Explaining Pope Benedict XVI on the Protestant Communities

[Cerebrum123]

I agree with you, that this is his issue, but he added "each Sunday"... Hence the repeater-ing of what Christ did once for all... And the answer is in this cut and paste:

"To accuse the followers of Christ of re-sacrificing Him in their obedience to His Holy Commandment is to accuse Christ of both pre-sacrifice and re-sacrifice of Himself... For He did this at the Last Supper prior to His Passion, and on the Road to Emmaeus, after His Passion, and He does it with His Body the Church at EVERY Eucharist thereafter...

I mean, it is just not arguable from a Biblical perspective..."

Now it is important to REMEMBER what repeater has FORGOTTEN, which is the repeating of Christ's very WORDS: "Take... Eat... This, My Body IS, broken for you for the forgiveness of sins..." etc...

IF we do NOT so consecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord AS HE COMMANDED, then we will become FORGETFUL of CHRIST, and we will not remember Him, for we are not obeying His Holy Commandment as even HE did on the Road to Emmaeus, remember?

You see, we cannot join with re-Peter and deny what Christ affirmed...

Arsenios

I don't think that he is trying to deny a service to remember Christ, but trying to deny the teaching that some people say that the Eucharist is in essence a resacrifice of Christ, because once wasn't enough, and it needs to be done again, and again in order to be truly effective.
I doubt he has any problem with what many Protestants call communion, which is in many ways similar to the Eucharist, and is also designed to be done in remembrance of Christ, and His commandment at the Last Supper.

[George Blaisdell]

I don't think that he is trying to deny a service to remember Christ, but trying to deny the teaching that some people say that the Eucharist is in essence a resacrifice of Christ, because once wasn't enough, and it needs to be done again, and again in order to be truly effective.

He is affirming that this IS the meaning of the Eucharist, to those who do it regularly, and that it is therefore a false teaching... Yet those who do it even daily do not see it as he is insisting they must, for they regard the Passion of Christ as an eternal event for all Christians, which is participated in temporally at every service of the Eucharist...

I doubt he has any problem with what many Protestants call communion, which is in many ways similar to the Eucharist, and is also designed to be done in remembrance of Christ, and His commandment at the Last Supper.

It is not done "in remembrance" but "UNTO remembrance of Christ..." I do not know the difference between Communion and Eucharist - For the Orthodox it is one and the same... It is our partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord, as the Disciples did at the Last Supper, before his Passion, and on the Road to Emmaeus at the inn...

Arsenios

[hedrick]

Well, Re-Peter did say "On first blush"... So perhaps it is not his last word on the matter, one might hope...

I wasn't criticizing repeater specifically. Benedict started it. But he's just continuing a long tradition of Christians believing the worst of each other. Benedict has less excuse, since he's supposedly speaking for Christ.

[George Blaisdell]

[QUOTE=Cerebrum123;3450117]

Benedict has less excuse, since he's supposedly speaking for Christ.

But is that not true of all of us here?

We quote Christ's holy words, from the Bible, and offer our take on them, and thereby speak for Christ...

One of the Orthodox criticisms of Protestant theologies is that the Protestants are all their own Popes, multiplying the errors indefinitely of the Papal presumption of titular rulership of the Body of Christ... They are ALL their OWN Popes now, and it is every man for himself with his very own Bible... Self-interpretation of Scripture is now the rule, and proving one's point of view to others is the mark of competence... Self rule in theology...

The only self rule for the Orthodox is in sins...

Repentance is the willful denial of self-rule...

And the following of Christ in obedience to Him...

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

They [protestants] are ALL their OWN Popes now, and it is every man for himself with his very own Bible... Self-interpretation of Scripture is now the rule, and proving one's point of view to others is the mark of competence... Self rule in theology...

This, of course, depends on the protestant one one is speaking with. Indeed, these pat arguments do not even foment understanding; they are just talking-points.

George, you youself are Orthodox in large measure because you as your "own pope" believe Oorthodox teaching. Did you not submit to a rite of initiation, and maybe even Baptism? Did you not agree to believe the teachings of the Church? That makes you your "own pope!"

Being one's "own pope" is no different than following one's conscience. Now, you have bound your conscience to the EOC, while others have bound theirs to the Lutheran, RCC, Presbyterian or Baptist etc. churches. And if for some reason you cease to believe in key parts of EODoxy, it will not matter if you behave as if you believe, you will have ceased to be Orthodox if you no longer believe it, no matter what you "do." Suppose that, for the sake of argument, you cease believing in the RP. As a matter of conscience you can no longer be Orthodox once this disbelief takes hold. (I am not thinking about mere doubts....) The same goes for me or any other Christian. So when you or others decry protestants being their "own pope" you are in no better position. You have decided to submit to an authority--but so has the protestant.

[Maxentius]

In saying that Protestant communities are not true churches recently, only ecclesial communities, because they have no valid holy orders, the Pope is only communicating the OBJECTIVE deficiencies of the Protestant movement, not condemning the SUBJECTIVE individual Protestant conscience.

Pure sophistry.

[George Blaisdell]

This, of course, depends on the protestant one one is speaking with. Indeed, these pat arguments do not even foment understanding; they are just talking-points.

George, you youself are Orthodox in large measure because you as your "own pope" believe Oorthodox teaching. Did you not submit to a rite of initiation, and maybe even Baptism? Did you not agree to believe the teachings of the Church? That makes you your "own pope!"

Being one's "own pope" is no different than following one's conscience. Now, you have bound your conscience to the EOC, while others have bound theirs to the Lutheran, RCC, Presbyterian or Baptist etc. churches. And if for some reason you cease to believe in key parts of EODoxy, it will not matter if you behave as if you believe, you will have ceased to be Orthodox if you no longer believe it, no matter what you "do." Suppose that, for the sake of argument, you cease believing in the RP. As a matter of conscience you can no longer be Orthodox once this disbelief takes hold. (I am not thinking about mere doubts....) The same goes for me or any other Christian. So when you or others decry protestants being their "own pope" you are in no better position. You have decided to submit to an authority--but so has the protestant.

The difference, you see, is obedience...

We believe that obedience to Christ's commandments begins with obedience to one's elders and the teachings of the Church... We do not sit down with our Bible, read what the Bible says, form our own opinion of what it means, listen to several or many other opinions that agree and/or disagree with our own opinion, and then make up our mind as to which of these if any, or which blend of these, we will be believing until we change our mind in the face of further arguments... And we do not deduce for ourselves through chains of reasonings what Scrioture may mean... Instead, we enter into the Life of the Church, and the discipleship the Church has been discipling for 2000 years now, a part of which involves learning doctrines, but most of which involves the purification of the heart, unto the enlightenment of the nous/mind at some point, followed in due course by union with God... Or as Paul says, we are called to repentance, then we are justified [in the illumination of Baptism], and then we are glorified...

But what I keep seeing among the Protestants here on T-Web is everyone having their own interpretation of what it means to be a Christian, and each one differs from the other, and no two are the same... Yet in the Orthodox Faith, there is but one understanding, witnessed consistently for 2000 years, with the wrinkles pretty well ironed out in the first 7-800 years and ruled on by the Councils, and received by the Church as a whole...

When the first word of the Gospel is REPENT, then this is what we need to do to attain our salvation, and concentration on repentance is what is needed, and not systematic theological non-contradiction and intellectual explication... Those matters are simply too lofty for those of us, like me, who are but beginners in repentance...

God help me if I ever have any doubt whatsoever in the Real Presence of Christ in the Gifts... You are right, Max - But I should add, I did not decide to become Orthodox - I did it as an obedience to God Who sent me there, after scandalizing me with the notion [and knowledge, I should add] that He is the Christian God...

So I went there to learn the Faith period, and I did not care what it taught - I only cared to acquire it... Simple obedience, Max... God said, I did... God sent, I went... God knows where and how it will all work out... But as one reading the Bible in Greek for the first time [NT] and as NOT a Christian, the one thing I can tell you is that it was glaringly apparent to me that there was no way on earth that I could understand the Bible without instruction... I mean, "In the beginning was the Word..."??? That makes no sense whatsoever to worldly eyes... Although in Greek it made MORE sense - eg the Logos - But that only because I had studied ancient Greek philosophy and knew the philosophic meaning of the term...

So that what I see is Protestants here re-inventing the theological wheel constantly in argument after argument, each arguing against the other... This Armenian-Calvinist thing is for all intents and purposes out of control... With nobody convincing anybody... And in the history of Christianity, THAT will be the Protestant Legacy... Arguing...

But no matter, Max - You are my friend and I love ya, and when I get too offensive in my words, just give me a smack upside the noesis, and I will apologize and repent, I promise... I am glad you are here, and in your Lutheran Church... You are a stand-up guy who doesn't flinch in the face of opposition, and I thank God for you...

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

The difference, you see, is obedience...

We believe that obedience to Christ's commandments begins with obedience to one's elders and the teachings of the Church...

Etc. etc. But this is just more boilerplate. You, pope George, have decided to follow EODoxy, and if you, pope George, decide EODoxy is not true, you will no longer be EODox and you will be something else or possibly nothing at all--or violate your conscience.

You decided, so you are no different from a Baptist.

And of course I love you too.

Agape. :-)

[hedrick]

This, of course, depends on the protestant one one is speaking with. Indeed, these pat arguments do not even foment understanding; they are just talking-points.

While I agree with this, the whole business about everyone being pope seems absurd. The Pope makes a pretty specific claim to be speaking on behalf of the entire Christian community. As far as I know, none of us here makes that claim.

In fact my tradition, like Maxentius', is confessional. So we don't see everyone as "their own pope" in any reasonable sense. Indeed the liberal Reformed tradition operates much as I believe the Orthodox does, with things becoming officially accepted in recognition of their affirmation by the people as a whole.

However George's response is another example of what I'm talking about: of one Christian understanding another tradition in the least favorable possible way. Sorry, but I don't care whether your doctrine is right if your attitude towards other Christians is like that.

[One Bad Pig]

Etc. etc. But this is just more boilerplate. You, pope George, have decided to follow EODoxy, and if you, pope George, decide EODoxy is not true, you will no longer be EODox and you will be something else or possibly nothing at all--or violate your conscience.

You decided, so you are no different from a Baptist.

And of course I love you too.

Agape. :-)

Like George, I did not decide to become Orthodox. It was that, or quench the Holy Spirit. It was wholly unlike deciding to join the Christian & Missionary Alliance affiliated group at college, or deciding to become a Southern Baptist subsequently. You're free to disagree, of course, but that was my experience.

[Maxentius]

Like George, I did not decide to become Orthodox. It was that, or quench the Holy Spirit. It was wholly unlike deciding to join the Christian & Missionary Alliance affiliated group at college, or deciding to become a Southern Baptist subsequently. You're free to disagree, of course, but that was my experience.

This is a rabbit hole, so let me restate:

If for some reason you cease to believe in a chief tenet of Orthodoxy, you are no longer Orthodox--you will either have to change churches or leave Christianity alltogether. Indeed, you started out as non-orthodox and then joined the EOC--you ceased to believe the teachings of your church and changed according to your conscience. How is this different from a Baptist who grows to believe in infant Baptism and the RP and joins a church which teaches that? Why is your belief in EODoxy assumed to be the work of the HS while a Baptist's change is just him being his "own pope?"

A Baptist will say he is following the HS, too, BTW. I make the same claim. Pretty much everyone does. I don't deny it is true, I just tont think the claim carries any weight unless one is speaking to one's coreligionists or to sympathetic hearers.

And on such slender reeds are the apologetics against "protestantism" based--Q.V. the OP.

[One Bad Pig]

This is a rabbit hole, so let me restate:

If for some reason you cease to believe in a chief tenet of Orthodoxy, you are no longer Orthodox--you will either have to change churches or leave Christianity alltogether.

Yes - and if I do change churches, I would be rejecting Orthodox tradition in favor of my own.

Indeed, you started out as non-orthodox and then joined the EOC--you ceased to believe the teachings of your church and changed according to your conscience.

Eh, not really. I wasn't planning to convert when I dropped my resistance to certain EOC teachings, and they weren't pushing me away from the Baptist church. And I can't truthfully say it was my conscience that caused me to join the EoC - though it did play a role in pushing me out of the Baptist church a little faster than I'd planned once I'd made the decision.

How is this different from a Baptist who grows to believe in infant Baptism and the RP and joins a church which teaches that? Why is your belief in EODoxy assumed to be the work of the HS while a Baptist's change is just him being his "own pope?"

The Baptist's change could be the through the Holy Spirit as well, given the examples you picked. I wouldn't say that belief in Eastern Orthodoxy is necessarily the work of the Holy Spirit; some people may well join for the wrong reasons. I'm not sure I'd use the "your own pope" argument. It asserts that you reject what you've been taught in favor of what you decide is right, disregarding precedent (tradition). IMO it's a factually true argument, but not one that's likely to be particularly persuasive.

A Baptist will say he is following the HS, too, BTW. I make the same claim. Pretty much everyone does. I don't deny it is true, I just tont think the claim carries any weight unless one is speaking to one's coreligionists or to sympathetic hearers.

And on such slender reeds are the apologetics against "protestantism" based--Q.V. the OP.

I don't really use that as an apologetic; it's not what convinced me. Testimony is generally a Protestant apologetic, AFAICS.

[Maxentius]

Yes - and if I do change churches, I would be rejecting Orthodox tradition in favor of my own.

The point is that you could be entering another tradition, say Baptist, so it is not necessaruly "your own." The choice is not between EODoxy and beng one's "own pope." But I see you don't really use this as an argument.

I wasn't planning to convert when I dropped my resistance to certain EOC teachings, and they weren't pushing me away from the Baptist church. And I can't truthfully say it was my conscience that caused me to join the EoC - though it did play a role in pushing me out of the Baptist church a little faster than I'd planned once I'd made the decision.

It does not matter if you were planning it. The point is that at some point you accepted EODox teaching as true, and became EODox. This is so even if it is the HS leading you to EODoxy. (FWIW, I believe faith, good works etc. are the fruits of the HS...) The point is that there is no difference in kind between you following your conscience and believing in EODoxy, and an Anabaptist followong his conscience and joining e.g. a Presbyterian communion.

The Baptist's change could be the through the Holy Spirit as well, given the examples you picked.

OK.

I don't really use that as an apologetic; it's not what convinced me. Testimony is generally a Protestant apologetic, AFAICS.

Well, that is good, because it is really a ridiculous apologetic--though popular.

[One Bad Pig]

It does not matter if you were planning it. The point is that at some point you accepted EODox teaching as true, and became EODox. This is so even if it is the HS leading you to EODoxy.

I did not simultaneously accept Eastern Orthodox teaching as true and make the decision to become Eastern Orthodox; the first, so far as it went, merely made the second possible.

The point is that there is no difference in kind between you following your conscience and believing in EODoxy, and an Anabaptist followong his conscience and joining e.g. a Presbyterian communion.

The difference is between choosing to join a different group and submitting to Tradition. I understand that you're not going to find that persuasive. When I became Orthodox (or at least became a catechumen), I had not made a conscious decision on each point of Eastern Orthodox doctrine; in faith, I trusted that the Church would be correct in the remainder. I have since found nothing to disabuse me of that trust.

[George Blaisdell]

You decided, so you are no different from a Baptist.

The Church was one confession, Orthodox and Latin, for the first thousand years, allowing for the departure of the Oriental Orthodox... Rome CHANGED that confession and enforced its change on the Western Church... For the west, the Church meant the Pope, and all manner if difficulty broke out, and the Protestant Reformation erupted with Luther 500 years into the Latin apostacy, where the Pope changed the confession of the Church...

Then Luther changed the confession of the Pope...

Then Zwigli changed the confession of Luther...

Then Calvin changed the confession of both...

And the eruption of confessions proceeded to multiply...

And the confessions evolve and change...

And now, even in the confessional confessions have no enforcement provisions for pastors who do not follow the normative confession and teach differing doctrines... They are pretty much left to their own devices and interpretations... Each is pretty much autonomous, within a fairly broad lassitude, and the faithful are all over the place in their personal beliefs...

So the tree is measured by its fruit, and the fruit is personal autonomy, just as the Pope was autonomous, ex Cathedra... [I know, whatever that may turn out to mean...] I have corrected myself numerous times here on T-Web when I discovered that what I was arguing was at variance with the Patristic witness... I have never seen any Lutheran be corrected who was mis-stating or mis-understanding the Lutheran confession...

You see, even the Patriarchs can be heretics in Orthodoxy, and many have been, yet the Patristic witness and the Councils prevail... Our job as the faithful is to ACQUIRE the Mind of the Church, and not to make up our own mind about doctrinal issues... This is a sharp distinction... Unity in doctrine is an essential feature of this Faith, and has been since the beginnings, where Paul wrote that we should all be saying the same thing, and have no differing doctrines...

I mean, Max - Really... Regarding unity of doctrine... If Paul were to stroll into the good old US of A and enter the Protestant confessions, would he recognize the Church he knew in them?

Each person is required to determine which doctrine is true and which is false, on tons of issues, and there are sliding scales in each - I mean, look at all the doctrines taught just on the issue of Preterism? Pre-mil, post-mil, a-mil... RP, reminder service, symbolic body, and on and on, and on each of these all have their opinions...

For you to say that the Orthodox are all their own popes, just like the protestants, in that they must pick and choose what they determine they should believe, is simply not true... Once you become Orthodox, ALL those issues disappear... You are simply there to acquire the Faith given once, for all, to the Apostles... The doctrines are built into the discipleship... They emerge as needed...

Arsenios