|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/19/2010 12:38:20 AM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
(For example, studying the Apostles and their Successors in regard to the Filioque and Peter's Primacy will help to fully reunite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. Likewise with the issues of "faith alone" and the other Catholic-Protestant dilemmaas)
I believe this will eventually reunite all Christians in the fulness of the Holy Orders (Succession) which, as St. Irenaeus says, have handed on to us the Church.
When this happens, the last will be first.
peace, pat
Dear Pat,
Let me preface by saying that I'm not sure if discussing the unity of the Holy Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church is on topic here. However, I just have some comments to make in regards to the bolded parts of your statements above.
In order for the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church to unite, concessions would have to be made. The Orthodox reject, and have always rejected the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and Papal Jurisdiction. St. Photios memory would be ridiculed if the Orthodox made concessions with regard to the Filioque and Papal Primacy, especially since the Councils already settled the matter of the Filioque and clearly stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
There are many other Roman Catholic doctrines that the Orthodox Church cannot submit to, namely the teaching on Purgatory & Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, the Immaculate Conception, created grace, original sin, Marian Dogma of the Bodily Assumption, teachings on Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Midiatrix, priestly celibacy, teaching on mortal and venial sins, teaching on Holy days of obligation, the teaching on Transubstantiation from Thomas Aquainas use of substance and accidents, the practice of eucharistic adoration, the Roman Catholic teaching/practice on Confession as opposed to the Orthodox teaching/practice of Confession, just to mention a few.
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil bears almost no resemblance to the post-Vatican II Novus Ordo Mass, which has been stripped down to its bare bones so as to resemble a mainline Protestant worship service. There cannot even be a comparison made between the two since the differences are quite substantial and significant. The manner in which the Eucharist is given in Orthodox services is vastly different from the RC practice. All baptized Orthodox Christians in right relationship with Christ and His Church may partake of the chalice as well as babies and children. We are not permitted to commune in the Eucharist in Roman Catholic Churches. We do not have a first Holy Communion or practice Confirmation. We have no altar "girls" or eucharistic ministers. We do not sing happy, clappy praise and worship songs, we don't support a Charismatic "movement", and we honor sacred space in that the altar is always behind the iconostasis and the priest and people face ad orientem.
Pat, I do not say these things to be insulting or hurtful. It's one thing to talk with each other. I think Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox should find those things in which they can unite. The pro-life movement, for example. I had no problem with the Manhattan Declaration and thought that this kind of working together across boundaries was a witness of Christian charity.
However, beiing united in partaking of the chalice and the Holy Mysteries is quite a different matter altogether. And I don't see the pope as being willing to renege on major dogmatic proclamations in regards to the office he holds as stated in Vatican I and papal bulls throughout the history of the Roman Church.
Schism, sadly, has its consequences.
Forgive me if I have offended you, as I most certainly think I have.
In Christ's Immeasurable Love,
Darlene
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/19/2010 1:19:26 AM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
All of us
Romans 8:18-27
Future Glory
18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
26Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
1 Corinthians 11:17-24
The Lord’s Supper
17But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
Now I will be silent because I hurt with groanings too deep for words
In Christ's Immeasurable Love,
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/19/2010 1:45:16 PM
|
|
|
Dred
Posts: 282
Joined: 10/11/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
Thank you Dred and Darlene for the information:
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (www.goarch.org)
Orthodox Church in America (www.oca.org)
I own this book "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
Since you have a copy of that book and are interested in Orthodox involvement in the ecumenical movement, you should take a look at the very last chapter which is titled "The Orthodox Church and the Reunion of Christians." Since this is a book which seems to be universally recommended by Orthodox Christians, the title of that chapter alone should be more than sufficient to answer a question recently posed to me by Kelman, so I will say no more in answer.
_____________________________
"He was born among us for the cure of the disease of sin." --Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/19/2010 4:41:59 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
PeterD, good posts. yes we agree that all who truly believe in Christ are being saved. I believe that all Christians are implicitly Catholic by their acceptance of the N.T. Canon of the Catholic Chuch, and their belief in Christ.
And we all agree that the last will be first (Mt 20), so that there is no matter for pride in these questions.
DARLENE WROTE:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
(For example, studying the Apostles and their Successors in regard to the Filioque and Peter's Primacy will help to fully reunite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. Likewise with the issues of "faith alone" and the other Catholic-Protestant dilemmaas)
I believe this will eventually reunite all Christians in the fulness of the Holy Orders (Succession) which, as St. Irenaeus says, have handed on to us the Church.
When this happens, the last will be first.
peace, pat
Dear Pat,
Let me preface by saying that I'm not sure if discussing the unity of the Holy Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church is on topic here. However, I just have some comments to make in regards to the bolded parts of your statements above.
In order for the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church to unite, concessions would have to be made. The Orthodox reject, and have always rejected the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and Papal Jurisdiction. St. Photios memory would be ridiculed if the Orthodox made concessions with regard to the Filioque and Papal Primacy, especially since the Councils already settled the matter of the Filioque and clearly stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
There are many other Roman Catholic doctrines that the Orthodox Church cannot submit to, namely the teaching on Purgatory & Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, the Immaculate Conception, created grace, original sin, Marian Dogma of the Bodily Assumption, teachings on Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Midiatrix, priestly celibacy, teaching on mortal and venial sins, teaching on Holy days of obligation, the teaching on Transubstantiation from Thomas Aquainas use of substance and accidents, the practice of eucharistic adoration, the Roman Catholic teaching/practice on Confession as opposed to the Orthodox teaching/practice of Confession, just to mention a few.
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil bears almost no resemblance to the post-Vatican II Novus Ordo Mass, which has been stripped down to its bare bones so as to resemble a mainline Protestant worship service. There cannot even be a comparison made between the two since the differences are quite substantial and significant. The manner in which the Eucharist is given in Orthodox services is vastly different from the RC practice. All baptized Orthodox Christians in right relationship with Christ and His Church may partake of the chalice as well as babies and children. We are not permitted to commune in the Eucharist in Roman Catholic Churches. We do not have a first Holy Communion or practice Confirmation. We have no altar "girls" or eucharistic ministers. We do not sing happy, clappy praise and worship songs, we don't support a Charismatic "movement", and we honor sacred space in that the altar is always behind the iconostasis and the priest and people face ad orientem.
Pat, I do not say these things to be insulting or hurtful. It's one thing to talk with each other. I think Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox should find those things in which they can unite. The pro-life movement, for example. I had no problem with the Manhattan Declaration and thought that this kind of working together across boundaries was a witness of Christian charity.
However, beiing united in partaking of the chalice and the Holy Mysteries is quite a different matter altogether. And I don't see the pope as being willing to renege on major dogmatic proclamations in regards to the office he holds as stated in Vatican I and papal bulls throughout the history of the Roman Church.
Schism, sadly, has its consequences.
Forgive me if I have offended you, as I most certainly think I have.
In Christ's Immeasurable Love,
Darlene
Darlene, I started to make a detailed reply but I think it would be best to take this slowly. First, would you be willing to look with me at what the Apostoic Successors--Eastern and Western--teach as pertintent to the Filioque controversy? As I understand it, the EO basically see anything held by the fathers i.e the successors as infallibly correct, as we do also.
(if we think of a better place to discuess this, let me know, but this thread is usually pretty dead, and I think this could be instructive in regard to the meaning and power of Apostolic Succession)
peace, pat
if so, here is a first example from St. Cyril of Alexandria, a great defender of the doctrine of the Trinity and Successor of the Apostles:
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it."
Cyril of Alexandria,Treasury of the Holy Trinity,Thesis 34(A.D. 425),in JUR,212
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/filio.htm
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 7/19/2010 4:54:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/19/2010 9:13:42 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dred
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
Thank you Dred and Darlene for the information:
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (www.goarch.org)
Orthodox Church in America (www.oca.org)
I own this book "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
Since you have a copy of that book and are interested in Orthodox involvement in the ecumenical movement, you should take a look at the very last chapter which is titled "The Orthodox Church and the Reunion of Christians." Since this is a book which seems to be universally recommended by Orthodox Christians, the title of that chapter alone should be more than sufficient to answer a question recently posed to me by Kelman, so I will say no more in answer.
Hello Dred and family,
quote:
The Orthodox Church and The reunion of Christians
"The greatest misfortune that befell mankind was, without doubt, the schism between Rome and the Ecumenical Church. The greatest blessing for which mankind can hope would be the reunion of east and west, the reconstitution of the great Christian unity" (General Alexander Kireev. 1832-1910).
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm#n7
Today at my place of work my boss was walking by my work area and he noticed something differant about me so he asked me why do you look so distant...
I quickly answered what I was remembering about that certain stillness, so from the tip of my tongue I said, "beside still waters and green pastures" I also said, "I remembering the Psalms as I'm working", my boss walked away saying, "you are on the right path in my work place."
Psalm 23:1-6
The LORD Is My Shepherd
A Psalm of David.
1The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
3He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake.
4Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
5You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/audio/flash_play.php?aid=21&book=23&chapter=23
I will be moving on from crosswalk for a time, I do plan on coming back soon.
I forgive you.
Matthew 6:9-15
The Lord’s Prayer
Pray then like this:
"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Thank you for the good fellowship here in The New Testament Church.
Peter Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/19/2010 10:00:22 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
I will be moving on from crosswalk for a time, I do plan on coming back soon.
Peter Daniel
That's ok Peter. I took a break from Crosswalk for a time, too. We all need to do that for our spiritual sanity once in a while. 
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/21/2010 3:48:05 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
FYI I asked Psalm103, a moderator, and she said this would be a good place to discuss the Filioque question. peace, pat
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/22/2010 3:15:47 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Relative to the discussion about the Successor of the Apostles', St. Cyril of Alexandria's teaching on the Filioque (see my second to last post, just above), I thought I might quote another of the most authoritative of the Eastern fathers,
St. Maximus the Confessor (of Constantinople)--the great enemy of the Monothelite heresy-- who repeatedly testifies in the strongest terms to the Primacy of of the Pope's authority:
"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (St. Maximus, in JB Mansi ed Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, volume 10)
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm
to see two similar quotes like this from St. Maximus, which likewise confirm Pope St. Leo's authority relative to the Filique formual, see this link (just above)
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 7/22/2010 3:32:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/22/2010 4:36:49 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Dear Patricius,
Which ever arguments you may want to use to persuade me toward the Roman Catholic Church and crossing the Tiber, all efforts toward that goal will be fruitless. I came to Holy Orthodoxy by way of the Roman Catholic Church. In my journey away from Protestantism, I seriously considered becoming Roman Catholic. I personally met with a priest on a regular basis and he instructed me in the Roman Catholic Church's teachings and practices. I also attended RCIA for a time. During my serious consideration of all things Roman Catholic, I attended mass and eucharistic adoration and said the Rosary and many other prayers of the Church. To avoid copious details at this time, suffice it to say I could not, and would not be convinced to become Roman Catholic. And considering the uniate churches was also out of the question.
I do not take my reception into the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church lightly. It was through much reading and study, many inward struggles, concerns (and warnings) on the part of family and friends, prayer, and tears that I finally decided to submit to Holy Orthodoxy and be received into the Church. A debate here on Crosswalk, no matter how cordial it may be, will not convince me to renounce my Holy Chrismation and obedience to the Orthodox Church's teachings, doctrines, and practices and submit to the Roman Catholic Church.
Perhaps there are other Orhodox Christians here who would be interested in such a debate/dialogue. But to what end? Is it not your intention, your desire, to convince us to become Roman Catholic? If so, I can assure you that you will not succeed as far as my faith is concerned. I cannot speak for the other Orthodox Christians here.
Again, I want to let you know I do not say any of these things with malice, anger, or the desire to hurt you. I have no doubt that there are many Roman Catholic Christians who love Christ and whose hope is in the resurrection. However, I cannot partake of the Chalice, our Lord's precious Body and Blood, in the Roman Catholic Church. No faithful Orthodox Christian can do so for it would mean to reject all that the Holy Orthodox Church teaches and risk ex-communication.
Forgive me, a sinner, if I have said anything that would cause you to think I have meant to be unkind or reject you as one who is made in the image of God.
Darlene
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/22/2010 4:43:55 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 869
Joined: 5/20/2009
From: Hotlanta Ga.
Status: offline
|
To be successors of the apostles means to follow their teaching (Acts 2:42). The continuity lies not in men (so fallible, so subject to sin), but in the word itself (which is perfect). Anyone who picks up the Bible and plants the seed (Luke 8:11) recreates biblical Christianity -- even if the person before him failed to do so.
The continuity between the Christian church and the first century church is doctrinal, not institutional. The thread that connects us to them is in the scriptures, not in a supposed chain of physical successors of the apostles. The church is described as a building, not as a chain. In Ephesians 2 the foundation is apostolic. There are no apostles today. We can build on the foundation, of course, since through the apostolic scriptures the foundation is firmly laid. But just as if we add a story to a home we do not need to re-lay the foundation, so when we plant a church we do not need to lay the foundation all over again.
The early church devoted itself to the apostles' teaching (Acts 2:42). Yet even the apostles did not have the right to change the teaching! Galatians 2:11 is a powerful passage in this regard, as is Galatians 1:7-9.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/22/2010 6:21:49 PM
|
|
|
Dred
Posts: 282
Joined: 10/11/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
To be successors of the apostles means to follow their teaching (Acts 2:42). The continuity lies not in men (so fallible, so subject to sin), but in the word itself (which is perfect). Anyone who picks up the Bible and plants the seed (Luke 8:11) recreates biblical Christianity -- even if the person before him failed to do so.
The continuity between the Christian church and the first century church is doctrinal, not institutional.
You seem to be saying that the essence of Christianity is not in humans in union with God, but in knowledge fully expressible in our human languages.
_____________________________
"He was born among us for the cure of the disease of sin." --Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/22/2010 6:26:01 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 869
Joined: 5/20/2009
From: Hotlanta Ga.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dred
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
To be successors of the apostles means to follow their teaching (Acts 2:42). The continuity lies not in men (so fallible, so subject to sin), but in the word itself (which is perfect). Anyone who picks up the Bible and plants the seed (Luke 8:11) recreates biblical Christianity -- even if the person before him failed to do so.
The continuity between the Christian church and the first century church is doctrinal, not institutional.
You seem to be saying that the essence of Christianity is not in humans in union with God, but in knowledge fully expressible in our human languages.
No my friend I wasn't even hinting at that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/22/2010 8:40:01 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello jj,
Glad you stopped by. I wanted to answer a few of your comments.
quote:
To be successors of the apostles means to follow their teaching (Acts 2:42). The continuity lies not in men (so fallible, so subject to sin), but in the word itself (which is perfect). Anyone who picks up the Bible and plants the seed (Luke 8:11) recreates biblical Christianity -- even if the person before him failed to do so.
The means by which God acts and works is through human beings. God dictated the very words of Scripture to fallible men, who then wrote the words down, and preserved them. God used fallible men to gather together at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage to canonize Holy Scripture. There were many different texts being passed around within the churches that were false gospels and false writings, claiming to be Scripture, but were not. So God used these fallible men, illumined by the Holy Spirit, to canonize those Scriptures that were indeed written by men moved by the Holy Spirit. The canon didn't magically come into existence. That very canon of Scripture that all Christians read is the one approved of by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church at these councils in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.
No, anyone who just picks up a Bible and plants a seed does not recreate biblical Christianity. That would be called Solo Scriptura, something unheard of until very recent in history. Scripture is not to be understood within a vacuum and was not intended to be interpreted by an individual with Bible in hand, apart from the Church. My Bible and me alone is a new, and heretical phenomenon that has become quite popular within post-modern Christian culture. Even the Reformers came from understanding the Scriptures in a context of Tradition. They held to quite a bit of Augustine's teachings and the scholastics such as Aquinas and Okkam.
The truth is that the Holy Scriptures must be interpreted. And every Christian has a rule of faith that they hold to and by which they understand just exactly what those Scriptures are saying. One of the problems of the contemporary view of Sola Scriptura, which often lends itself to Solo Scriptura is the multitude of interpretations that arise from such a view. The very proof of this is in the schismatic nature of the evangelical Protestant churches. Church split after church split arises because those who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit differ as to what the Scriptures actually say.
Yes, the apostolic teaching comes from those who teach what the apostles taught. However, that honor to teach what the Apostles's taught was given by the laying on of hands, as can be testified both in the Holy Scriptures and from Christian history. I encourage you to read the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and St. Justin Martyr, where they make reference to the very nature of Apostolic teaching. The teaching comes from God the Holy Spirit working through men in His body the Church. Christ never meant for the Scriptures to wrenched apart from the Church. Both go hand in hand. Tradition within the Orthodox Church is the Holy Scriptures rightly interpreted through those who have been blessed by the laying on of hands, just as the Apostles laid their hands on their successors after them.
There is a paradigm (rule of faith) that you (me as well) and all Christians hold to when it comes to understanding what the Holy Scriptures mean. No one just picks up a Bible and understands what the Scriptures are saying. Rather, each one of us first must be taught, as the Ethiopian eunuch was taught. While reading Isaiah, he had no idea what he was reading until the apostle came and taught him. And so it is that we all have been taught within some particular "tradition" as to what the Scriptures are saying. Often, Christians will change their rule of faith as they mature or study Christian history.
quote:
The continuity between the Christian church and the first century church is doctrinal, not institutional.
JJ, even this very idea that you possess does not come out of thin air. You read this or were taught this or came to this conclusion by listening to various Bible teachers. If the continuity, as you say, is doctrinal, then why are there so many conflicting doctrines? The very nature of continuity means that the faith has not been changed. But when one probes into the various and sundry doctrines that have arisen and continue to arise and make their way into various churches, how does one know which church to go to that is holding to this unchanged teaching? IOW, what is this unchanged teaching and in what church can it be found?
Some time ago I started a thread here asking what the "essentials" are that all Christians must believe in. I started it because I have often heard that what's important is that Christians agree on the essentials. The gist of it was that there could be no agreement, no consensus, on what the essentials are. I believe this to be the result of Christians holding to a multitude of interpretations, due to the existence of many "regula fidei." (rules of faith)
quote:
The thread that connects us to them is in the scriptures, not in a supposed chain of physical successors of the apostles. The church is described as a building, not as a chain.
The Church is the Body of Christ, and is both mystical and organic. It is composed of actual human beings and not just a spiritual entity. When one embraces Christ, and is united to Him, they do so within a community, which is both mystical. spiritual, and human. It is a community that is both tangible and can be seen. Orthodox Christians do not hold to Gnosticism in any of its forms.
JJ, I think one of the problems within the current evangelical ethos is that of presentism. The understanding of what it means to be a Christian from worship, to doctrine, to practice is brought forth from ideas that are fairly recent. There is a vast disconnect from the history of the Christian Church, and thus, many are unfamiliar with the creeds, First Seven Ecumenical Councils, and the saints and martyrs of the first 1500 years.
I encourage you to read the ante-Nicene Fathers and the writings of the early saints and maryrs.
May Christ our True God illumine your path as you journey toward the Celestial City.
Darlene
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/23/2010 12:51:10 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Heavendweller wrote:
quote:
Dear Patricius,
Which ever arguments you may want to use to persuade me toward the Roman Catholic Church and crossing the Tiber, all efforts toward that goal will be fruitless
I'm trying to interpret what you are saying here .... obviously I don't expect you to change your views ... but this is the place for discussion
my goal here is show what the Apostolic Successors taught and to show how this Succession can bring unity ... I would like to know what the EO believers on the board think of the testimony of St. Cyril, St. Theodore the Studite, etc ... I was responding to your posts on this Apostolic Succession thread regarding Papal jursidiction and the Filioque...
are you are saying that it doesn't matter that St. Cyril of Alexandria and other EO fathers taught the Filioque (see quotation above), for example?
if so ... then what is the power or truth of Apostolic Succession?
Just a little background ... I've always known that the fully Biblical, historicla Chrisianity is either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox ... and I would have become EO--I was reading e.g. the Way of the Pilgrim and St. Silouan etc--as I say I would become EO if the EO's fathers like St. Maximus--as well as the Western fathers revered by the EO-- weren't Catholic on Papal servant supremacy, e.g.
quote:
I do not take my reception into the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church lightly. It was through much reading and study, many inward struggles, concerns (and warnings) on the part of family and friends, prayer, and tears that I finally decided to submit to Holy Orthodoxy
That is a beautiful witness. I am quite happy that you have true Holy Orders now and the Eucharist. Likewise I do not take my faith lightly. Related to this ... why do you think that "from the Father through the Son"--the Alexandrian tradition--does not imply "from the Father and the Son", the Latin tradition?
I know that the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople entirely accepted the teachings of those that taught the Filioque.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/filio.htm
quote:
and be received into the Church. A debate here on Crosswalk, no matter how cordial it may be, will not convince me....
Well then you can either stop responding to me or have this cordial discussion on Apostolic Succession as related to the Filioque and Peter's Primacy.
quote:
Perhaps there are other Orhodox Christians here who would be interested in such a debate/dialogue. But to what end?
To show the power and truth of Apostolic Succession--as compared with private judgment--to move us gradually toward the full unity of Truth and Love.
Certainly we are all on journies that aren't completed yet. And If the Orthodox and Catholics won't do this, then we can hardly ask protestants to do so.
------------------------
"all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation" --St. Maximus the Confessor
http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
http://www.catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp
P.S. btw, to those interested: I posted some information on the Pope thread related to the Eastern Orthodox scholarship on the Apostolic Successors of the 100s and 200s--e.g. Ignatius-- on the Papacy, and the later fathers.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 7/24/2010 10:30:39 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/30/2010 3:59:49 PM
|
|
|
Dred
Posts: 282
Joined: 10/11/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
For those who may be interested, within the last decade, a North American Orthodox-Catholic theological consultation issued an agreed statement on the filioque issue. There is an extensive discussion of the relevant history as well as the theology. Its educational value should be considered significantly greater because it is an agreed statement, implying that what you read there is essentially beyond dispute.
LINK TO STATEMENT
Due to my own ignorance of the Church fathers and of the languages in which they wrote, I feel rather unqualified to say much about it of my own.
_____________________________
"He was born among us for the cure of the disease of sin." --Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/31/2010 5:08:32 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dred
For those who may be interested, within the last decade, a North American Orthodox-Catholic theological consultation issued an agreed statement on the filioque issue. There is an extensive discussion of the relevant history as well as the theology. Its educational value should be considered significantly greater because it is an agreed statement, implying that what you read there is essentially beyond dispute.
LINK TO STATEMENT
Due to my own ignorance of the Church fathers and of the languages in which they wrote, I feel rather unqualified to say much about it of my own.
Thanks, Dred. It will take me a while to process this one!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/31/2010 6:42:09 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dred
Just be careful not to also read them for what they do not say. I know that some have been more upset by the silence of the Orthodox here than by anything actually said. The Orthodox have a way of being silent and are often accused of being vague as well. I'll be silent about the reasons for this, but there are reasons. Well, not all Orthodox are quite as "vague" as you suggest. It has been made very clear by one at least that Protestants are not Christians. Not sure what he considered Roman Catholics to be.
Perhaps the rest of EO's are reticent and vague because they believe the same?
Dear Kelman,
I think it is best to consider what the Church herself has to say about this. Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, you haven't provided any information about EO's official view.
quote:
Granted, there are persons that can misrepresent or misunderstand the Orthodox position on this, although it may not be intentional on their part. If that isn't the teaching of EO, then they certainly did misrepresent its view since they were quite explicit.
quote:
Afterall, there are those who unintentionally (perhaps not intentionally) mislead others as to the Calvinist/Reformed position on a particular doctrine. It may be because the person is not formed in their faith yet, or they may have slightly different views on a teaching. (i.e. infralapsarianism v.s. supralapsarianism for example) "Slightly different views"? ... is proclaiming all Protestants non-Christian just a "slightly different" view then? Somehow I think declaring all those in a different denomination than your own to be non-Christian is slightly more critical than the order of God's decrees...but, hey that's just me.
quote:
I do think that whenever we discuss our faith with non-Orthodox, we should seek to be irenic and respectale toward our neighbor, who is made in the imagine of God. "Respectfully" tell them they are "non-Christian"?....little "respect" in that not to mention a lie from hell.
Actually, I have more respect, which isn't saying much however, for someone who will just come right out with his lies than for those who cover them up with the rhetoric of flowery language. It's always better to know what you're dealing with.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/31/2010 6:44:14 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dred
Just be careful not to also read them for what they do not say. I know that some have been more upset by the silence of the Orthodox here than by anything actually said. The Orthodox have a way of being silent and are often accused of being vague as well. I'll be silent about the reasons for this, but there are reasons. Well, not all Orthodox are quite as "vague" as you suggest. It has been made very clear by one at least that Protestants are not Christians. Not sure what he considered Roman Catholics to be.
Perhaps the rest of EO's are reticent and vague because they believe the same?
Hello Kelman,
I have been reading what Dred gave me and from this site I found what this, certain kind of being silent is all about. Peter, this is not quite the same thing. Of course, it's always a good idea to be contemplative and reflect upon our beliefs.
However, I was referring to the EO who declared we are not Christians because we don't belong to his denomination. If that's their belief, then we should know it, don't you think? Afterall, such beliefs would speak volumes to their Christianity.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/31/2010 6:45:26 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
To be successors of the apostles means to follow their teaching (Acts 2:42). The continuity lies not in men (so fallible, so subject to sin), but in the word itself (which is perfect). Anyone who picks up the Bible and plants the seed (Luke 8:11) recreates biblical Christianity -- even if the person before him failed to do so.
The continuity between the Christian church and the first century church is doctrinal, not institutional. The thread that connects us to them is in the scriptures, not in a supposed chain of physical successors of the apostles. The church is described as a building, not as a chain. In Ephesians 2 the foundation is apostolic. There are no apostles today. We can build on the foundation, of course, since through the apostolic scriptures the foundation is firmly laid. But just as if we add a story to a home we do not need to re-lay the foundation, so when we plant a church we do not need to lay the foundation all over again.
The early church devoted itself to the apostles' teaching (Acts 2:42). Yet even the apostles did not have the right to change the teaching! Galatians 2:11 is a powerful passage in this regard, as is Galatians 1:7-9.
Yes, this is the true and only apostolic succession God knows...obedience to His inspired written Word as penned by the Apostles and prophets ...not the words of fallible men..."God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;..."
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/31/2010 7:34:15 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, this is the true and only apostolic succession God knows...obedience to His inspired written Word as penned by the Apostles and prophets ...not the words of fallible men...
Since this is not in Scripture--even as you profess Sola Scriptura--this would indicate the subjectivism of your position.
According to the Scriptures, some things were written without pen and ink. Cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3, 2 Jn 12, 3 Jn 13, 2 Thes 2:15, Phil 4:9
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 7/31/2010 9:30:11 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/31/2010 7:44:31 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dred
For those who may be interested, within the last decade, a North American Orthodox-Catholic theological consultation issued an agreed statement on the filioque issue. There is an extensive discussion of the relevant history as well as the theology. Its educational value should be considered significantly greater because it is an agreed statement, implying that what you read there is essentially beyond dispute.
LINK TO STATEMENT
Due to my own ignorance of the Church fathers and of the languages in which they wrote, I feel rather unqualified to say much about it of my own.
From the statemen, which says that the dispute is first of all one of words:
Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due to the subtle difference of the Latin procedere from the Greek ekporeuesthai: as we have observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term, without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father, even when – as in the explanations of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas – the relationship of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit is spoken of as constituting “a single principle” of the Spirit’s origin: even in breathing forth the Spirit together, according to these later Latin theologians, the Father retains priority, giving the Son all that he has and making possible all that he does.
This will sound very facile, but like this statement indicates at times, this is a word dispute with no theological basis for disunity.
(Thus if there is a basis for disunity, it must derive from the Papal supremacy issue. But I don't believe there is there either)
Based on what I've read from the fathers it sounds to me like St. Maximus the Confessor was right in affirming the Filioque, since this is a legitimate way of expressing the unity of the Father and the Son, which is why St. Cyril of Alexandria and the other fathers revered and entirely affirmed by 2nd Constantinople--including Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine, and Leo, each of which explicitly taught the Filique, along with Didymus and Epiphanius (and Cyril)--used this phrasing.
Here is another quotation from St. Gregory of Nyssa which expresses the Filioque in different terms:
Gregory of Nyssa
"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 7/31/2010 7:54:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/31/2010 9:23:49 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
This is from an article by Padro who cites Gill regarding the Council of Florence:
"In that work we discover that the Byzantine scholars, among whose party was Mark of Ephesus, were surprised to discover that all the Latin Fathers and three of the Greeks taught the Filioque; and when Mark of Ephesus challenged the texts which prove this the Latin theologians compared texts and proved they had the correct ones (which is backed up by modern scholarship), and this reduced Mark to silence and he withdrew from the discussions. (He was several times asked for by his Latin interlocutors, but to no avail.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm
Thus the Latin all explicitly taught the Filioque--along with Cyril, Didymus, and Epiphanius in the East-- before the divisions of the Church (see my link in the previous post for some samples).
I don't understand why this doesn't settle the matter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 7/31/2010 10:28:21 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Dear Kelman,
I'm certainly willing to discuss the Orthodox faith with you, as I think others here are as well. However, it has been my intention (and I think others as well) to begin reorienting this thread in a manner which is both loving and hospitable. We can disagree with each other, as I do with Patricius, but it must be done in the love of Christ.
Granted, even we Orthodox have erred many times over in being argumentative rather than engaging and kind. For this, I ask forgiveness because I know while I strive to live as an icon of Christ to those with whom I come in contact, I still fall short.
I understand that you disagree sharply with the Orthodox Church, her teachings and practices. However, if you are willing to communicate in a manner in which we can mutually dialogue and even find fellowship in those things upon which we agree, I believe we will be even more blessed in doing so.
May we each learn to embody the love of Christ with one another. May Christ our God bless you with His presence as you journey toward His Heavenly Kingdom.
Darlene
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/1/2010 12:12:07 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Darlene, if you or Dred or Walterquez could explain what patristic documents they are basing their disagreement with me and the Catholic Church on I would be interested.
Of the three issues I'm thinking of: Petrine Supremacy, the Filioque, and the Immaculate Conception, all three of these are documented in the fathers. In fact, the strongest statements I'm aware of come from St. Maximus and St. Theodore, along with St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (in regard to the Papacy)
In regard to Mary, E.g., John Damascene even believed in the immaculate active conception--i.e. the bodily procreation of Mary-- if I remember right. And Proclus and Ephraim, Sophronius, and Anastasius of Antioch--among others-- seem incompatible with anything but the Immaculate Conception.
(Likewise in the West, Ambrose and Augustine both teach sinlessness, e.g., and Ambrose clearly believed in the Immaculate Conception, as well as Papal Supremacy as we find in Chrysostom also, e.g.)
E.g. Ambrose writes of the New Eve:
"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166
The faith of Patriarch St. Proclus was entirely affirmed by the Second Ecumenical Council. He writes:
"As he formed her without my stain of her own,so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."
Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm
I admit I'm not the easiest to discuss with, but I follow the rules and would gladly become EO if that would help to heal this schism.
peace, pat
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/1/2010 1:03:37 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/1/2010 1:37:43 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
BTW, Kelman:
Your argument that (to paraphrase you_"
"the Scriptures only describe the Scriptures as being "inspired"; therefore only the Scriptures are inspired"...
this does not follow logically; it goes beyond Scripture alone; and it also indicates the circular reasoning involved with those that disagree so much with all the Apostolic Church's fathers.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/1/2010 6:08:29 PM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
