainglorious adoration of the Pope... And the doctrine of infallibility of this one Bishop -

The Roman pov, however, is different, and involves the willingness of the Orthodos to submit to Her Pope...


16) What needs to be done to reunify the Protestants with the other Churches?


Discipleship, baptism and faith...


17) Paper, or plastic?


Flesh and blood...


Thanks for your time, Greek Orthodox...ers... no, ists... no... arrrgh!!!


Good for you! Ain't no stinkin' -ist or -ism... Just Orthodox... And we are just as susceptible to the disease of religion as anyone else - Ours is the messy religion - More anecdotal than systematic - Gleaned in small packets, not slathered in copiousness of scholastiatic exposition...


By the way, my favorite faction to play in my game Medieval: Total War is the Byzantine Empire, so you guys are number one in my book. :wink:


My kid's got that game...

You take care!

[geo] Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

Thanks for the reply... I have some questions for your answers, now... that is, after my useless commentaries on your answers.

How many people do you know that birthed God into flesh, that contained the uncontainable? No flesh is holier than Hers... Except Her Son's... I happen to know at least four people who gave birth to God... shows how much you guys know.... :wink:
No - They were never part of the Church - They are the illegitimate children of their apostatic Mother, the schizmatic Roman Church - We see them as our lost grand-children...Interesting... so does that mean we're even more unChristian than the Catholics have become?
Only if they bring tractors... And breeding stock... And medicines...But how about the preaching of the Gospel? Do you think the Protestant form of it would lead astray, rather than to God?
By discipling, baptism, and faith...I've been baptized, I have full faith in the power of God, the Resurrection, etc., and I at least attempt to reach others with the Gospel and try to follow all of the statutes of the Bible... so does that mean I'm saved?
The Roman Church would have to submit Herself to the first 7 Ecumenical Councils...Could you provide a link or something to these Councils? And when did they take place?

Oh yeah.. and what's the Filioque?

btw, I think I run the Byzantine Empire better than the Byzantines did... you have no idea how many Crusades I've fought off... And after I took over all of the Muslim factions, I invaded Ireland, Sweden, Scotland, Portugal and Norway. I'm not true to history at all...

[spl_cadet]

For Jawaman's benefit:
The Filioque is the addition to the Nicene Creed which states that the Holy Spirit procedes from both the Father and the Son, not just the Father. During the Second Lateran Council and the brief reunification there, the Orthodox agreed that it was a justified and legitimate addition. As shown here, (http://www.catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp) the Filioque was believed by the Church long before it became a matter of controversy.

*Note* The above was simply meant to inform on what the Filioque was.

[Jawa Man]

And the churches reunited at one point!? Incredible...

Now I understand why the Venetian in the account I read was praying with the local Greeks... and why Europeans were defending Constantinople (at least a little). I just figured, based on the account, Catholics and Orthodox viewed each other as brothers. Your link helped clear things up.

[George Blaisdell]

Thanks for the reply...


I still haven't been able to discern spoof from spittle in your queries...


I happen to know at least four people [in addition to Christ's Mother] who gave birth to God... shows how much you guys know.... :wink:


That be spoof?


Interesting... [That Orthodox see us as rebellious illegitimate step-children of Rome] so does that mean we're even more unChristian than the Catholics have become?


Just look at the scattering and individuation of doctrine that is the hallmark of the "Protestant Tradition"... It loves to bash Rome, and every man is his own theologian... And everyone argues for his own point of view... The very idea that it is the Church that is the pillar and ground of truth is utterly lost to you...


But how about the preaching of the Gospel? Do you think the Protestant form of it would lead astray, rather than to God?


Where has it led the United States? The last thing the Florida hijackers did the night before they flew their plane into the WTC on 9/11 was go to a strip joint and almost get into a fight... It is the depravity of this culture that is our enemy in Islamic lands... They hear Billy Graham and then go to outside and see prostitutes on the street with drug addictions, and do not require spin doctors to connect them, while we all protest that Billy Graham does not approve of prostitutes... Do you really think that only one of us is right?


I've been baptized,


By the apostolic Church, after being discipled?


I have full faith in the power of God, the Resurrection, etc.,


Then you are better than me... I don't believe any of it, for if I really believed, I would live utterly differently... I would pray without ceasing, and my very shadow passing over a sick person would heal them... As it is, I forget to pray all the time, and when I walk by, you better take vitamins...

To regard something as true is not the same as faith, which is committment in action throughout time... It is not for nothing that the first of the epistles is ACTS... [praxis]...


and I at least attempt to reach others with the Gospel and try to follow all of the statutes of the Bible... so does that mean I'm saved?


It means you are probably sincere... God knows your heart...


Could you provide a link or something to these Councils? And when did they take place?


These are the councils of the undivided Church of the first thousand years... I'm a tad shocked that you do not know of them... The Protestant tradition is some 400 years old now, yet the Christian Tradition is 2000 years old, and these are the councils of holy men who decided together with the Holy Spirit what is and what is not Christian across the first thousand years...


Oh yeah.. and what's the Filioque?


It is the addition to the words of the Nicene Creed [the Symbol of the Faith] of the Latin words that it spells, and means "And the Son"... And it ascribes a duality of origin to the being of the Holy Spirit, instead of a singleness of origin [eg the Father alone], but instead states that the Father and the Son are the Origins of His Being... This was not in the Creed as it was affirmed in the first 7 World [Ecumenical] Councils, but was later added in Latin by the Latin Church, and tried to get it added to the Creed, and failed, and attacked the Church of the East with first a Papal Bull, and ultimately with the sacking of Constantinople...


btw, I think I run the Byzantine Empire better than the Byzantines did...


Fantasy and imagination are like that... I won every game of solitaire I ever played... And those girls all loved Jeff Domerie...


you have no idea how many Crusades [b]I've fought off... And after I took over all of the Muslim factions, I invaded Ireland, Sweden, Scotland, Portugal and Norway.


Not easy runnin the world...


I'm not true to history at all...


My life is based on a true story...

Knock knock? You there??

[geo] Arsenios

[Heathen Dawn]

We ARE the early Church...

Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants agree that they each are the early church and that the other two have come about by swaying away from the original purity.

[George Blaisdell]

Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants agree that they each are the early church and that the other two have come about by swaying away from the original purity.


I have never heard of any Protestant who claimed to be the historical early Church - They all claim [each differently, mind you] that they are the DOCTRINE of the early Church, and indeed of the Apostles... But all agree that they were birthed forth from the Roman Church following the enlightenment and the invention of the printing press and the publication of the Bible... They birthed themselves in protest against Roman excesses and errors, using the Bible, and their interpretation[s] thereof, to justify their rebellion against Rome. [especially indulgences]

And in terms of the original communion of apostolic Sees, Rome at that time was some 500 years into Her separation from and condemnation of the entire rest of the original historical Church, calling this eastern Church the Greek Church, and accusing it of rebellion against Rome, which to them is the only and one true Church, because they think it is the apostolic See of Peter [who founded the Church at Jerusalem, Antioch, and not Rome, but was martyred in Rome...]

This is why, in Orthodox terms, Protestants are seen as the children of an apostate [and abusive] Roman Church - To us, the first Protestant was the Pope - And now, it seems that every Protestant is his own Pope, in terms of personal and individual authority to determine the meaning of scripture and doctrine... The division is endless...

[geo] Arsenios

[spl_cadet]

Anabaptists claimed to be such as do Anglicans and Apostolic Succession Lutherans, though I don't think American Baptists make that claim.

[TWells]

For Jawaman's benefit:
The Filioque is the addition to the Nicene Creed which states that the Holy Spirit procedes from both the Father and the Son, not just the Father. During the Second Lateran Council and the brief reunification there, the Orthodox agreed that it was a justified and legitimate addition. As shown here, (http://www.catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp) the Filioque was believed by the Church long before it became a matter of controversy.

*Note* The above was simply meant to inform on what the Filioque was.

Are you sure your trying to cite Second Lateran Council? That council was not ecumenical in any sense and dealt mostly with regional western concerns. The only two main attempts at reconciliation were at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438). Neither council was ecumenical (as would be required concerning a issue like the Filioque) and the East was only represented by a small panel.

Lyons was driven primarily by political concernn as Emperor Micheal VIII conceded the various issues in order to get military protection from the Papacy. Upon his return, the East completely ignored the union and and it was repudiated by his successor.

The Union of Florence was likewise motivated politically in attempt to get help from the West against Muslim invaders. The majority of the delegates revoked their signatures upon returning to the East and the Church didnt observe the changes in the slightest.

Travis

[Jawa Man]

Sorry George, I was just trying to add some humor. I wasn't trying to mock you or anything. I'll try to avoid it in the future, when/if I have more questions... and yes, the thing about knowing others who gave birth to God was a spoof, I was hoping it would be funny.

And about the Councils: I really know only about the Nicean Council, because of the Apostle's Creed. I really haven't done much research on the Early Church, other than a small understanding of Early Church Fathers and reading a small portion of Clement's letter to the Corinthians.

Again, thanks for your time.

[spl_cadet]

Are you sure your trying to cite Second Lateran Council? That council was not ecumenical in any sense and dealt mostly with regional western concerns. The only two main attempts at reconciliation were at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438).

My bad.


Neither council was ecumenical (as would be required concerning a issue like the Filioque) and the East was only represented by a small panel.

A small panel that included the emperor, the patriarch of Constantinople, canonical representatives of the other Orthodox patriarchs, and the metropolitan of Kiev, head of the Russian church at Florence.


The Union of Florence was likewise motivated politically in attempt to get help from the West against Muslim invaders. The majority of the delegates revoked their signatures upon returning to the East and the Church didnt observe the changes in the slightest.

Yes, but was that due to actual historical belief, the highly prevalent anti-Latinism, or the control of the East by the Muslims, who were concerned that the West would come to their aid?

[jason]

Hi George I have a Question for you.

You said to JawaMan that you consider protestants

They were never part of the Church - They are the illegitimate children of their apostatic Mother, the schizmatic Roman Church - We see them as our lost grand-children...
Are protestants on your understanding saved ?

I have been reading a book Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801025885/qid=1078284900//ref=pd_ka_1/103-5477824-4358204?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)By Daniel B. Clendenin. It is fascinating. I never knew much about the Orthodox Church before.

It always appeared to me to be smells and bells coupled with idol worship. Of course I have been disabused of such a notion and it is fascinating.

I find the idea of Theosis intriguing. Although at first I was beginning to wonder if it wasn't like the Mormon teaching in that regard.

I'd love to experience the full splendor and majesty of an Orthodox service but I would not know where to find a theologically sound Orthodox Church in Sydney Australia.

Jason

[TWells]

A small panel that included the emperor, the patriarch of Constantinople, canonical representatives of the other Orthodox patriarchs, and the metropolitan of Kiev, head of the Russian church at Florence.



...who, as I stated earlier, revoked their signatures and openly renounced the council. It was politically motivated pure and simple nor is this doubted by historians east and west.

Yes, but was that due to actual historical belief, the highly prevalent anti-Latinism, or the control of the East by the Muslims, who were concerned that the West would come to their aid?

The muslims had not yet sacked Constantinople so I dont really see what your getting at there. And to say that the East rejected the councils on the basis of some simple anti-latin bias is as ridiculous and naive. Both sides had developed low opinions of the others and the gap was deeply theological as well political.

[George Blaisdell]

Sorry George, I was just trying to add some humor.
I wasn't trying to mock you or anything.
I'll try to avoid it in the future, when/if I have more
questions... and yes, the thing about knowing others
who gave birth to God was a spoof, I was hoping it
would be funny.


It was funny, and I wasn't all that concerned about being mocked - I was just getting mixed signals from you and couldn't get a handle on if you were seriously asking or not... I normally thank people who mock me! [Just a little joke!]


And about the Councils: I really know only about the
Nicean Council, because of the Apostle's Creed. I really
haven't done much research on the Early Church, other
than a small understanding of Early Church Fathers and
reading a small portion of Clement's letter to the Corinthians.


Look - Christ came to this earth, incarnated, taught, was crucified, and was resurrected, leaving us with His body, the Church - All that some 2000 years ago... His body, the Church, is the ongoing incarnation of Christ, bearing witness in deeds, as well as in words, to His life, death, and resurrection... Nothing can prevail against this Church that is His Body Who is its Head... It never died out, or fell away into error, but has faithfully kept the purity of the faith all this time, with the only instrument of enforcement that of communion, and the language of anathema to errors and those who proclaim them as truth... The historical Church is worth your attention, for it is the Body of Christ, established by Him upon the earth... The Church was not created by the gospel, nor by men reading the gospel and forming their own opinions about it, but by Christ, informing men by the Holy Spirit, within His holy body, the Church... Just follow the communion of the Church, historically, and you will necessarily end up in the Eastern Orthodox Church...

The issues theological have all been pretty well ironed out over 2000 years in Orthodoxy - And the work of discipleship is not that of making up your own mind to decide your faith, but the acquisition of the faith delivered once for all, and passed on, from person to person... So that when there is a conflict between what you think and what the Church teaches, it is not the Church that needs to change its mind... It is not about individual rights and democratic sovereignty... It is about the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, and the nous of Christ... In love, self sacrifice, and self denial... Simple as that...

[geo] Arsenios

[George Blaisdell]

Hi George I have a Question for you.

Are protestants on your understanding saved ?


The whole understanding of salvation in the western Protestant confessions is seriously and hopelessly flawed, Jason...


I have been reading a book: Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective By Daniel B. Clendenin. It is fascinating. I never knew much about the Orthodox Church before.


The Eastern perspective is much better! But for a westerner, maybe that western perspective by Clendenin is passable... :-)


It always appeared to me to be smells and bells coupled with idol worship. Of course I have been disabused of such a notion and it is fascinating.


The smells and bells are wonderful, and the icons instructive and beautiful...


I find the idea of Theosis intriguing. Although at first I was beginning to wonder if it wasn't like the Mormon teaching in that regard.


It is participation in the uncreated energies of God, and God alone can do that for you - It is not within the range of approach of human effort... We instead are called to repentance...


I'd love to experience the full splendor and majesty of an Orthodox service but I would not know where to find a theologically sound Orthodox Church in Sydney Australia.


Russian, Greek, or Antiochian - Any of these are fine - The theology of them all is identical - There is no conflict of theology from one Orthodox Church to another, for they are all one Church, just different ethnoi... But best is to have a guide walk you through, or just hang out on an Orthodox website and ask someone to direct you to a suitable church... Going to an ethinic Serbian Church, for instance, would be beautiful, but incomprehensible, because in anothe language... Yet I can listen to any service, and know where in the service I am, because they are all very similar, indeed the same, with only minor differences, and quite long. monachos.net is a good site to hang out around - Fr. Averky there is a monk and a priest, and a real gem... The site is more like a school of Orthodox piety than discussion - Yet I bet someone on it would know a good Church for you to go visit in Australia [Sydney]...

I envy you getting to attend an Orthodox service for the first time... I'll never forget my first one... I can ask FOR you, if you like, and get back to you here...

[geo] Arsenios

[jason]

The whole understanding of salvation in the western Protestant confessions is seriously and hopelessly flawed, Jason...Them's fightin' words. But if you would care to elaborate I would be interested.

The Eastern perspective is much better! But for a westerner, maybe that western perspective by Clendenin is passable... :-)If I followed the intro correctly he is a convert from west to east.

The smells and bells are wonderful, and the icons instructive and beautiful... Maybe, but I am rather attached to my Western written tradition. I love the writings of Augustine. I dare say I would venerate them along with the writings of Aquinas (well most of it anyway).

It is participation in the uncreated energies of God, and God alone can do that for you - It is not within the range of approach of human effort... We instead are called to repentance... Yes. Still a fascinating idea.

Russian, Greek, or Antiochian - Any of these are fine - The theology of them all is identical - There is no conflict of theology from one Orthodox Church to another, for they are all one Church, just different ethnoi...Yet there seems to exist entirely nominal Orthodox Christians, akin to nominal Roman Catholics. What in Anglican circles are known as C&E Christians (Christmas and Easter is the only time you ever see them in Church).

But best is to have a guide walk you through, or just hang out on an Orthodox website and ask someone to direct you to a suitable church... Going to an ethinic Serbian Church, for instance, would be beautiful, but incomprehensible, because in anothe language...There is a Greek Orthodox Church around the corner. I'm not planning on converting, but I am interested in learning more. Any way you would recommend I approach this ?

I envy you getting to attend an Orthodox service for the first time... I'll never forget my first one... I can ask FOR you, if you like, and get back to you here... Well St. Andrews Greek Orthodox Church at Gladesville is near my place. Will that do ?

I'm most interested to know why you think the Western churches understanding of salvation is deeply flawed.

Jason

[Jawa Man]

I've considered going to the Catholic and Orthodox churches nearby, but from knowing the people who go there, they seem a bit... well, spiritually dead. They also don't know much about their own beliefs. An Orthodox girl told me that she wasn't a Christian, but a Greek Orthodox. I squished my face like puddy after that, and corrected her! But at my Protestant church, where I feel most comfortable, there are many believers with a burning desire to serve God in the community, witnessing to the Gospel through actions and words... The turn-off to me is that the Catholic and Orthodox churches either hide, or try to win converts by having youth dances that play rap music with blanks for curses.

What's your opinion, George!?

[George Blaisdell]

I've considered going to the Catholic and Orthodox churches nearby, but from knowing the people who go there, they seem a bit... well, spiritually dead. They also don't know much about their own beliefs. An Orthodox girl told me that she wasn't a Christian, but a Greek Orthodox. I squished my face like puddy after that, and corrected her! But at my Protestant church, where I feel most comfortable, there are many believers with a burning desire to serve God in the community, witnessing to the Gospel through actions and words... The turn-off to me is that the Catholic and Orthodox churches either hide, or try to win converts by having youth dances that play rap music with blanks for curses.

What's your opinion, George!?


Sounds like cross-cultures... And it is an issue with ethnic Churches that do not normally speak English... When the only Orthodox Churches were the ethnic ones, the Russians, for instance, were dumb-flubbed that anyone would show up at their parish Church to become a Christian - They simply couldn't understand why an American would want to become Russian...

Better for you to show up at a convert Church, and that is only occassionally Greek, and half the time Antiochian, and all the time Orthodox Church in America [OCA]... When the Church is the Church of the land, as the original Churches always were, then across time there comes an identification of religion and culture... And all the issues that this entails, and then emigration to a land of a new tongue - It's not hard to see...

I would hesitate to call them spiritually dead - Indeed I would never do so - For the reason that in order to become alive spiritually, one of the things we are to do is to mortify our members, eg deaden them, which results in the appearance of deadening, so that what you are seeing may be the opposite of what you think... But God discerns the heart, and having cognitive fluency in theological theories is not a requirement for salvation... Purification of the heart is... Living a repentant life is...

The job, btw, of a Christian life, is to take you out of your comfort zone, and into the discomfort of repentance from the world, and a profound and dedicated turning toward God in prayer and services... Social help programs are a consequence, and in really poor parishes, the help is wresten sparingly out of need, while well to do folks congratulate themselves on their generocity with their surpluses... But this is more often true of the Russians, rather than the Greeks, who are pretty well established these days in the good ol US of A...

I would really recommend getting an Orthodox person to take you to a service, and especially to an ethnic parish service, but even an American [OCA] service needs a guide, for the service [of the Liturgy] is dense and compact and structured in ways that are not superficially apparent... And there are a few do's and don't's... And having a guide is helpful - And the easy way is to contact the parish, tell them what you want to do, and follow their direction... It's no big deal, and if they just look at you like you are green cheese, try a different Church!

I have never heard rap music in an Orthodox Church, or seen a youth dance either, for that matter... You might have Orthodox and Roman Catholic smerged...

[geo] Arsenios

[TWells]

I've considered going to the Catholic and Orthodox churches nearby, but from knowing the people who go there, they seem a bit... well, spiritually dead. They also don't know much about their own beliefs.

In regards to Orthodoxy that hasnt been my experience at all. One of the things that attracted me to it was how well educated the laity were in general, our "sunday school" class that meets before liturgy on Sunday is light years beyond those ive attended all my life at Evangelical Churches. Most would consider the ignorance that many protestants and evangelicals have of Christian theology to me a major problem in America.

As far as being spiritually dead...I have seen nothing of that either. IMO Orthodoxy has a approach and deapth to spirituality that Western Christianity never even approaches. My congregation is made up of mostly converts. Most who are spiritually lazy dont take the time nor effort to leave the evangelical background they grew up with and leave it for something as foreign as Eastern Orthodoxy.

An Orthodox girl told me that she wasn't a Christian, but a Greek Orthodox. I squished my face like puddy after that, and corrected her! But at my Protestant church, where I feel most comfortable, there are many believers with a burning desire to serve God in the community, witnessing to the Gospel through actions and words...

I know for a fact that there are many Protestant Church's that have that burning desire just as the Orthodox do. So its not something that can be generalized.

The turn-off to me is that the Catholic and Orthodox churches either hide, or try to win converts by having youth dances that play rap music with blanks for curses.

This I have never, ever seen and runs completely against the Orthodox way of evangelism. In fact im sure that if Archbishop Dimitri and Metropolitan Herman knew of something like that they would put a stop to it.

[George Blaisdell]

I've considered going to the Catholic and Orthodox churches nearby, but from knowing the people who go there, they seem a bit... well, spiritually dead. They also don't know much about their own beliefs. An Orthodox girl told me that she wasn't a Christian, but a Greek Orthodox. I squished my face like puddy after that, and corrected her! But at my Protestant church, where I feel most comfortable, there are many believers with a burning desire to serve God in the community, witnessing to the Gospel through actions and words... The turn-off to me is that the Catholic and Orthodox churches either hide, or try to win converts by having youth dances that play rap music with blanks for curses.

What's your opinion, George!?

Jawa-man, please forgive me for being so slow on the uptake - I was taking myself and the conversation here so seriously that I missed your creative invention of whole-cloth data... I really am a 'Daaaah', truth be told... Thanks for the bait and the presentation thereof in the streams of my conceit... You will forever be immortalized in the words whose significnce I walked blindly straight past:

Jawa scripted:
"I squished my face like puddy... What's your opinion, George!?"

LOL!

There are times, JM, when I am the thickest dunderhead on earth!

Thanks again...

[geo] Arsenios [the puddy-head!]

[George Blaisdell]

Jason wrote:

"I'm most interested to know why you think the Western churches understanding of salvation is deeply flawed."

Jason, I am sorry that I did not get to this earlier - I opned the door and then bugged out - sorry!

The basic problem is the lack of the human effort side of salvation, that there is on the one hand the fact that our salvation is utterly in our hands, because Christ has done HIS part, and that on the othr hand, there is nothing we can do to effect our own salvation, for it is all of God, and it is in the synergistic relationship between works and grace that we find our way, and this within the ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic CHURCH... I found a couple of postings on another board that address this matter, and then I forgot where your post was that asked, and just now found it when JawaMan pearled my sorry dairy-haire... The Biblical teaching is that works attract grace - They are the 'small things' which, if we are responsible with them, we are rewarded with great things - eg God's grace to us in His bestowal of great mercy...

Here is the posting:

_________________________________________________

>>There is a distinction between the "works" of verse 8 and
>>the "good works" of verse 10. Romans 3 is talking about works, and not
>>good works. James is talking about "good works", but calls it "works".
>>He is not using Pauls semantic distinction.

> I must confess you have completely lost me here with this distinction
> between "works" and "good works"--I have never heard of anyone ever making
> such a distinction. What exactly is a "work" which is different from and
> not a "good work?"--is Paul here talking about "bad" works, and taking the
> time to warn us that we cannot be saved and justified by such "bad works"
> lest we be tempted to try? And how do you know that James is talking about
> something very different from "good works" when he refers to "good works,"
> namely "works?" Is this distinction between "works" and "good
> works" Orthodox?

I'll throw in a few thoughts on this (like, not that I ever have before! ;)

From the Orthodox perspective, as I've been able to understand it, the
concept of "faith" is different than what many in modern Evangelical
circles would claim, and definitely different than what some other
Protestant groups claim, both of which I think Paul and Nick here would
also disagree with to some degree. The views of "faith" that I have come
across among Protestants are the following:

1. Faith is some mystical quality that we possess that enables us to
control God through His promises to make us "successful" and in the end
"saved". This would be the "name it, claim it" crowd who preach the
Prosperity Gospel.

2. A step down from the above, but not quite with the same manipulation
of God as the above, is that faith is something one "has" which enables
them to get things done, but tends to be divorced from one's life of
holiness, but is rather an attitude toward God by which we can gain His
favor (grace) to make our lives better. This view prevails in several
different groups to varying degrees, often not explicitly stated as
such. I ran into this understanding in the Nazarene Church from time to
time when I was there.

3. Faith is a trust in Jesus. That is true, and includes that but is
very superficial, it does not go deep enough for often it stops short of
meaning that one's life is directly changed by this, but often relegates
it more to one's status in relationship with God. So, by having faith,
God rewards the faith itself as a prize with grace and good stuff
including salvation. The verse which speaks of just believing on Jesus
and you will be saved, without the context of what believing means or
having faith, gets pulled out of context as something one can possess
and as if that in itself saves one.

4. Along the lines of the Reformation formula which Paul and Nick here
ascribe more to, is that faith produces in one good works, which follow
as a needed fulfillment. However, since these works cannot be perfect
and fulfill the Law perfectly, then they cannot be the bases for
salvation. Rather, faith alone, as not including works, forms the bases
and foundation of salvation through which the grace that saves us comes
to us. The works follow as necessary to fulfill and validate that faith
as true, but they are not what saves us.

If one takes "grace" here in the sense of sacramental grace (which a lot
of Protestants would not in the sense of the sacraments, but Lutherans
would have some concept of this) and one looks at Calvin's concept of
the real presence, we can see how this one plays out. For Calvin, the
real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was there and real...but only
for those with faith to see it. Otherwise it was simply bread and wine
they partook of. One sees in this concept that faith becomes the
completeness of whether grace exist in a sacrament, and thus salvation
comes to the person. Some Lutherans also treat the Eucharist in this
manner as well, but some don't and are more in line with Orthodox
understanding.

The Orthodox understanding is exhibited in the Eph. passage, as well as
Romans and Galatians. As St. Peter said, many have taken what Paul says
and interpreted them within their own context, as we can see by the
various ways of looking at it above, what it means that we are saved by
grace, through faith apart from works but for works.

First, if you look at the Eph 2 passage, and read the context, it is
apparent, as it is in Romans and Galatians, that when St. Paul is
speaking of "works" he is specifically referring to "works of the Law".
The Jews had been given the Law, and many looked upon it as an external
set of rules to live one's life by, and if one followed them well, then
God would bestow His favor on them and they would be "saved" (though the
Jews generally didn't think in terms of saved and not saved other than
very general terms). You can see that this is the context by seeing
verses 9-10 in light of vs. 13-16. For Paul, in these passages, the
division is not between faith and works, but between faith in Christ and
faith in the Law for salvation, and "works" was simply the short hand
for our own attempt to fulfill the Law apart from grace and faith in
Christ, thus our trust and faith in the Law for Salvation. This is
explicitly the point which St. Paul is making in Galatians for those who
are circumcised. For by so doing, they are in effect saying that
obedience to the external Jewish Law needs to be added onto obedience to
Christ which is what faith in Him entails, even as it would do so in the
Law.

So, the question at hand for Paul is really are we saved by works of
faith in Christ, or by works of faith in the Law? It is to this which
Paul is saying that we are saved by grace (which comes to us through the
various sacraments as well as generally in the soul in communion with
God) through faith (a trust that we place ourselves in obedience to
Christ who will fulfill the Law in us, instead of obedience to the
*written* Law itself apart from Christ) and not by our trust via
obedience to the Law.

That is why people like St. John Chrysostom and St. Symeon the New
Theologian can say that we are saved by faith alone, because inherent in
that faith are the works of faith. These "works" are not works of faith
in the Law, but of faith in Christ. It is the synergistic understanding
of grace that faith and works are joined together as one reality, and
the question is not whether faith and works in and of themselves are
opposed to one another (as it is so often understood in popular
Protestantism) but in what one's works are having faith in, Christ or
the Law, whatever that "Law" might be for the person. IOW, are we
trusting in ourselves to preform the Law correctly (thus having faith in
ourselves because we can really only have faith in a person, not a
document) or trusting in Christ to fulfill the Law in us and so our
performance or failure to fulfill it ourselves is not the issue.

It is that later that Paul describes as being broken down by the joining
together of the two. For the flesh could not fulfill the Law in man, and
so he could not be saved by that Law externally. Jesus breaks down that
Law, abolishing its division in Himself by uniting both the fallen flesh
and the divine nature in one man, Jesus Christ, thus restoring the Law
as an internal reality in the heart rather than an external set of rules
that we obey. Through this union, we can by the grace or energy also be
united to this reality by becoming one with Him, by submitting ourselves
to Him and doing what He ask of us. His yoke is easy and His burden is
light, but it is none-the-less a cross that we carry.

Christ, by doing away with that division based in the external Law which
our flesh could not of itself fulfill perfectly and it really was not
meant for that purpose, but to give us a picture of what one united to
Christ was like, what the "likeness to God" was by which we were created.

It is this union which is at the foundation of the Orthodox
understanding of salvation which provides the last building block of
context. For in popular Protestantism, salvation is primarily a legal
question of how to become not guilty of the Law. In Paul, the question
is in what way is the Law abolished as an external document and means of
salvation to become an internal Law of the heart...by Christ uniting the
flesh with the divine and our union with Him. That is grace by which we
obediently partake of because we have faith in Him as the means of
salvation and not our own ability to do the Law.

Consequently, Paul is making no statement here about all works that one
might do. He has just shortened obedience to Christ down to "faith" and
obedience to the Law as "works" in contrasting them as means of
salvation. So, we are saved for works, yes, and there is the sense where
the works fulfill as St. James points out, our faith in Him. IOW, if one
says they have faith in Christ but then do no do what He says...and
another says they do not have faith but then goes ahead and does it, who
has done the will of the Father? Who has "fulfilled" via their trust
what God demands of us? Such works done out of faith in Christ fulfill
not in a cause/effect sense the faith, but complete it, make it whole
and real. This synergy one cannot divorce by saying which came first,
the faith or the works, and by even saying "faith" works of that faith
are included and contained within it. Faith is only made real by its
works. This faith, even as small as a mustard seed, can then grow
indicating that it is not a perfection of ability and performance that
is sought after, but a repentance and submission to Christ of which all
the Fathers speak about as a life long orientation, as humility essentially.

Now, as regards Paul's comments I don't think we are real far apart
here, at least in Paul's understanding of Lutheranism, though I wouldn't
say it is an exact match. I think the real question is whether faith is
understood to be the equivalent of works if they are works of that
faith. IOW, can you divide those out so as to speak which one comes
first, which one, the mental assent or the response in faith to Christ,
that saves us? Which one is the "foundation" and which one comes first?
I don't think they can be divided and these verses are used to do that
too often.

Another to follow...

[geoo] Arsenios