Protestant, RC and Eastern Orth. Friendship thread. [Archive]

Columba

March 15th 2004, 12:15 PM

elysian

March 15th 2004, 01:15 PM

I got such amazing responses in the other thread but I didn't want to sidetrack that one, so here I am!

You asked also about the Eucharist. I know that "transubstantiation" is taught in RC churches....in the EO, we do not have this dogma. We simply say it is a "mystery" and we don't define it in any way. (We cannot limit the Lord and his ways). I don't think anyone is "not okay" if they believe this transubstantiation, but the Church would not want it taught. It is a Real Presence but I cannot explain.....I sense the Presence but I cannot define it. I feel it, but I cannot say "how" it happens. I'm not a scholar so I'm probably not answering very well...We use leavened bread in the cup of wine.
The bread and the wine are mixed together, and is taken by a spoon given by the our Priest. It is very different I believe, from the RC church.

The way you explain the Eucharist or Holy Communion is very similar to the Lutheran understanding. We believe that Jesus is present in, under and with the bread and wine. (consubstantiation or the "real presence.") We too regard it as a mystery. In our church we have communion two different ways, but we always have both the bread and the wine, though they may be taken one at a time. We either have the bread (unleavened wafer) separate from the wine which is poured into a tiny disposable sippee cup, (at the rail) or we dip the bread into the wine (intinction.) We used small pieces broken off of a loaf of fresh wheat bread in one church I went to as well as the wine served in sippee cups. Some Lutheran churches use a common cup for the wine like RC's do -everyone drinks off the same cup- but we don't. The closest we come to that is intinction, where we dip the bread into the wine and then take them together.

Most Catholic churches use the wafer and then share a common cup of wine-you drink a sip, the priest or communion assistant wipes the edge of the cup, and the next person takes a sip off the same cup. At least this is how they did it in the early 1980's- it's probably been 20 years since I've been to a Catholic church. I don't know if this has changed due to disease concerns or not, though this is the reason my church doesn't use a common cup- concern for spreading disease.

In the Lutheran church any confirmed believer (male or female) who has had instruction may administer Communion, once the bread and wine have been consecrated by a pastor on the altar, and as far as I know the RCC also allows lay people to administer both the bread and wine also once it has been consecrated. Lutherans generally (except for Missouri and Wisconsin Synods) allow all baptized Christians to participate in Communion, while the RCC does not practice open Communion.

Amazing Rando

March 15th 2004, 01:44 PM

I got such amazing responses in the other thread but I didn't want to sidetrack that one, so here I am!

Amazing Rando: you were talking about the sacraments being different. Yes, we have seven Sacraments and we believe that these things are Holy "times" in our lives. They are approached in a way that allows us to come into the real presence of our Lord ...

I guess I've always believed that God is with me, inside me, all around me. All the time, too, even when it doesn't feel like it. As far as I can see, the biggest difference between Protestants and RCC and EO is that as protestants, we believe that we have direct access to God the Father through Jesus- the one mediator between God and men as articulated in the letter to the Hebrews. Thus, Protestants believe we can speak directly to God because Jesus' life and death destroyed the barrier that was in place between God and mankind, in the same way the Temple curtain was torn asunder in Matthew's gospel. Rather than a time of physically experiencing the presence of God the Sacraments become for us deep and meaningful symbols of the Father's love for us and Jesus' sacrifice. Does that make sense?

You asked me about chrismation: this is a Sacrament immediately following the Sacrament of Baptism, the person is annointed with oil to recieve the sealing of the Holy Spirit. They are annointed like this:
I can't remember all the right words but this will give you an idea: (I'm not a scholar, just a simple peasant!)
On the forehead, to keep the Holy Spirit in mind at all times
On the eyes, to keep our eyes on what is Holy
on the ears, to keep our ears open to the Lord's voice
on the mouth, to keep our words pure
on the heart, to keep our hearts trained on the Lord
on the feet to keep us from evil paths.

This is an oversimplification. The oil that is used is sort of like bread starter. Every year, the Bishops come together and pour it together and add more, bless it, and consecrate it to God. Holy Tradition is that this oil contains the Lord's touch because it originally came from the same oil that Jesus used, and it is the same oil that the Apostles used, they kept adding to it, like starter. I hope this makes sense...

That's cool! I've never even heard of charismation before, since the RCC seems to not have any equivalent sacrament. I know the oil-annointing thing is very biblical, quite a touching reminder.

I guess I'd say we don't have any equivalent to your Holy Tradition, any some Protestants are rabidly anti-tradition because they think it's an abandonment of Scripture. Not me though- I see the value in tradition, though of course I have a difficult time understanding how it can be perfect and incorruptible. :nsm:

In EO, we are immersed three times, in the name of the Trinity. Even babies. (My priest is an expert dunker of babies...they never cry!)

Well, there are all kinds of Protestant traditions about baptism. Methodists, for example, just sprinkle babies and new converts. I'm definitely beginning to wonder about the biblical authenticity of this practice. Baptists, on the other hand, do full immersion of adults, when they are old and mature enough to fully understand and believe the gospel. :angel:

You are your wife are looking for a new church? If you leave your church, which denomination do you think you will choose? And why?

Well you see, complicating this matter is the fact that I'm going to be going to seminary this coming fall. About three months ago, I felt "the call," and I feel that God's calling me into the ordained ministry. Thus, I need to choose a denomination to stick with. That would be easy were I not getting married. But I'm getting married on June 4th, and Lori, my beautiful fiance, is from a Baptist church. She'd prefer we join a non-denominational Protestant church, but I feel much more at home in a mainline Protestant denomination. So we're going to compromise- we'll probably pick some other denomination, like Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or something. :dizzy:

You asked also about the Eucharist. I know that "transubstantiation" is taught in RC churches....in the EO, we do not have this dogma. We simply say it is a "mystery" and we don't define it in any way. (We cannot limit the Lord and his ways). I don't think anyone is "not okay" if they believe this transubstantiation, but the Church would not want it taught. It is a Real Presence but I cannot explain.....I sense the Presence but I cannot define it. I feel it, but I cannot say "how" it happens. I'm not a scholar so I'm probably not answering very well...We use leavened bread in the cup of wine.
The bread and the wine are mixed together, and is taken by a spoon given by the our Priest. It is very different I believe, from the RC church.

Believe me, I can understand the feeling of awe and wonder! There's something special about Eucharist, Lord's Supper, Communion, or whatever you want to call it. It's something that Christians of all stripes throughout all of the Christian Era have shared together, and it's a wonderful ritual that reminds us of Jesus' passion and deep, deep love for us.

In my home church, we always did it through intinction, as elysian explained. We bake a fresh loaf of bread, and each person who comes up breaks off a chunk and dips it into the chalice of grape juice before consuming it. The pastor says "The body of Christ, broken for you," and "The blood of Christ, shed for you," as each person takes and eats. We usually read from 1 Corinthians as well to be reminded of what the Lord's Supper meant to Paul.

Another thing that makes Communion special in the Methodist tradition is that for us, it's an open Communion table. All who recognize Jesus Christ as Lord are welcome to partake. We do this because it's what we believe God will do for us in the great heavenly banquet he's invited us to someday. I went to a Catholic mass one time with a friend, and when I went up to take the Eucharist, I got a whole lot of angry glares and hisses. :egad: It didn't feel very inviting like ours is.

Does the Methodist do "sprinkling" then? Not immersion? I have read that some Protestants do not believe in immersion. Do they have unleavened bread?

I really look forward to hearing everyone's response and having good friendship with you. :)

Yes, Methodists sprinkle. Though as I've said, I'm beginning to wonder about the biblical accuracy of the practice. I don't think it really matters one way or another, because Protestants believe it is an outward sign of what's going on on the inside anyhow. It's what's going on inside you that's important, not the outside. God is cleansing you of your sins, and by getting baptized, we're recognizing this fact, and showing it to the world.

My church has always just used a normal loaf of bread. It tastes wonderful, I might add! I'm not even sure what "unleavened" bread is and how it's different than normal bread.

Thanks, Columbia! I needed this. Good thread! I hope we can get a Catholic or two over here as well! :cheers: I'm going to give you some positive rep points!

Columba

March 15th 2004, 02:23 PM

The way you explain the Eucharist or Holy Communion is very similar to the Lutheran understanding. We believe that Jesus is present in, under and with the bread and wine. (consubstantiation or the "real presence.") We too regard it as a mystery. In our church we have communion two different ways, but we always have both the bread and the wine, though they may be taken one at a time. We either have the bread (unleavened wafer) separate from the wine which is poured into a tiny disposable sippee cup, (at the rail) or we dip the bread into the wine (intinction.) We used small pieces broken off of a loaf of fresh wheat bread in one church I went to as well as the wine served in sippee cups. Some Lutheran churches use a common cup for the wine like RC's do -everyone drinks off the same cup- but we don't. The closest we come to that is intinction, where we dip the bread into the wine and then take them together.This is interesting! I did not know you took them together. In the EO, the priest does this for us, by using the sacred part of the loaf. It has a seal baked into it.
The rest of the loaf is reserved, cut up into chunks and this is given to all who come to Church....The Eucharist is only for Orthodox, but after this is over, the Priest blesses each person in the Church and gives them holy bread as a blessing.

In the Lutheran church any confirmed believer (male or female) who has had instruction may administer Communion, once the bread and wine have been consecrated by a pastor on the altar, and as far as I know the RCC also allows lay people to administer both the bread and wine also once it has been consecrated. Lutherans generally (except for Missouri and Wisconsin Synods) allow all baptized Christians to participate in Communion, while the RCC does not practice open Communion.
Now I am learning a lot here. Any Christian can give out the communion???
In Orthodoxy only the Priest can do this. Although any Christian can baptise a baby, especially if there is no priest and the baby is sick or in danger...but never the Eucharist.
I'm so glad I started this thread...I am learning so much about you!
:smile:

brother vinny

March 15th 2004, 02:28 PM

Columba

March 15th 2004, 02:42 PM

I guess I've always believed that God is with me, inside me, all around me. All the time, too, even when it doesn't feel like it. As far as I can see, the biggest difference between Protestants and RCC and EO is that as protestants, we believe that we have direct access to God the Father through Jesus- the one mediator between God and men as articulated in the letter to the Hebrews. Thus, Protestants believe we can speak directly to God because Jesus' life and death destroyed the barrier that was in place between God and mankind, in the same way the Temple curtain was torn asunder in Matthew's gospel. Rather than a time of physically experiencing the presence of God the Sacraments become for us deep and meaningful symbols of the Father's love for us and Jesus' sacrifice. Does that make sense?
Yes, we believe this too! We might be having an East/West thing here. We do believe this and we encourage and practice all this. I think when we say "Real Presence" in the Eucharist, we are only speaking of the literality (is that a word?) of what Jesus said: This IS My Body. This IS My Blood.
But we believe that His Presence is always with us, at all times. We speak directly to Him...and to God the Father, through the Holy Trinity. This is why we cross ourselves...crossing ourselves is a prayer.

That's cool! I've never even heard of charismation before, since the RCC seems to not have any equivalent sacrament. I know the oil-annointing thing is very biblical, quite a touching reminder.

I guess I'd say we don't have any equivalent to your Holy Tradition, any some Protestants are rabidly anti-tradition because they think it's an abandonment of Scripture. Not me though- I see the value in tradition, though of course I have a difficult time understanding how it can be perfect and incorruptible. :nsm:I don't know enough about Protestants to say much, but I don't understand this. They think our Traditions are unbiblical? I can only say that the Church considers the Bible infallible, and that all Traditions (with the big T) are based upon what is read in the Bible. There are always some ethnic customs that are just ethnic like "headcoverings' for the women, but actually one could stretch and say that is biblical too...using this example, a lot of older women adhere to the custom but only because of ethnicity...if you told them it was "biblical" they would just be extra pleased....(I'm speaking here of our older ladies some of whom do not read or write well, coming from the old country in rural areas. They are fewer in number each year and are extra precious to me. :smile: )

Well, there are all kinds of Protestant traditions about baptism. Methodists, for example, just sprinkle babies and new converts. I'm definitely beginning to wonder about the biblical authenticity of this practice. Baptists, on the other hand, do full immersion of adults, when they are old and mature enough to fully understand and believe the gospel. :angel:
I know that the EO often accepts the baptism of Baptists who convert because they immerse, and baptise literally with the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". These people are not re-baptised, but chrismated into the Church. I know that some baptisms of converts are not accepted,and these have to be redone . Good examples: JW and Mormon.

Well you see, complicating this matter is the fact that I'm going to be going to seminary this coming fall. About three months ago, I felt "the call," and I feel that God's calling me into the ordained ministry. Thus, I need to choose a denomination to stick with. That would be easy were I not getting married. But I'm getting married on June 4th, and Lori, my beautiful fiance, is from a Baptist church. She'd prefer we join a non-denominational Protestant church, but I feel much more at home in a mainline Protestant denomination. So we're going to compromise- we'll probably pick some other denomination, like Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or something. :dizzy:
How wonderful for you! Congratulations!!! On both counts! Doing the Lord's work is a very special calling. I've been very sad reading about the Episopalians and their troubles. I hope that is all straightened out soon. Did you know that it is a common saying among the EO's that if Luther had had a fax machine, he *might* have become Orthodox? :smile: Many EO's rather admire some of his work, even if they do not agree with his final conclusions.

Believe me, I can understand the feeling of awe and wonder! There's something special about Eucharist, Lord's Supper, Communion, or whatever you want to call it. It's something that Christians of all stripes throughout all of the Christian Era have shared together, and it's a wonderful ritual that reminds us of Jesus' passion and deep, deep love for us.

In my home church, we always did it through intinction, as elysian explained. We bake a fresh loaf of bread, and each person who comes up breaks off a chunk and dips it into the chalice of grape juice before consuming it. The pastor says "The body of Christ, broken for you," and "The blood of Christ, shed for you," as each person takes and eats. We usually read from 1 Corinthians as well to be reminded of what the Lord's Supper meant to Paul.

Another thing that makes Communion special in the Methodist tradition is that for us, it's an open Communion table. All who recognize Jesus Christ as Lord are welcome to partake. We do this because it's what we believe God will do for us in the great heavenly banquet he's invited us to someday. I went to a Catholic mass one time with a friend, and when I went up to take the Eucharist, I got a whole lot of angry glares and hisses. :egad: It didn't feel very inviting like ours is.

Yes, Methodists sprinkle. Though as I've said, I'm beginning to wonder about the biblical accuracy of the practice. I don't think it really matters one way or another, because Protestants believe it is an outward sign of what's going on on the inside anyhow. It's what's going on inside you that's important, not the outside. God is cleansing you of your sins, and by getting baptized, we're recognizing this fact, and showing it to the world.

My church has always just used a normal loaf of bread. It tastes wonderful, I might add! I'm not even sure what "unleavened" bread is and how it's different than normal bread.

Thanks, Columbia! I needed this. Good thread! I hope we can get a Catholic or two over here as well! :cheers: I'm going to give you some positive rep points!Thank you for the "points"!!!! :)
About the closed communion. I know this is difficult for many to understand. We believe that it would cause you to stumble and we don't want to be the cause. I am probably not giving the Official, High Minded Theology version here, but we believe that certain things are required before taking the Eucharist: fasting and prayer, repentence, all that, and that is deadly spiritually for a person without these to take the Eucharist. We do not want to cause, knowingly or unknowingly another person to sin. After the Eucharist is over, the Priest gives every person in the Church, Orthodox or not, a blessing with bread left over from the Eucharist as a sign of welcome, friendship, and love. This bread is "holy bread", having been prayed over by the Priest that whoever eats this bread will go out in the world with the blessing and protection of the Holy Spirit.

You are using "leavened" bread in your Communion!!! You said that you use "normal" bread. This is leaven!! That is wonderful, and we do too because we know that the Lord used leavened bread and this is a sign of unity among Christians. :pray:

Columba

March 15th 2004, 02:44 PM

Can I be part of this love fest? I have Catholic leanings, but I also have concerns about Catholicism that I'm not always able to articulate very well. And I'm interested on an academic level in the EOC.
Welcome to the Group Hug!!!!
I'm not sure if I can help with the academics but I'm a simple EO and can answer some questions...some I would have to ask my Priest...
:)

elysian

March 15th 2004, 03:54 PM

It is very true that Lutherans have had mostly friendly dialogue with Orthodox over the years, and had communication been what it is today you are correct, Luther would likely have agreed with a great deal of Orthodox doctrine- and much of the doctrine of today's Lutheranism is very similar to Orthodox teaching. Sometimes I think we have a better dialogue with Orthodox than with the RCC, although our relationship with the RCC has vastly improved in recent years. Today the RCC agrees with most of the Augsburg Confession except for two major areas: the RCC disagrees with the teaching that Jesus is our One Mediator before God and therefore we are not to pray to saints (though we may learn from them and give thanks for their examples), and the RCC still forbids priests from being married. (Articles XXI and XXIII of the Augsburg Confession.) http://www.stjohn-lcms.com/concord/Augsburg.htm

At least they don't call us heretics (not just Lutherans, but all Protestants) anymore, just "separated brethren." :lol: It's a lot better than what I remember as a little kid, when my Mom used to say "all Protestants go to Hell" and I wondered what would happen to my Dad and my Grandma because they're Baptist. I thank God the RCC doesn't teach that anymore, (and I think most Protestants have toned down or done away with the "everyone goes to Hell but us" rhetoric as well) I think we can all agree here that if you believe Jesus Christ is Who He claimed to be that your salvation is assured... basically the question is "can you honestly believe and profess the Apostles' or Nicene creeds?" If you are truly Christian- RC, Protestant or Orthodox- you can.

It's kind of interesting, my mother is staunchly conservative RC (she was converted before Vatican II) but my Dad is a Regular Baptist, one of my sisters is a Southern Baptist, the other is a Presbyterian, I am a Lutheran, and so are my Mom's two best friends (one of whom she went to Catholic high school with.) So I grew up with an assortment of Christian traditions to explore and learn about. I might not agree with every aspect of doctrine but I do strive to learn and understand.

Columba

March 15th 2004, 05:17 PM

Yes, I agree with you on a personal level , that what it all boils down to are the truths contained in the creeds...We are taught in Orthodoxy that we can have all the right doctrine in the world, be Orthodox do all the right stuff and still go to Hell. Why? Because we must have the love our Saviour commanded us to have. James chapter, 5, I think talks about love covering a multitude of sins. We must all strive to have more love for our fellows and this does not mean we have to compromise on belief or doctrine.
I agree elysian! By the way, I love the picture you have...very beautiful!

spl_cadet

March 15th 2004, 10:32 PM

EO are just plain cool (I've always liked the EO), Baptist girls are überpretty, and Catholics are right :teeth:

Now I am learning a lot here. Any Christian can give out the communion???

There are Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, who are supposed to only be used when there so many people that it'd be impossible to get the Eucharist to everyoen in a reasonable time span. But they are abused way too frequently *grumble*.

Columba

March 15th 2004, 10:36 PM

EO are just plain cool (I've always liked the EO), Baptist girls are überpretty, and Catholics are right :teeth:

There are Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, who are supposed to only be used when there so many people that it'd be impossible to get the Eucharist to everyoen in a reasonable time span. But they are abused way too frequently *grumble*.Oh Cadet!! I have read so many of your posts and I truly admire your knowledge of your church. HUG/HUG/HUG...I'm so glad to see you in here...now in one of Jude's threads, an issue came up and I need your help. A person in there (the RC is a false cult stuff), actually made the case on the EO side. I did not know how to say that the RC do indeed have Apostolic Succession. I did not know how to show him, that although your church and my church are not in communion, the RC still have the Apostolic blessing. Can you explain all that?? I know all about Peter and our differences there and I'm not trying to argue that part. It is only about the LINEAGE...and how the blessing has been passed on. I sure your ordinations are different.
Can you tell me more about that.

jason

March 15th 2004, 11:19 PM

You asked also about the Eucharist. I know that "transubstantiation" is taught in RC churches....That is correct. In the Lutheran church they teach consubstantiation, which appears to be akin to what you are saying in regards to the Eucharist.

I'm Anglican (but one of those conservative ones like you find in Sydney or Africa not the liberal sodmonite consecrating ones you find everywhere else) and would hold to the idea of the Eucharist (commonly called the Lords Supper) as a commemorative meal with no magical conotations (I can't think of a better word, it is not intended as a dig).

Does the Methodist do "sprinkling" then? Not immersion? I have read that some Protestants do not believe in immersion. Do they have unleavened bread?I think methodists sprinkle just like Anglicans. Baptists dunk (funnily enough). Some protestants make baptism into the church a requirement of membership others don't. I myself have never been baptised, although it is something I think I probably should do. The temptation is to trust in the efficacy of the baptism and not Christ, which I want to avoid.

So are you looking for the diverse branches of Christendom to be reunified ?

I think it is possible. I don't think there are any real barriers between protestants and EO's apart from the EO claim to be the "OneTrueChurchTM".

Doctrinally they focus on different aspects of Christ's life and work, but not in a way that is incompatible.

With the RC's the problem is likely to be the same for protestants as with EO's. They would need (at least for me) to renoucne "papal infallibility", mary as "coredemtrix" and a bunch of other wacky wacky doctrines. Not to mention the same "OneTrueChurchTM" line, although Vatican 2 seems to do that.

Jason

Columba

March 15th 2004, 11:28 PM

Dear Jason,
Your information was helpful indeed! Thank you so much!
You asked if I was asking for a "reunification". No, not really. The truth is I don't think it will ever happen. I can hope for reunification between the EO, the OO, the Copts and the RC, but I really don't see it happening with the Protestant denominations. The gulf I think is just too wide for both sides, but that surely doesn't mean we can't all be friends and fellowship and talk about the Lord. I guess what I'm saying is that the differences, even between Protestant denominations themselves is so wide.

I loved your TM symbol. LOL!!! :lol: That makes me laugh!

Now you conservative Anglicans on the other hand, have few excuses!!! LOL! Why do you think the Anglicans have resisted Communion with us??? Or do you see it the other way around, that we have withdrawn from you?
I really want to know...did you know that our priests used to counsel our soldiers that if they were in war, or far from home, to find an Anglican priest for confession and Eucharist?

jason

March 15th 2004, 11:37 PM

Dear Jason,
Your information was helpful indeed! Thank you so much!No worries.
The truth is I don't think it will ever happen. I can hope for reunification between the EO, the OO, the Copts and the RC, but I really don't see it happening with the Protestant denominations.Perhaps not all of them. But I don't think it would be a problem with many of them. At least as soon as Rome dropped a number of its more outrageous claims.

I loved your TM symbol. LOL!!! :lol: That makes me laugh!Thanks. I thought it was funny too.

Now you conservative Anglicans on the other hand, have few excuses!!! LOL! Why do you think the Anglicans have resisted Communion with us??? Or do you see it the other way around, that we have withdrawn from you?I had no idea we had ?
I really want to know...did you know that our priests used to counsel our soldiers that if they were in war, or far from home, to find an Anglican priest for confession and Eucharist?Cool. I didn't know that.

Jason

spl_cadet

March 15th 2004, 11:43 PM

Oh Cadet!! I have read so many of your posts and I truly admire your knowledge of your church. HUG/HUG/HUG...I'm so glad to see you in here...now in one of Jude's threads, an issue came up and I need your help. A person in there (the RC is a false cult stuff), actually made the case on the EO side. I did not know how to say that the RC do indeed have Apostolic Succession. I did not know how to show him, that although your church and my church are not in communion, the RC still have the Apostolic blessing. Can you explain all that?? I know all about Peter and our differences there and I'm not trying to argue that part. It is only about the LINEAGE...and how the blessing has been passed on. I sure your ordinations are different.
Can you tell me more about that.

Same reason we think that you have valid orders still. You had apostolic succession when you broke off, but still passed down the authority legitimately (though we think you've strayed from several apostolic teachings).

spl_cadet

March 15th 2004, 11:53 PM

With the RC's the problem is likely to be the same for protestants as with EO's. They would need (at least for me) to renoucne "papal infallibility", mary as "coredemtrix" and a bunch of other wacky wacky doctrines. Not to mention the same "OneTrueChurchTM" line, although Vatican 2 seems to do that.

Vatican 2 reaffirmed that the Church is the Body of Christ but also that one can be invisibly joined to the Church while outside of the visible Church if unaware of the fact that it is the true Church that Christ set up.
Coredemptrix means simply that Mary participated with God in the work of salvation, as do we all (as subordinates), but she did so in a higher manner than we did, being the Mother of God.

spl_cadet

March 15th 2004, 11:55 PM

And this is as good a place as any to announce this:
I'm going to stay out of apologetics for awhile, aside from the Boetnner discussion. I need to start destressing, it makes me all crazy :smile:

Columba

March 15th 2004, 11:58 PM

Same reason we think that you have valid orders still. You had apostolic succession when you broke off, but still passed down the authority legitimately (though we think you've strayed from several apostolic teachings).Okay. See this is the problem. Both our churches think the same about the other. *sigh*. Sad. Very, very sad.
Ahhh well, at least we can agree on some things! And we can help each other defend Mary, the Saints, all that.. :smile: And we can be friends! That's always a good thing....

Columba

March 16th 2004, 12:00 AM

And this is as good a place as any to announce this:
I'm going to stay out of apologetics for awhile, aside from the Boetnner discussion. I need to start destressing, it makes me all crazy :smile:Well, come here if you need a friend. I will listen..and I won't judge either. I'll just offer you Greek olives that I myself cannot have...*passes the olives*....
:teeth: Remember, Cadet: I'm SERBIAN Orthodox...not Greek! :lol:

elysian

March 16th 2004, 11:14 AM

For Lutherans it's coffee and German pastries. We have coffee and pastries after worship or class (and so has every other Lutheran church I've gone to... it's sort of a tradition, but being in Central Ohio most if not all Lutheran churches were founded by Germans- the Swedish and Norwegian churches might be a bit different.)

Coffee.... :duh:

Nice black Columbian coffee with a chocolate covered dunky-stick...

We would have so many new converts if they only knew about the coffee. :lol:

But the Catholics have Monte Carlo Night and Bingo. My Mom's church has a liquor license- they have beer, wine and mixed drinks at Bingo. I guess it's better to be at church than in the bar. :tongue:

Lutherans generally don't take a terribly friendly view to gambling (because it's poor stewardship) but we don't say much about drinking in moderation. Jesus drank wine so it's OK for us as long as we aren't stupid about it.

Solly

March 16th 2004, 11:43 AM

Gosh, I've been so busy these last few days that i missed out on this thread to start with, and now I don't have time to read it all yet, but here is a Calvinistic Ana/Baptist hello :hi: to all the friends here.

And I wish John Reece was here too. And George Blaisdell and Trinitarian, get in here

Amazing Rando

March 16th 2004, 01:23 PM

Yes, we believe this too! We might be having an East/West thing here. We do believe this and we encourage and practice all this. I think when we say "Real Presence" in the Eucharist, we are only speaking of the literality (is that a word?) of what Jesus said: This IS My Body. This IS My Blood.
But we believe that His Presence is always with us, at all times. We speak directly to Him...and to God the Father, through the Holy Trinity. This is why we cross ourselves...crossing ourselves is a prayer.

Sure! We may understand the Eucharist in different ways, but it really isn't anything to quibble over. The Lord's Supper means many different things to many different people, so whether it actually is the body and blood of Jesus or whether it just represents them doesn't seem to be really important to me. What matters is how we respond to the call the Eucharist gives to us.

I don't know enough about Protestants to say much, but I don't understand this. They think our Traditions are unbiblical? I can only say that the Church considers the Bible infallible, and that all Traditions (with the big T) are based upon what is read in the Bible. There are always some ethnic customs that are just ethnic like "headcoverings' for the women, but actually one could stretch and say that is biblical too...using this example, a lot of older women adhere to the custom but only because of ethnicity...if you told them it was "biblical" they would just be extra pleased....(I'm speaking here of our older ladies some of whom do not read or write well, coming from the old country in rural areas. They are fewer in number each year and are extra precious to me. :smile: )

Yes- some protestants do find some elements of your Tradition to be unbiblical. But I try to point out to those people that those same protesants have just as many unbiblical traditions inherent in their own worship practices. This is especially ironic for people who claim to rely on nothing but the Bible for their authority.

I know that the EO often accepts the baptism of Baptists who convert because they immerse, and baptise literally with the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". These people are not re-baptised, but chrismated into the Church. I know that some baptisms of converts are not accepted,and these have to be redone . Good examples: JW and Mormon.

We (at least I, anyway) just see baptism as an outward sign. It's not required, but it is a very special ritual that Christians ought to undergo as a public profession of faith and a reminder of the cleansing God offers our souls.

How wonderful for you! Congratulations!!! On both counts! Doing the Lord's work is a very special calling. I've been very sad reading about the Episopalians and their troubles. I hope that is all straightened out soon. Did you know that it is a common saying among the EO's that if Luther had had a fax machine, he *might* have become Orthodox? :smile: Many EO's rather admire some of his work, even if they do not agree with his final conclusions.

Hey, thanks! I'm really excited! My Dad went to be with the Lord a little more than a year ago, so this has been a year of huge upheaval for me. Good changes as well as bad changes, but through it all, I've learned to trust God, that he is still in control.

There's quite a lot of Luther that I dislike as well- his wanting to get rid of James and Revelation from the Bible is one example, his vapid anti-Semitism is another.

Thank you for the "points"!!!! :)

Sure! You know how to send em, don't you? Just click on the little +/- box at the bottom of every post to either reward folks for good points they make, or punish them for bad points. The little green boxes next to your avatar represent your cumulative reputation.

About the closed communion. I know this is difficult for many to understand. We believe that it would cause you to stumble and we don't want to be the cause. I am probably not giving the Official, High Minded Theology version here, but we believe that certain things are required before taking the Eucharist: fasting and prayer, repentence, all that, and that is deadly spiritually for a person without these to take the Eucharist. We do not want to cause, knowingly or unknowingly another person to sin. After the Eucharist is over, the Priest gives every person in the Church, Orthodox or not, a blessing with bread left over from the Eucharist as a sign of welcome, friendship, and love. This bread is "holy bread", having been prayed over by the Priest that whoever eats this bread will go out in the world with the blessing and protection of the Holy Spirit.

And I believe that prayer and repentance absolutely ought to be undertaken before partaking of Communion. :thumb: There's a big reason why Paul speaks at length in 1 Corinthians about people who take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. But since, we can't accurately see into the heart of another person, we extend the invitation to all who confess and believe that Jesus is risen. That's an attitude I wish my church would extend to the rest of our practices and theology as well.

You are using "leavened" bread in your Communion!!! You said that you use "normal" bread. This is leaven!! That is wonderful, and we do too because we know that the Lord used leavened bread and this is a sign of unity among Christians. :pray:

Yep! :yummy: That and those horrible plastic wafers some churches use taste awful! :eww:

Amazing Rando

March 16th 2004, 01:31 PM

elysian

March 16th 2004, 02:33 PM

There's quite a lot of Luther that I dislike as well- his wanting to get rid of James and Revelation from the Bible is one example, his vapid anti-Semitism is another.

I can agree with those assertions as well- thankfully we do still regard both James and Revelation as Scripture though I can tell you where we have difficulty with both of those Books:

One of the evils that was deeply entrenched in the church of Luther's time was that of works-righteousness, the buying and selling of indulgences and the idea that you had to "earn" your salvation. If one were to interpret the Book of James in the context of that time it is problematic. We know James is saying that action is the result of faith (we act according to how we believe) which is correct theology. However Luther wanted to make sure that people didn't get "faith results in action" confused with works-righteousness (the actions determine one's faith or indicate how "good" you are.) You can believe that a parachute will break your fall, but your faith is worthless until you actually jump out of the plane..

Revelation is just plain hard to interpret. Many Lutheran scholars are at least partial preterists who interpret Revelation as John's encouragement/judgment on the seven churches. Eschatology is not highly emphasized in Lutheran theology and isn't one of my strong points either. What's really funny is that Lutherans derive part of our liturgy from Revelation, and pastors often teach on the examples of the seven churches. We just don't get into the rapture/apocalypse business. We like to believe the End of Days is when God says it is, and we hope to be ready as Jesus tells us to be. (Matthew 24:36-51)

As to Luther's anti-Semitism, it is almost peculiar in that in Luther's younger days he was quite sympathetic toward Jews. When he discovered he could not convert them he got rather frustrated and took out his vitriol on them. It was a wrong view, pure and simple. It is part of the reason why though we might learn much from a person and that person may have some great ideas, blind acceptance of any person's teaching is not wise. That's why we have minds, and why the Holy Spirit gives His discernment to us as we learn.

And I believe that prayer and repentance absolutely ought to be undertaken before partaking of Communion. :thumb: There's a big reason why Paul speaks at length in 1 Corinthians about people who take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. But since, we can't accurately see into the heart of another person, we extend the invitation to all who confess and believe that Jesus is risen. That's an attitude I wish my church would extend to the rest of our practices and theology as well.

Agreed, taking Communion isn't a light matter, but if we wait until we are "good enough" we won't ever be able to take Communion. There is healing and help in the partaking (and I'm going to go a tad bit mystic here) which is a mystery I don't rightly understand. Yes we should confess and pray and be repentant as we go forward, but we can also be joyful and trusting in God's forgiveness, healing and grace.

We must never regard the Sacrament as something injurious from which we had better flee, but as a pure, wholesome, comforting remedy imparting salvation and comfort, which will cure you and give you life both in soul and body. For where the soul has recovered, the body also is relieved. Why, then, is it that we act as if it were a poison, the eating of which would bring death?

To be sure, it is true that those who despise it and live in an unchristian manner receive it to their hurt and damnation; for nothing shall be good or wholesome to them, just as with a sick person who from caprice eats and drinks what is forbidden him by the physician. But those who are sensible of their weakness, desire to be rid of it and long for help, should regard and use it only as a precious antidote against the poison which they have in them Luther's Large Catechism, "The Sacrament of the Altar" http://www.bookofconcord.org/largecatechism/7_sacrament.html

This is why we practice open Communion and as we look back to the intent of the Reformers, we have become much more dynamic and open than we once were. Besides, who really wants to belong to an ethnic German cultural preservation society? (I used to belong to a church like that...stodgy old codgers!) The largest growing segment of the Lutheran church is in Africa of all places, and our witness to Americans of varying ethnic backgrounds is increasing as well, even though we have traditionally been considered an ethnic German/Norwegian/Swedish church.

Yep! :yummy: That and those horrible plastic wafers some churches use taste awful! :eww:

If I could change one thing about how we do Communion it would be the wafers. I don't mind the Mogen David wine but I'd go back to the fresh baked wheat bread. But in my church this would be extremely difficult. We have 6 worship services between Saturday evening and Sunday morning, and we have Communion every week. So it would be a logistical nightmare to make sure there was enough and that it were fresh for every service. The church I went to that used the lovely homemade bread only had about 175 members and only one worship service on Sunday so it was pretty easy to anticipate the need for Communion, but the bad thing was we didn't have Communion every week- just once a month. So if we have to use wafers but can have Communion every week it's worth it. I know it is better for me to have Communion every week, to stay connected with Christ and with the Body of believers.

Jezz

March 17th 2004, 04:09 AM

As to Luther's anti-Semitism, it is almost peculiar in that in Luther's younger days he was quite sympathetic toward Jews. When he discovered he could not convert them he got rather frustrated and took out his vitriol on them. It was a wrong view, pure and simple. It is part of the reason why though we might learn much from a person and that person may have some great ideas, blind acceptance of any person's teaching is not wise. That's why we have minds, and why the Holy Spirit gives His discernment to us as we learn.
Luther's alleged anti-semitism is widely misunderstood, because it was used by modern anti-semites as fuel for their own agendas.

You are quite correct that Luther was very positive towards the Jews in his early days - he wanted to convert them all. When he found that he couldn't, he got frustrated. His vitriole is not to be excused, but two things need to be born in mind to distinguish it from modern-day anti-semitism:

1. It was not racially based. It was based purely on their rejection of the Gospel. Luther would have had no problem with Jews who had accepted the Gospel (the same could not be said for modern anti-semites).
2. To my knowledge, the Jews were not the only target of his attacks. He attacked anyone who had not accepted the Gospel with equal vigour.

It would be more accurate to say that Luther was anti-nonChristian, more than anti-semitic.

Your information was helpful indeed! Thank you so much!
You asked if I was asking for a "reunification". No, not really. The truth is I don't think it will ever happen. I can hope for reunification between the EO, the OO, the Copts and the RC, but I really don't see it happening with the Protestant denominations. The gulf I think is just too wide for both sides, but that surely doesn't mean we can't all be friends and fellowship and talk about the Lord. I guess what I'm saying is that the differences, even between Protestant denominations themselves is so wide.
Columba, I tend to agree with you to an extent. However, I have a great deal more hope for the more conservative denominations - Lutheranism and Anglicanism for example. Perhaps if a few of these older, more mainline denominations manage to heal schisms with the Orthodox, then the more fringe Protestant denoms will start to follow suit.

I personally think that although we live in a world racked by terrorism and uncertainty, we also live in very exciting and hopeful times. You made the comment in an earlier post that someone once said if Luther had had a fax machine, he would have become Orthodox. I think there is a great deal of truth in that statement (and in fact had come to effectively the same conclusion myself). The main barriers to healing schisms in the past has been communication difficulties. We live in a time where those difficulties no longer exist, thanks to miracles of modern electronic communication that make the fax machine look ancient. We also have a lingua franca (English) that is widespread in a way that is unprecedented in history. We can travel to the other side of the world in 24 hours instead of a period of months. And despite recent events, the world is probably still in as politically a stable state as it ever has been.

I think the fields are ripe for reaping the harvest of unifying Christianity in a way that has never been possible before. And as Christians become united, this will strengthen them in a way that makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts. Perhaps then we will have more success in evangelising the non-Christian world.

Now you conservative Anglicans on the other hand, have few excuses!!! LOL! Why do you think the Anglicans have resisted Communion with us??? Or do you see it the other way around, that we have withdrawn from you?
I really want to know...
As I understand it, the main barrier between Anglican and Orthodox at the moment is that the Anglicans don't really have their own house in order. There is too much disunity at present within the Anglican communion for them to be considering restoring communion without. The Orthodox are reluctant to continue dialogue with them until they sort out their own doctrinal problems, and I think that this is a wise decision.

The problem with the Anglican communion is especially liberalism (which Jason does not subscribe to). The irony of it is, liberalism I think is often in part (though not always) a reaction to some of the Western doctrinal flaws to which the East do not subscribe.

I think that the Anglican communion is likely to go into a schism of its own soon - split between conservative and liberal. If and when this happens, I think that there is a great chance that the conservative wing will make significant progress in rejoining with the Orthodox.

did you know that our priests used to counsel our soldiers that if they were in war, or far from home, to find an Anglican priest for confession and Eucharist?
I was not specifically aware of that, but I was aware that the Orthodox and Anglicans have traditionally been quite close.

Okay. See this is the problem. Both our churches think the same about the other.
Yes, that is true. But for an independent observer (such as myself), I think the truth is obvious. Jesus told us to judge a tree by its fruit.

Although there were a number of theological differences between East and West which led to the schism (of which the filioque was the most prominent). But really, these were all symptoms of a more fundamental disagreement - ie, the claim of papal superiority. It was this that led to the schism. Let us judge each side of this doctrine by the fruits that they produced.

For those that rejected the doctrine of papal supremacy: they continue in their communion of churches with no major schism since that time. In fact, they can claim one better: they have recently had great success in healing an even older schism (ie, with the non-Chalcedonian churches), and it seems that that schism will be completely healed within the next few years.

For those that insisted on the doctrine of papal supremacy: well, their fruit was the Reformation. And what was the key issue at the centre of the Reformation? Well, there were a number of peripheral issues, of course (eg, indulgences), but the root cause of these can be traced back to one thing: papal supremacy.

So, the fruit of papal supremacy is corruption and further schism. The fruit of rejecting it was continued unity (and healing of older schism). If we judge the doctrine of papal supremacy by its fruit, then it is obvious that the Orthodox claim to have faithfully preserved the one catholic and apostolic faith is the legitimate one, and it is the Catholics who have erred.

jason

March 17th 2004, 06:14 AM

The problem with the Anglican communion is especially liberalism (which Jason does not subscribe to). The irony of it is, liberalism I think is often in part (though not always) a reaction to some of the Western doctrinal flaws to which the East do not subscribe.

I think that the Anglican communion is likely to go into a schism of its own soon - split between conservative and liberal. If and when this happens, I think that there is a great chance that the conservative wing will make significant progress in rejoining with the Orthodox.Actually this schism probably wont happen. At least the conservatives wont initiate it anyway.

I've wondered about this. And one advantage of staying in the Anglican communion is that it gives the conservatives access to the liberal parishes.

So Sydney sends out quite a few feirecly orthodox ministers to other liberal dioceses.

Things would have to get pretty bad before we gave up that mission field.

And with the conservatives running the shop in Africa, and the vast numbers they have, gives them much sway in the Anglican communion, providing a means of keeping the liberals in line.

And besides, even if we where to split, the reality is that the new denomination would have exactly the same problems in about 100 years anyway. So what would be the point ?

Jason

elysian

March 17th 2004, 10:14 AM

Jason, I do understand what Anglicans are going through in some respects. Here in the US there are basically 3 Lutheran churches- the ultra-conservative, primarily Norwegian, Wisconsin Synod (they make Southern Baptists look liberal) and the conservative and somewhat arbitrary Missouri Synod that is primarily ethnic Germans. Then there's the ELCA- most American Lutherans- which stands for Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that is characterized as being more "liberal" than either Wisconsin or Missouri Synod. The ELCA has both liberals (unfortunately the liberal camp is far more prominent in upper leadership than in local congregations...so that's where people get strange ideas regarding what our church is really about) and conservatives. Most of the conservatives in the ELCA might agree with the confessional stance of the Wisconsin or Missouri Synods, but we reject the idea that the church is a "closed" place or an "ethnic preservation society." If you truly claim to be a confessional Lutheran then by definition you must be inclusive- because we are not a closed society or bound to any one ethnic tradition but we are indeed part of the universal church.

There's nothing wrong IMO with being traditional if tradition does not hinder the preaching of the Gospel, however if a tradition gets in the way of evangelization or does not facilitate the preaching of the Gospel, then the tradition needs to go, or it needs to be revisited or revised.

Evangelization does not mean "throw out all traditions" or "water down the Gospel." You can be both traditional and evangelical which is more representative of the intent of the Reformers. The purpose of the Reformation was to tear down the boundaries and to facilitate a correct understanding of the Gospel: to make the Scriptures accessible, to make worship understandable (liturgy in native tongues.)

Today this means for us: preach the Gospel in non-traditional ways. This doesn't mean "water down the message" but it means make it understandable, make it real. For our young people (youth ministry is a challenge...believe me) it means worship using their music, it means teaching tradition in a way that has relevance and meaning for them. Again, it means tearing down the boundaries and facilitating correct understanding of the Gospel.

The ELCA faces the same difficult decisions that the Episcopal church is dealing with. In the struggle to preach the Gospel to ALL people we understand that homosexual people are part of ALL people. The Great Commission didn't say "preach the Gospel to all people- except gays." This is a difficult issue (especially for the conservatives among us...like me) because we are all sinners and we all fall short of God's glory. Yes, homosexual behavior is sin- Scripture clearly and unequivocably condemns it. Scripture also condemns other sins that might hit a bit closer to home for straights- lying, gossiping, stealing, idolatry, heterosexual sex outside of marriage, etc. This doesn't mean that "gay is OK" but it also doesn't mean we have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. In fact, homosexuals are just like everyone else in the eyes of God- sinners in desperate need of His grace.

I do not believe that non-celibate homosexuals should be ordained as pastors any more than a heterosexual person who indulges in sex outside of marriage should be ordained, because of the Scriptural teachings against both homosexual behavior and heterosexual fornication. I do not believe that the church should be in the business of blessing same-sex relationships either. It is clear in Scripture that God's intent for sexuality is to be between a man and a woman in the context of marriage. We know that human beings are broken and flawed, and that is where we rely on God's grace and mercy. We should not exclude homosexuals from being involved and welcomed and included in the church, but we should not act as if homosexual behavior is the norm or an acceptable alternative to heterosexual marriage because it is not.

I can only hope that the ELCA and other churches that are struggling with both being evangelistic and inclusive AND being true to God's Word will not confuse inclusion with whitewashing sin or preaching "cheap grace."

jason

March 17th 2004, 04:22 PM

In the struggle to preach the Gospel to ALL people we understand that homosexual people are part of ALL people. The Great Commission didn't say "preach the Gospel to all people- except gays."That isn't actually the problem though.

The problem is that unlike murders and theives, the homosexual makes the demand, "To accept and love me, you must accept and love my sin". That is the problem.

I have a couple of friends that struggle with homosexual temptation and I don't love them any less for this.

You are right that homosexuality is a sin like any other, the problem is with the drive to get it reclassified as "not rebellion against God, but normal" that is the problem.

Jason

elysian

March 17th 2004, 05:31 PM

That isn't actually the problem though.

The problem is that unlike murders and theives, the homosexual makes the demand, "To accept and love me, you must accept and love my sin". That is the problem.

I have a couple of friends that struggle with homosexual temptation and I don't love them any less for this.

You are right that homosexuality is a sin like any other, the problem is with the drive to get it reclassified as "not rebellion against God, but normal" that is the problem.

Jason

I agree, the deception has become so thorough, just like the deception that it's OK for straight people to sleep around.

God has given us boundaries for our own protection, and we run into trouble whenever we cross those boundaries. What makes it so difficult for gays is that there is no way to make their relationships "legitimate" save through celibacy. The argument has been made that "how is that fair?" The only comfort I can offer on that is that we all face trials and temptations that we are called to overcome, regardless of our genetic or even our learned tendencies.

Yet even straight people are challenged with issues of sexual appetite or desire for someone other than one's spouse. I will readily admit that I have a struggle in that area. My husband has extremely low desire that is exacerbated by the medications he has to take to control his tremor disorder. Suffice to say that area of my life is far, far less than satisfactory- to be honest it is quite dismal. Now as much as the "desire" part of me wants to (and this is a most intense temptation at times!) it is most certainly sin for me to go out and find a man or men to "scratch that itch" so to speak. No amount of rationalizing can excuse it or make it right: sex with anyone other than my husband is sin. And it's sin even if he's not capable of the act. It may become a necessity for me to live in celibacy, within marriage, no matter what my sex drive might indicate.

The boundaries are there for our protection, not to cast shame on us but to keep us from harm.

George Blaisdell

March 18th 2004, 06:09 PM

And I wish John Reece was here too. And George Blaisdell and Trinitarian, get in here

I just ran into it too, and have no time to even do a belly-bump -

But Hi All and I will get back soon I hope

I am still in mourning for what is happenning in Serbia as a result of our government's and the UN's actions and inactions there...

It's criminal...

[geo] Arsenios

Amazing Rando

March 27th 2004, 08:22 PM

:bump: After reading the latest round of anti Catholic invective from Jude3b, I felt compelled to bring bump this excellent thread up again. Could some mod please make this into a sticky?

George Blaisdell

March 28th 2004, 01:08 AM

It may become a necessity for me to live in celibacy, within marriage, no matter what my sex drive might indicate.

The boundaries are there for our protection, not to cast shame on us but to keep us from harm.

That's the truth... Celibacy in marriage is a very honorable choice in Orthodoxy, for the marriage is unto God and children, and not unto self-gratification, so that whereas the pleasures of the marriage bed are not to be avoided, they MAY be avoided by mutual consent...

That said, the temptations of lust are some of the hardest to overcome, so that confession is essential, and the prayers of one's spiritual father, and of the Church, in one's behalf who is suffering them is really beneficial... The really good spiritual fathers can remove those demons in a heartbeat, yet this is normally not how it works, for most of the faithful are like you, able to resist... Some are not...

Even Paul recommends "not defrauding the marriage bed except by mutual consent for a time for prayer and fasting", and then together again to accomodate our weakness and prevent incontinence... For that was the purpose of the marriage he was prescribing to them, on account of the 'porneiras'...

And given his 'druthers', Paul would druther they all be [celibate] as he [was celibate]... There is nothing amiss in celibacy in marriage...

geo-Arsenios

Columba

March 30th 2004, 12:03 PM

Dear George!

Christ is risen!!!!! I am so happy to see another Orthodox on this board!!!!
Thank you for coming here....I have been out of town, and also been very sad about our brothers/sisters in Serbia. (I am a communicant in SOC). I read recently that the Albanian Orthodox Patriarch has pledged 600, 000 dollars to rebuild a church and a mosque in Kosovo...I was very touched by that gesture. But all that has gone on in recent days, including at Chileandar has made me very sad. Last count was 45 churches George! :(

We must pray for the Albanians, for their salvation!
God bless and have mercy!

elysian

March 30th 2004, 03:23 PM

That's the truth... Celibacy in marriage is a very honorable choice in Orthodoxy, for the marriage is unto God and children, and not unto self-gratification, so that whereas the pleasures of the marriage bed are not to be avoided, they MAY be avoided by mutual consent...

That said, the temptations of lust are some of the hardest to overcome, so that confession is essential, and the prayers of one's spiritual father, and of the Church, in one's behalf who is suffering them is really beneficial... The really good spiritual fathers can remove those demons in a heartbeat, yet this is normally not how it works, for most of the faithful are like you, able to resist... Some are not...

Even Paul recommends "not defrauding the marriage bed except by mutual consent for a time for prayer and fasting", and then together again to accomodate our weakness and prevent incontinence... For that was the purpose of the marriage he was prescribing to them, on account of the 'porneiras'...

And given his 'druthers', Paul would druther they all be [celibate] as he [was celibate]... There is nothing amiss in celibacy in marriage...

geo-Arsenios

For everything there is a season- conjugal love is a gift from God, but a gift with boundaries. Within the boundaries (i.e. between a man and woman united in marriage) the act of sex glorifies God. But it is misused if it is pursued out of lust or "to scratch an itch" instead as a physical, emotional and spiritual means of expressing love. And sometimes one spouse must submit to the needs of the other- in my case I must be disciplined to accommodate my husband's physical difficulties and low drive.

The gift in this is not only a greater appreciation for the times when "everything clicks" but also an appreciation for those "times of prayer and fasting." It has taught me patience and empathy if nothing else, instead of simply looking to gratify my own needs- to put his needs ahead of my own.

There are times of temptation in which confession to another believer is essential- however it is my opinion that one should take this sort of confession to someone of the same sex. The reason for this is that it is not healthy for a woman to confide in a man if she is being tempted to lust, and vice versa. Women should seek out a Christian sister to confide in, as men should seek a Christian brother. The exception would be if a woman were to confide in her pastor, in which case I believe his wife should be present to prevent any impropriety.

This view should not be confused with prudery or a view of conjugal relations being "evil" or "dirty"- but that it is a good gift that God intended for us to enjoy, within the proper boundaries. Sometimes these boundaries even include a great deal of abstinence even within marriage.

George Blaisdell

March 31st 2004, 01:55 AM

Dear George!

Christ is risen!!!!! I am so happy to see another Orthodox on this board!!!!
Thank you for coming here....

I've still got a couple of weeks till Pascha, when He will be risen indeed!

Nice to 'see' you here too - I wandered onto this site by mistake over a year ago - maybe even two years ago, and I liked the kids I found here so much I kind of hung around just on account of because!

I have been out of town, and also been very sad about our brothers/sisters in Serbia. (I am a communicant in SOC). I read recently that the Albanian Orthodox Patriarch has pledged 600, 000 dollars to rebuild a church and a mosque in Kosovo...I was very touched by that gesture. But all that has gone on in recent days, including at Chileandar has made me very sad. Last count was 45 churches George! :(

We must pray for the Albanians, for their salvation!
God bless and have mercy!

The situation in Serbia is dire, and the Taliban is actively establishing another Islamic country by lawlessness and destruction. The fact that an old boss who was a holdover from the previous Communist regime forced an otherwise Christian country to do 'ethnic cleansing' should have earned our sympathy, rather than our disarming them for the retributions and land grabbing of Islamic Christ haters... I talked with a special forces captain who served the Balkans for three years, and he said "Look, there are criminal elements in Islamic society that do bad things to Christians and non-Muslims - We are not a police force, but only a peace-keeping one..." He had no clue that the establishment of a peaceful Moslem community forms the basis for these 'criminal elements' whose job it is to foment bad things that disrupt the government in power - Islam has been taking over countries since 800AD... They have the methods pretty well worked out...

And because the Christians there are Orthodox, they have been pretty well ignored in their plight by the US Protestant Christians, and Catholic too, for that matter... We are trying, in our misguided zeal, to establish a color blind and faith-blind world, under the aegis of democratic rule in freedom and capitalism, and the simple fact is that the whole matter of the Taliban is well within the 1200 year Moslim tradition of taking over countries by violence and discord...

The moral vacuum exhibited by the US in the Balkans, and the utter lack of understanding of the nature of the struggle going on there, the writing it all off to"Oh they've been at war for many hundreds of years, and it is all tied up in ethnic squabbling, so let them kill one another and we won't interfere too much, now that the persecuted Moslems are persecuting Christian Serbs" is sickening to me...

We obviously did not go there to help, but to bully, without a care for what is right and what is wrong. I am ashamed of the USA in Serbia...

I pray for the USA and for Serbia...

I haea erian Church I could have become Orthodox in an hour from here, but was advised not to do so, because of the intensity of the ethnic angst going on there, and the language spoken...

So I have an Arab man for my bishop, and I thank God for him every day!

[geo] Arsenios

Columba

March 31st 2004, 01:14 PM

I've still got a couple of weeks till Pascha, when He will be risen indeed! Operation Pascha! Target date: April 11, 12am!!! :) I'm old calendar too.

Nice to 'see' you here too - I wandered onto this site by mistake over a year ago - maybe even two years ago, and I liked the kids I found here so much I kind of hung around just on account of because!Me too! I was looking for some quotes on theosis from the ECF ....

The situation in Serbia is dire, and the Taliban is actively establishing another Islamic country by lawlessness and destruction. The fact that an old boss who was a holdover from the previous Communist regime forced an otherwise Christian country to do 'ethnic cleansing' should have earned our sympathy, rather than our disarming them for the retributions and land grabbing of Islamic Christ haters... I talked with a special forces captain who served the Balkans for three years, and he said "Look, there are criminal elements in Islamic society that do bad things to Christians and non-Muslims - We are not a police force, but only a peace-keeping one..." He had no clue that the establishment of a peaceful Moslem community forms the basis for these 'criminal elements' whose job it is to foment bad things that disrupt the government in power - Islam has been taking over countries since 800AD... They have the methods pretty well worked out...

And because the Christians there are Orthodox, they have been pretty well ignored in their plight by the US Protestant Christians, and Catholic too, for that matter... We are trying, in our misguided zeal, to establish a color blind and faith-blind world, under the aegis of democratic rule in freedom and capitalism, and the simple fact is that the whole matter of the Taliban is well within the 1200 year Moslim tradition of taking over countries by violence and discord...

The moral vacuum exhibited by the US in the Balkans, and the utter lack of understanding of the nature of the struggle going on there, the writing it all off to"Oh they've been at war for many hundreds of years, and it is all tied up in ethnic squabbling, so let them kill one another and we won't interfere too much, now that the persecuted Moslems are persecuting Christian Serbs" is sickening to me...

We obviously did not go there to help, but to bully, without a care for what is right and what is wrong. I am ashamed of the USA in Serbia...

I pray for the USA and for Serbia...

I haea erian Church I could have become Orthodox in an hour from here, but was advised not to do so, because of the intensity of the ethnic angst going on there, and the language spoken...

So I have an Arab man for my bishop, and I thank God for him every day!

[geo] ArseniosArsenios,
Everything you have written is so true! Lord Jesus Christ have mercy!
Are you Antiochian??? :) "They were first called Christians at Antioch!" :)
My parents were converts and I was baptised into the Romanian church as a baby...Have you read much about Romanian Orthodoxy? If not and you are interested, you might like this book: "Christ is Calling You" by Fr. Geo. Calciu...have you read it??? I was so inspired by him !!!

Hoping to go to Platina this weekend for Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday....they are deep in prayer for Serbia and Mt. Athos...God bless you Arsenios...
Love in Christ,
"Brigid"...
:)

elysian

March 31st 2004, 01:55 PM

It sounds as if Orthodox have many Easter or Pascha traditions (perhaps this is where we get the term Paschal Lamb - Jesus as Sacrifice for our sin) in common with Lutherans and RC's. (and to a lesser extent some "high church" Protestant denominations such as Anglicans, Presbyterians and Methodists)

Lutherans observe the season of Lent - to commemorate the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert. Sundays are within Lent but not part of Lent, as Sundays are always celebrations of the Resurrection (this is something I learned somewhat recently from our senior Pastor, that Sundays are never somber days or fast days!) It is a time of prayer, fasting, reflection and preparation for the celebration of the Resurrection on Easter Sunday. Passion (or Palm) Sunday is this Sunday (April 4) and we will celebrate Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem and we will have palms. We are also celebrating by singing parts of Handel's Messiah with brass and organ (Lutherans are really big on music of all types as worship...so at any Lutheran liturgy there will be a lot of music.) The rest of Passion Week (or Holy Week) at my church will include:

Maundy Thursday (day of the Last Supper): We will have an informal gathering before Worship with fine wine, fellowship and light snacks, then as the sun goes down and the day ends, so will our Worship- the tone changes abruptly from fellowship and lightheartedness to a somber tone. Some years we have footwashing but it is not planned for this year's observance. The 24 hour Prayer Vigil will begin, with the display of the Stations of the Cross and quiet areas provided within the church for reflection and prayer.

Good Friday: Worship is very somber. The Prayer Vigil ends. Usually as part of the liturgy we reflect upon the Stations of the Cross, with a Scripture verse and meditation on each Station. At the end of the service the altar is stripped bare, the Cross is covered with a black pall and the lights are turned out so that the church is pitch black.

Easter Vigil and Easter Sunday: The Story of the Resurrection is told, the tomb is empty. We greet each other with "HE IS RISEN," to which the reply is "HE IS RISEN, INDEED!"

Do you have similar or different Passion Week/ Easter customs?

Columba

March 31st 2004, 02:17 PM

Hi elysian!!!
Yes, indeed we do have several things in common! This is because of Luther's relationship to the RC, and in turn, their relationship to US.
I know that's oversimplified ...sorry but I'm just not a scholar...rather, I'm learning from all of you guys about western Christianity! LOL! I'm just a peasant...
Here's our schedule though from our liturgical calendar:

This Sunday, April 4 is "Palm Sunday". We celebrate the entry of our Lord into Jerusalem! Palms are brought out and the altar is decorated...we venerate all the icons of this event and are reminded that the Lord was victorious BEFORE the Cross! This is the start of "Holy Week" or "Passion Week"
Great Friday: the strictest fast day of the year. only the very elderly or infirm (or children) take bread and water, or what else they need for strength. The rest of us fast on the day of the Crucifixion. Actually begins Thursday night...
On April 11 is Easter or we call it Pascha (passover). On this night, we are joyful because "Christ is risen", and the response "He is risen indeed!" Many people will be running around the church saying it in many languages...

The forty days of
Great Lent are also observed....in this time, we give up things week by week until we are down to basically a vegetarian diet until Pascha.
Cheesefare week: eat all your cheese and after that no more until Pascha.
Meatfare week: same thing.

The services right now are joyful encouragement to "chase after the Lord"...to follow his example. as we enter Holy Week, we are mindful of his suffering and his passion, and we strive to run the race with Him! At the resurrection, we are "witness" to the resurrection. Our priests will carry the cross on Good Friday aroundthe church...then the shroud will be brought out for the burial. On Great Saturday the matins begin for Pascha in the evening. Our service at midnight is Pascha! :)
After all this, our fast is broken and we feast, and feast, and feast...last year, I didn't get home till 5 am... :)

Columba

March 31st 2004, 02:20 PM

For elysian: I tried to give you a point but I hit the entry button too early! I meant to say:
This makes me so happy to know that we have this in common! :)

elysian

March 31st 2004, 03:03 PM

Columba-

That is really cool, the idea of a gradual fast. Most Lutherans observe strict fasts (no intake) or liquid-only fasts (water, broth or fruit juices allowed) on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday but it is a recommended spiritual discipline for us and not a requirement. Some people are forbidden for health reasons from strict fasts, though many choose to give up a particular food during Lent such as chocolate or red meat. Others of us take up an observance or discipline- take up a good habit for Lent- such as extra intercessory prayer, or doing extra volunteer work at church or performing an extra and anonymous kindness for someone every day. I agree that fasting is a beneficial discipline and one that many Protestant churches overlook altogether, which is a shame. We often receive much insight in times of fasting and prayer. The motive for fasting must be correct- to pray, meditate and remind one's self that God is our provision, that we should rely on Him alone. I have found the pursuit of spiritual disciplines to be humbling experiences, times of deep and thorough surrender and dependence on God.

Whether we fast or feast, we do so to the glory of God. :smile: For everything there is a season, and this lesson is taught in the ritual of the church year.

George Blaisdell

March 31st 2004, 05:54 PM

That is really cool, the idea of a gradual fast. Most Lutherans observe strict fasts (no intake) or liquid-only fasts (water, broth or fruit juices allowed) on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday but it is a recommended spiritual discipline for us and not a requirement.

Well, we fast for 40 days... The first week we give up meat, the second week we give up cheese, and then we give up all dairy, wine and oil and fish too, and take in only 2 [small] meals the first 5 days of the beginning of Lent. Then it is nuts, grains, fruits and vegetables one meal a day except for Sat and Sun, when we get two [of the above restricted] smallish meals... The final week becomes very strict too, like the first one...

The fast is awesome and humbling and edifying, and I have not done well with it this year at all...

Sigh...

Orthodox have 205 fast days each year...

geo - Arsenios

George Blaisdell

March 31st 2004, 06:00 PM

Operation Pascha! Target date: April 11, 12am!!! :) I'm old calendar too.

I'm new calendar - wish I was old - Old Calendar is the Orthodox Calendar, in my book - But Antiochians in the US are new calendar...

Arsenios,
Everything you have written is so true! Lord Jesus Christ have mercy!
Are you Antiochian??? :) "They were first called Christians at Antioch!" :)
My parents were converts and I was baptised into the Romanian church as a baby...Have you read much about Romanian Orthodoxy? If not and you are interested, you might like this book: "Christ is Calling You" by Fr. Geo. Calciu...have you read it??? I was so inspired by him !!!

I am only a year in the faith since baptism, Antiochian, and have heard good things come out of Romania... I will check out Fr. George...

Hoping to go to Platina this weekend for Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday....they are deep in prayer for Serbia and Mt. Athos...God bless you Arsenios...
Love in Christ,
"Brigid"...
:)

Thank-you for your joyful enthusiasm, "Brigid"...

Please pray for this old sinner and infant in Christ...

geo-Arsenios

George Blaisdell

March 31st 2004, 06:09 PM

I have ... also been very sad about our brothers/sisters in Serbia. (I am a communicant in SOC). [Serbian Orthodox Church]

I pass along the following:

_______________________________________________

Dear Friends:
On Sunday, Linda and I attended Liturgy at St.
Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church in Wildwood, NJ. We
asked Fr. Steven Vlahos to pray for the people and
churches of Kosovo. Not only did Fr. Steven pray, he
led the congregation in singing, "Save Thy people and
bless Thine inheritance." We were grateful through
our tears.

Our good friend and member of St. Nick's, Dusko
Nikolic, has updated the church homepage. By going to
the homepage, you can now access iPetitions to sign on
to appeal for an end to the violence in Kosovo.

If you haven't signed it yet, please join us.

Your signature will be added to more than 1000 others
in asking the United Nations to defend the people of
Kosovo from harm by the extremists or to admit that
the job is too big for the UN and to demand an
investigation and prosecution of those who perpetrated
the violence in Kosovo and condemnation of the
violence. Your signature will also support a call to
investigate why the UN was unaware that these attacks
were being planned and coordinated. The extremists
were simply looking for anything that could be used as
provocation to start their rampage against people and
their homes and churches.

More than 30 churches have been desecrated and burned.
Historic treasures have been ruined. Innocent
people, including priests and nuns, have been
terrorized.

It is so important for a strong, unified voice to
demand justice and restore civility.

Please go to the St. Nick's homepage, scroll to the
bottom of the page, click on the photo on the left and
sign on. The website is:
http://www.stnicholassteelton.com/index.htm

Pass this message and the website on to your family
and friends so that they may join us too.

Amazing Rando

April 1st 2004, 11:50 AM

Well, we fast for 40 days... The first week we give up meat, the second week we give up cheese, and then we give up all dairy, wine and oil and fish too, and take in only 2 [small] meals the first 5 days of the beginning of Lent. Then it is nuts, grains, fruits and vegetables one meal a day except for Sat and Sun, when we get two [of the above restricted] smallish meals... The final week becomes very strict too, like the first one...

The fast is awesome and humbling and edifying, and I have not done well with it this year at all...

Sigh...

That sounds really cool, George! Just as long as you guys keep the goal and the reasons behind fasting foremost in your mind. Us Methodists believe that fasting isn't merely abstaining from something- it's giving something up, and then filling its place with some sort of edifying spiritual activity, like acts of charity or mercy, prayer, Bible study, etc.

Orthodox have 205 fast days each year...

geo - Arsenios

Wow, you guys must be hungry a lot, huh? :yummy: :smile:

George Blaisdell

April 1st 2004, 05:00 PM

That sounds really cool, George! Just as long as you guys keep the goal and the reasons behind fasting foremost in your mind.

"This kind [of demon] does not depart except by prayer and fasting..." [Mt 17:21]

If one only fasts physically, as an act of self will, the fast will do no good... Yet one must also fast physically, and the discomfort of fasting keeps one ever in mind of the reasons for fasting - How easily our prayers arise unto God as incense when we hunger and thirst ["Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness..."], and how heavily they struggle to birth just after we have pigged out on our third helping of Thanksgiving dinner...

Fasting is a time of repentance and sorrow for our sins, and for our sinful lives, for everything we do that takes us from God is sin, and gluttony is certainly one of these... It was the failure of Adam and Eve to be obedient to the dietary restriction placed upon them by God in the Garden that started the whole fallen mess we are in...

Us Methodists believe that fasting isn't merely abstaining from something- it's giving something up, and then filling its place with some sort of edifying spiritual activity, like acts of charity or mercy, prayer, Bible study, etc.

Well, the Orthodox believe it is what the Church prescribes - And one of the benefits of not eating much is that we have food left over to give to the poor, and alms-giving is greatest in Orthodoxy during Lent... And our prayers are increased, the services longer, more prostrations, and on and on... It is our holiest time of hear, culminating in the service of Pascha, the Resurrection of our Lord...

If you can find an Orthodox friend, ask him or her to take you to the Pascha service of the Divine Liturgy - There is nothing on earth even remotely resembling this service... It is the most "visibly" out of this world service of the entire liturgical year of Orthodox services... It's coming up in two weeks now...

Wow, you guys must be hungry a lot, huh? :yummy: :smile:

These are but the fasts that Christians have been keeping from the beginnings - Christ's apostles did not fast when they were His disciples, for He was still with them, but after His final departure, the Church began Her cycle of fasts and feasts - Christmas is the Feast of the Nativity, for instance... We fast every Wednesday and every Friday, plus Saturday evening till Communion Sunday... These are the 'all the time' fasts, and then there are special ones, Lent being the longest, some 54 days [40 plus the progressive two weeks previous, meat-fare and then cheese-fare].

Fasts are but the normal Christian praxis of the faith - One does not become a Christian without making radical 'life-style'" changes - Unless one becomes a Christian in vain... Morning prayers, evening prayers, bedtime prayers, midnight prayers, noon prayers, plus the normal practice of praying without ceasing, which we are always endeavoring to establish, is a major invasion of our otherwise self-centered, and not God-centered, lives - And in our failure in these endeavors, we acquire a small measure of humility and shame, for we are taking seriously our baptism into Christ's death, as we turn from the world, and unto God, in prayer, fasting, all night vigils, giving of alms, and on and on... Worshipping in Spirit and in Truth...

And I am but a beginner, too old and too weak to even keep the fast decently... I am ever convicted of my own sinfulness in my sorry efforts to live a normal Christian life...

You take care...

[geo] Arsenios